|
Nenonen posted:EX-TER-MI-NAA-TE! That feels like it's deliberate, far easier to program a robot to follow a human than program it to cross the road without getting tboned
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Rustybear posted:if you really believed in this hard consequentialist view you'd be totally paralysed by indecision; instead people seem completely certain of themselves because deep down you believe it about as much as i do Consequentialism is pretty much just utilitarianism though, and isn't the argument is that it doesn't matter if labour are 99% as lovely as the tories, the 1% gain is enough to take that action? (and also that under FPTP, not voting or voting for anyone else is effectively voting tories or labour anyway). You might be able to draw a line from Blair to now, but you should only beat yourself up for voting Blair in if you've come to believe that voting John Major would have led us to a better place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Who exactly do you plan to vote for in order to get radical change now? Oh dear. Reminder that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and voting for red Tories is still voting for Tories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
The Wicked ZOGA posted:That feels like it's deliberate, far easier to program a robot to follow a human than program it to cross the road without getting tboned I remember reading that they had human operators that could do the ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL schtick if they really got stuck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Itzena posted:Oh, you thinking voting is going to help. Oh you think not voting is going to help? Oh dear. Reminder that not voting is still voting for Tories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
These stupid bastards are gonna end up vindicating the Labour right wing out of some hypothetical 1% difference from the tories, and they're going to do it while pretending to speak for the unprivileged. Labour will just take the left wing for granted forever because apparently it loving works. Apparently the smart move IS to completely gently caress over any hope of left wing politics and just collect all their votes anyway. Throw away any leverage you have, ensure them that you will vote for them even when they are actively hostile to you, do that if you want, but it's because that is your politics, don't pretend to speak for me or that I have some "privilege" that insulates me from the tories. Brendan Rodgers fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Oh you think not voting is going to help? If all options in Westminster elections are hostile to your interests, then that makes Westminster hostile to your interests, and means that if you want to be politically engaged, you need to work on building extragovernmental power (both to serve your interests and to protect them against a hostile government). Voting isn't the only means to be politically involved, and for an increasingly large section of the country, it's not a meaningful or useful way to be involved. Try unions, mutual aid organisations, and protest groups instead. If Westminster isn't listening to you, then you need to work on forcing them to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
1965917 posted:With respect, I disagree. Are you lost? This is the internet
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Clean Your Teeth posted:Consequentialism is pretty much just utilitarianism though, and isn't the argument is that it doesn't matter if labour are 99% as lovely as the tories, the 1% gain is enough to take that action? (and also that under FPTP, not voting or voting for anyone else is effectively voting tories or labour anyway). i don't think any of us should beat ourselves up really (based on what i know about any of you anyway). i'm being told i've got some sort of moral obligation to vote for starmer and i'm thinking that's bollocks hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
What reason do Labour ever have in the future to be a left wing party if they can just get those votes for free? It is so maddeningly stupid. What would be the minimum difference between the parties that would trigger this "lesser of two evils" thing? If they promised to do "everything the tories promise, but with a 1p higher minimum wage, and £10 added to the yearly NHS budget" would that be enough for everyone to see how they are having the piss taken out of them, or would it still be something we have to vote for in the name of harm reduction?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:If all options in Westminster elections are hostile to your interests, then that makes Westminster hostile to your interests, and means that if you want to be politically engaged, you need to work on building extragovernmental power (both to serve your interests and to protect them against a hostile government). yeah but you can vote as well
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Reminder that not voting is still voting for Tories. Walk me through this line of thinking, please. I can think of many circumstances where the outcome of casting a vote is identical to not, and one very specific scenario where not voting has the same outcome as voting for Tories. Maybe I'm missing something
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
It also means that not voting is a vote for Labour, so it cancels itself out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No. He represents a group of condescending managerial wankers who constantly explain that, much as they'd like to help disabled people, they're making the necessary tough decision to impoverish them. Blair was a disaster for the disabled. Things were starting to go wrong, yes, and the time limits were starting to be implemented, but if you had doctors notes and turned up with evidence, there was at least the possibility within the rules that they could give you the benefit of the doubt and let you decline unsuitable jobs. You generally had money in your account within a month of claiming. It was possible (but far from comfortable) to survive on what you got. Now, it's an unaccountable private company with quotas, auto refusal of your case after a 6 month wait, another 6 month wait for tribunal, regular and random sanctions that kill people, 'fit for work' assessments that ignore medical advice, universal credit restructuring designed to make the system utterly inscrutable, and even if you survive all of that the final payment is insultingly low and utterly inadequate to pay for the rising cost of living. I'm currently applying for one of the few disability payments left for RSI and the process is loving brutal. It's dehumanising the treatment I've recieved, to an extent most people don't really appreciate. I never experienced anything like this under Blair. I hate the warmongering oval office, it wasn't great back then and I'm not defending him at all; I'm condemning the tories because what they're doing is so, so much worse. Blair lowered the standard, but the tories crashed it through the bedrock straight into hell. And yes, Reeves is probably not going to reverse any of that. But she's not using every ounce of her strength to make it worse, which the next sociopath the tories put in is absolutely going to do. And if the right Guardian journalists make enough of a fuss about disability support, she might be shamed into at least walking it back to the point where medical diagnoses overrule some wanker in a call center. She probably won't, but at least things won't get worse. 1965917 posted:But the planet is currently on fire, and you're delusional if you think Starmer and his band of middle managers are going to do anything about it. The collapse of the eco system is all that should matter to anyone. We need radical change and we need it now. Anything else is a waste of time. But neither will abstaining to vote. You don't get to say voting for Labour is a bad option when not voting is arguably worse, and at best no better an option. Or are we only critical of telling people not to vote when Starmer does it? Besides, what's the alternative? Vote green? Throwing trans people under the bus now to have a chance of saving the world later? What good is that going to do for people who kill themselves while on a GC waiting list, or as a result of violence? It's the same with disabilities. I cannot look to the future because I need support now. Unless I vote to get rid of the tories, who have now killed almost 200,000 people like me, I won't make it to the climate collapse. I'm genuinely worried about losing my home because of the cost of fuel this winter. I worry about losing my marriage from not being able to contribute to the bills, let alone support my wife. Saying the climate is the only fight that matters long term, I agree with you on that. But in the meantime there are short term problems that have material affects on people's lives, and given that neither choice really matters, we can at least choose the one that makes things a little bit less poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
I'm trying to envision this future where Starmer materially improves the lives of the disabled and I don't see it. I see the opposite actually, what's happening now will become the new normal that is now endorsed by "the left", and the next time the tories come in they will go even further right with the new space afforded to them by Labour moving right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
I really struggle with all these pseudo-accelerationist arguments. I'd take 30 years of Blairism over all the poo poo that followed 100 times over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Let me put it like this: suppose for a moment that we get incredibly lucky and Sunak takes over as PM from the "sensible and respectable FYGM" wing of the tory party. There is absolutely no ideological difference between Starmer and Sunak. They will both behave in exactly the same way, and they will both hurt the poor and destroy the planet to exactly the same extent. The one meaningful difference between them is that under PM Sunak, sometimes some of the opposition will be pushing to the left and there is hope that Starmer will be replaced, while under PM Starmer the opposition will be pushing to the right and will be led by the worst person available. So in this situation, we should be actively hoping that Sunak gets a landslide victory and Starmer is thrown out of the party - not because of accelerationist bullshit or because I'm trying to throw people under the bus, but because that outcome will be marginally less poo poo for absolutely everyone in both the short-term and the long-term. So the only remaining question is: how much worse is Truss than Sunak? For me, it's a hard sell that she's so much worse that there's a moral imperative to vote Starmer to keep her out in the same way that there would be a moral imperative to vote Starmer to keep Farage out. (She's certainly far stupider, but when everything she's going to be trying to do will make the country worse, that's less of a downside and more of a mitigating factor.) e: ^^ Worth noting that Starmerism is actually much further right than Blairism was. Half Corbyn's manifesto came from Labour in 1997.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
The accelerationist vote at this point would be to vote for Starmer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:Let me put it like this: suppose for a moment that we get incredibly lucky and Sunak takes over as PM from the "sensible and respectable FYGM" wing of the tory party. There is absolutely no ideological difference between Starmer and Sunak. They will both behave in exactly the same way, and they will both hurt the poor and destroy the planet to exactly the same extent. The one meaningful difference between them is that under PM Sunak, sometimes some of the opposition will be pushing to the left and there is hope that Starmer will be replaced, while under PM Starmer the opposition will be pushing to the right and will be led by the worst person available. So in this situation, we should be actively hoping that Sunak gets a landslide victory and Starmer is thrown out of the party - not because of accelerationist bullshit or because I'm trying to throw people under the bus, but because that outcome will be marginally less poo poo for absolutely everyone in both the short-term and the long-term. Yeah agreed, this isn't 5D chess, or accelerationism, this is just how voting works? Even the Labour right understood this when they tried to make sure Corbyn wouldn't win. They wanted right wing policies, and Corbyn was a threat to that. We want left wing policies don't we? Brendan Rodgers fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Whatever your personal calculus on wether you think its better to support Starmer's Labour party there is no reason to say out loud that you will vote unless you are happy with how they are currently behaving or unless you're directly voting for an actually good candidate who deserves support. If you really want to be pragmatic then withold that poo poo until you are in the polling booth. Don't tell the pricks they're right to take you for granted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:I really struggle with all these pseudo-accelerationist arguments. I'd take 30 years of Blairism over all the poo poo that followed 100 times over. fair enough but an awful lot of people in scotland and the north would disagree with you and that's why they don't vote labour any more and won't any time soon
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
The easiest solution to the moral dilemma of lesser evilism is the one I've fallen into by accident, viz. living in a constituency that's been Conservative since 1950. Hahaha. Hahahaha. ha
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Brendan Rodgers posted:I'm trying to envision this future where Starmer materially improves the lives of the disabled and I don't see it. Imagine that oval office who's always on Jeremy Vine being given the reins to the DWP and tell me with a straight face Starmer would be worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
Arguing over individual votes is stupid. Your individual vote makes gently caress all difference so just vote for what you'd actually want. Fucks sake, my ol grandad didn't fight jerries for you to get pressured into voting against your interests and call it tactical If you're talking collectively then yes, obviously it'd be better if everyone voted for good parties not poo poo ones
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Oh you think not voting is going to help? Only by a serious abuse of statistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:are you old enough to have experienced what claiming was like under Blair I am old enough to have claimed under Thatcher, friend. The worst shittiness now stems from the WCA which, while introduced under Brown, was a continuation of Blairite policies. The Labour Party first got ATOS to do the WCA assessments. They are directly responsible for the way things are now. Bobby Deluxe posted:And yes, Reeves is probably not going to reverse any of that. But she's not using every ounce of her strength to make it worse Yes she is. She has said doesn't want the party to be seen as the party of those on benefits, and she is absolutely going to hurt those on benefits in order to appeal to 'hard-working' Britons, same as Blairites did before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:I really struggle with all these pseudo-accelerationist arguments. I'd take 30 years of Blairism over all the poo poo that followed 100 times over. But that poo poo necessarily follows. When you win with a landslide by promising to improve people's lives and then you don't, they stop voting for you. Not all at once, but the collapse is inevitable. Then, when someone comes along who might actually keep their promises of helping people, they remember that the last guy with a red rosette promised the same and gave them nothing (source: actual doorstep encounters while canvassing). What you envisage as two separate entities battling for control is, in reality, just equally necessary components of the same system. The lever can only pull so far without the ratchet. The Tories spending a few years out of government with the pressure off and Labour taking the heat for everything continuing to get worse (while being labelled socialists or communists) is the system working as intended. Rustybear posted:fair enough but an awful lot of people in scotland and the north would disagree with you and that's why they don't vote labour any more and won't any time soon This Tarnop fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Quote/edit failure
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Politicians are going to have to face up to doing something about energy costs eventually. £500 power bills in January is not viable. Most of the country does not have £500 of slack in their budget - it's going to be a choice between paying for power and feeding their children. You don't need an organised non-payment strike, one will just happen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I am old enough to have claimed under Thatcher, friend. The worst shittiness now stems from the WCA which, while introduced under Brown, was a continuation of Blairite policies. The Labour Party first got ATOS to do the WCA assessments. They are directly responsible for the way things are now. Thank you for expressing what I couldn't (without getting quite angry)
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Hold on what’s the plan again if we’re not voting the tories out? We’re waiting for revolution yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Ask the Americans how well that 'vote blue no matter who' bullshit worked out for them. My individual vote is essentially completely meaningless but at the very least I can make sure it isn't weaponised by centrists to prove the left will fall in line whatever we do and use that to push further rightward. Politics isn't like supporting your football team, I never voted for Labour before Corbyn and if they're not going to put forward a platform that appeals to me I won't vote for them again, simple.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:I concede the LibDems 2010 point, but are you suggesting the Tories under IDS would not have invaded Iraq with the US? They would have contributed fewer troops. Blair specifically had a messianic fervour for maximum involvement in Iraq far beyond what Bush had actually requested.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:I really struggle with all these pseudo-accelerationist arguments. I'd take 30 years of Blairism over all the poo poo that followed 100 times over. Why? The past 12 years have, Brexit aside, been the logical continuation of the New Labour project, which was in turn the continuation of the Thatcher project. Like, OK, Brown 2010-15 government wouldn't have enacted Universal Credit, but only because JSA, ESA & the like were New Labour creations. Everything about UC that makes it poo poo would have been rolled out by a New Labour government because look at the poo poo they introduced at the DWP. Liberals are obsessed with the idea that working to enrich our employers is necessary to be classed as human. Oh dear me is right that the New Labour system was crueler than the Thatcher era welfare system. It just so happens it's easier to enact liberal reforms if you do it gradually over decades than if you do it all at once & it's more obvious how hosed over we are. The accelerationist point of view is straightforward. The lesser evil is still evil. The choice is between things getting worse sooner & things getting worse a bit slower, with the point being the end goal is the same, a return to feudalism with capitalist characteristics. Do we not owe it to future generations at least try and leave things better than they were when we arrived? But then if you still have any faith in parliamentary democracy as a vehicle for change then we just have totally different views on the world
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
Gasmask posted:Hold on what’s the plan again if we’re not voting the tories out? We’re waiting for revolution yeah? We're finding joy in the little things, like the look on Kieth's bloated red face when he wakes up after election night to the knowledge he will never be Prime Minister. Sure, it won't put food on the table but it's spiritually nourishing at least, which is more than can be said for the Kieth Starmer project.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Are we set for a general strike?quote:When is a general strike not a general strike? quote:Where does all this leave Labour? quote:Are we going back to the 1970s?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Why? Because when I broke my leg in 2002 I actually got treated when I went to a hospital.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JolyonRubs/status/1552342912247144450
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Because when I broke my leg in 2002 I actually got treated when I went to a hospital. "I'd rather be in a runaway train accident than an air crash, because I was on that train for three stops at the start of its trip and I was fine"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Slight correction on one point: The railways are in fact not profitable at all and only survive through massive public subsidy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 18:05
|
|
