|
It makes more sense if you substitute "british" for "white"
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Serious I have seen She was fifteen she knew what she was doing! multiple times today, which is fine for being groomed to murder troops, but not being groomed for sex I suppose. The people saying that are paedos too, op
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think if the right wing press had gone the "she needs to be brought back to face justice in a proper British court, she's taking the piss and every other criminal will become a foreign Muslim to get away with crimes" route then the home office would have u-turned in a heartbeat, not only because it would have been slightly cheaper and easier than doing the other thing. The real answer is because no one is really sure what offence if any she could be charged with. membership of a proscribed organisation? Maybe but not as an active participant probably so like what a strong community order. Preparation of terrorist acts? Well that involves evidence. The right wing tabloids 100% knew that there was a high possibility that there is insufficient evidence for any kind of conviction and demanding someone be permanently exiled from the country as punishment for unclear crimes without any sort of criminal charges meets their definition of "justice" a lot closer than what actually would have happened if she was allowed to return.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:A lot of people are just super loving hateful Its true, I try to keep my twitter-reading to a minimum these days because there are so many folks with just super poo poo opinions / views and they are all out there walking past you on the street (well not right now but you get what I mean) It would be nice to live not knowing other people think like this, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:The real answer is because no one is really sure what offence if any she could be charged with. membership of a proscribed organisation? Maybe but not as an active participant probably so like what a strong community order. Preparation of terrorist acts? Well that involves evidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:There's also a self-fulfilling prophecy here - if you leave the Labour party because it's not left wing, that makes it harder to take it over if another chance arises. Especially in places like councillors and the party bureaucracy which have always been entrenched areas the right has done well in. So then tell me why should a queer leftist trans woman give any money to a party that despises every part of her?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:I acknowledge that my instincts are often wrong and I'd be happy to hear why. At present we have enough left MPs to nominate a decent leadership candidate. If Starmer had a coronary tomorrow we could win, provided people stay in the party long enough to vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
one of the most worrying aspects of the case is the courts reasoning, which seems to hinge on a number of really stupid and dangerous points eg - your right to a fair trial does not supercede "national security concerns" - the home secretary has full discretion on determining those concerns because they have access to intelligence evidence so they must know best - the court doesn't have a democratic mandate and the home secretary does so it's not their place to question it - if the public don't like the government abusing human rights then they can just vote for a party that respects human rights - the government constructing circumstances that prevent you from appealing their decisions isn't the same as the government taking away your legal right to appeal them I mean obviously they aren't inherently problematic and stupid in a country like the UK where we have a level headed and fair-minded population who are trustworthy guarantors of human rights through our dynamic and vibrant democratic system but if we lived in a politically moribund one party state with an ineffectual opposition that cares just as little for human rights as the ruling party, and the public were a bunch of bloodthirsty racist morons, then it might be a bit more concerning
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:At present we have enough left MPs to nominate a decent leadership candidate. If Starmer had a coronary tomorrow we could win, provided people stay in the party long enough to vote. Okay. Unlikely health problems force Keir to step down before a purge can be completed. What now? Who should run for the Labour left? And assuming they win, what then? How do you purge the machinery to remove wreckers? And how do you counter the instant Stalinism comparisons despite it being transparently horseshit? How do you resolve the antisemitism bollocks? Or if not resolve it, at least deal with it? And that's without broaching the broader questions the left needs to ask like how the gently caress do we convince a public who support loosely socialist policies but also apparently don't like socialism as a word?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Those are all problems that any political party would face. Like you're basically asking "how do politics?" at that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
I've been wondering that myself lately. Seems impossible to succeed at politics without lying constantly to appeal to horrible idiots with terrible opinions about everything
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Rumda posted:So then tell me why should a queer leftist trans woman give any money to a party that despises every part of her? I mean, I'm not going to tell you you have to join Labour or anything - I don't think that Labour is the *only* political area with possibility, I just don't agree with the take that there is literally no point being within Labour and to do so is tantamount to collaboration. But there are a lot of different viewpoints in the party, transphobes are alarmingly prominent in the but i think there is a possibility for change on that front.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
XMNN posted:- the home secretary has full discretion on determining those concerns because they have access to intelligence evidence so they must know best These two points are kind of quintessential to the operation of the supreme court though. Remember parliament is sovereign, the supreme court can't strike down laws, at best they can declare incompatiblities with the echr if they believe they exist and request the government change them. It's kind of an inherent feature of our legal system and the whole you can't bind a parliament thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I've been wondering that myself lately. Seems impossible to succeed at politics without lying constantly to appeal to horrible idiots with terrible opinions about everything I don't think you do, but I think that attitude is kind of short termist and is, arguably, a societal problem in and of itself. What creates political change, I think, is the buildup of people with shared ideas and social networks in response to their environmental conditions, which discharges itself through political systems. A political party can't create that, but it can be a platform for helping to spread your desired ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Who should run for the Labour left? And assuming they win, what then? How do you purge the machinery to remove wreckers? And how do you counter the instant Stalinism comparisons despite it being transparently horseshit? How do you resolve the antisemitism bollocks? Or if not resolve it, at least deal with it? Anyone with a proven left track record who Corbyn is willing to endorse. It takes a while for leadership patronage to allow us to wrest control of the NEC. When you have done that, you can start rewriting rules. The problem we had under Corbyn was general elections every two years, which had two tragic results: 1) it meant he resigned after four years, whereas Kinnock got to be leader for 9; and 2) they were too worried about appearing bad electorally to do the necessary party democratization. We're unlikely to win the next election and doing so should absolutely not be our priority: becoming a party worth electing should be. So we don't need to counter Stalinist comparisons etc. If we ever get the chance we should concentrate on destroying the power of the Labour right by any means possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Those are all problems that any political party would face. Yeah, sure. They are fundamental questions that are important to answer though. It's well worth considering "how do politics?" time to time. Especially if you're asking about staying and fighting in Labour, something about who runs matters. And purging is probably the most important immediate question facing a new Labour left leader.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
I agree, the platform for a hypothetical future left leader should, I think, include a big focus on hammering the party into something that the right can't use, completely hamstringing the power of the leadership in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
A way of taking the heat out of the 'should socialists be in Labour' argument is to consider the theory of the state and the strategic consequences of it (any socialists arguing for independence also need to consider these things). The state is, regardless of the individual variations across space and time, the apparent co-ordinating body of the ruling class. Laws and customs are made and obeyed (to some extent) by it and disputes between the ruling class are concluded within it through its internal power structures, unless they find they cannot resolve it and then state finds itself illegitimate as violence, civil war and separatism break out. Does power come FROM the state though? No, it does not. The ruling class is created by their relationship to (usually control of) the economic forces in society which grants them the power to use as they wish and therefore the need to have a co-ordinating body such as the state - otherwise the sections of the ruling class would simply find themselves in open conflict with each other (as they do when a state collapses from other pressures). This co-ordinating function is the inherent reason for the state and, as even the ruling class in all its power is still shaped by the economic structure of the class society it rules, then ruling parties in a state find themselves disciplined and directed by this co-ordinating function. A non-revolutionary approach to taking state power can only take the currently existing structures and then battle with them internally, sometimes it may create some change in the procedures it had to obey before, sometimes it will lose and be forced to change its own ideology to fit. It can also only change the shape of the state through this struggle, not the society at large. This does not matter for the sections of the ruling class which hold state power as the society at large is already partially approving of their existence and will reinforce them through merely continuing to exist but is a serious and permanent opposition to any non-ruling class entity which holds that same power. A reformist socialist party taking power in a liberal bourgeois state will find itself battered through the mere process of having gotten that power and then find whatever socialism it still holds under attack from the rest of the state structure and from society at large. Consider our history. Our parliamentary system was founded on giving sway to the landed gentry, the monarchy and the church - explicitly the ruling class. Over time there has been an increase in the franchise but little change to any other part of it. Why would anyone think that merely getting the final rubber stamp approval for a candidate in a seat to change any of the core dynamics of state power? The Labour Party has a history of acting in the interests of UK capitalism above all else, even during it's 'socialist' period, because once it takes the reigns of the British state it operates tools designed to help the ruling class maintain itself. It is inherent to the nature of the bourgeois state and that cannot be changed by running a successful electoral campaign within bourgeois liberal rules. The key to change is power - being able to write the rules is nice but what matters is the ability to enforce the rules or to ignore them as you wish. State power claims to offer all three but that is not the case, it has a fixed function in capitalist society and that cannot be altered from within. Creating, holding and wielding power externally to the state is the core driver of change. That task certainly can be aided by having state power change certain laws which are obvious impediments to power, for example, but state power alone isn't enough. With that in mind, considering our current situation and the balance of class forces in the UK right now - does taking control of the Labour Party matter? namesake fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Feb 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I've been wondering that myself lately. Seems impossible to succeed at politics without lying constantly to appeal to horrible idiots with terrible opinions about everything It is extraordinarily hard not to come to this conclusion these days. At least in terms of parliamentary politics/liberal democracy
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean "keep the foreigners out, even if they're british" is entirely consistent with their general position? This leads me to the idea that the perfect capitalist state is one which has no actual citizens (hence no-one for whom the state is actually responsible or who qualifies for state support), only disposable foreign workers who can be exploited and deported when they are no longer useful. I guess places like Qatar and the UAE are pretty close to achieving that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
namesake posted:A way of taking the heat out of the 'should socialists be in Labour' argument is to consider the theory of the state and the strategic consequences of it (any socialists arguing for independence also need to consider these things). The state is, regardless of the individual variations across space and time, the apparent co-ordinating body of the ruling class. Laws and customs are made and obeyed (to some extent) by it and disputes between the ruling class are concluded within it through its internal power structures, unless they find they cannot resolve it and then state finds itself illegitimate as violence, civil war and separatism break out. Does power come FROM the state though? No, it does not. The ruling class is created by their relationship to (usually control of) the economic forces in society which grants them the power to use as they wish and therefore the need to have a co-ordinating body such as the state - otherwise the sections of the ruling class would simply find themselves in open conflict with each other (as they do when a state collapses from other pressures). good rear end post
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:This leads me to the idea that the perfect capitalist state is one which has no actual citizens (hence no-one for whom the state is actually responsible or who qualifies for state support), only disposable foreign workers who can be exploited and deported when they are no longer useful. I guess places like Qatar and the UAE are pretty close to achieving that. I mean, that's the core of US libertarianism, capital and the state owe you nothing, you are there to serve.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Anyone with a proven left track record who Corbyn is willing to endorse. It takes a while for leadership patronage to allow us to wrest control of the NEC. When you have done that, you can start rewriting rules. The problem we had under Corbyn was general elections every two years, which had two tragic results: 1) it meant he resigned after four years, whereas Kinnock got to be leader for 9; and 2) they were too worried about appearing bad electorally to do the necessary party democratization. We're unlikely to win the next election and doing so should absolutely not be our priority: becoming a party worth electing should be. So we don't need to counter Stalinist comparisons etc. If we ever get the chance we should concentrate on destroying the power of the Labour right by any means possible. Thanks. I like your answer on point 2. Though I would say that part of the problem last time was Corbyn's nature: he seems to believe everyone is as sincere as he is. Maybe it's bias because I am a horrendous cynic myself but he just didn't seem ready for how destructive the right were willing to be. Hopefully that wouldn't occur a second time round.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I've been wondering that myself lately. Seems impossible to succeed at politics without lying constantly to appeal to horrible idiots with terrible opinions about everything It does sometimes make you wonder if Stalin had a point with the gulags and all, doesn't it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
The observation of the ruthlessness of the right, I think, will help to make the left more willing to respond in kind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:It's incredibly generous of you to believe that liberals are capable of hearing content and not simply applauding the correct tone. The problem is that they won't be invited onto question time every week with an audience that mysteriously appears to be hand picked from UKMT posters every week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
The only value that the labour right see in the party is the brand. They want the name because it will always provide a seat at the table of the media circus, and the past because you can then claim to be continuing traditions while doing the opposite. This is why it is so surprising that they were willing to drag the brand through the mud repeatedly during the Corbyn years. And I think Corbyn was surprised by this, which is perhaps naive but also understandable. Starmer et al also actually managed to pin most of the bad will to Corbyn (with media aid) so they actually succeeded in their project. They came to the helm of a major political party in the midst of two of the worst self inflicted damages this country has ever had, completely caused by the government. The fact that they have completely fckd it is just hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
What makes me stay in Labour (for now at least) despite the Labour right being terrible and in ascendancy is that I think the left has a chance in taking back the party. The thing is that although the right is ruthless and absolutely dedicated to trot bashing, they are also deluded about their levels of support and just bad at politics. Example include: It was the right who wanted to introduce OMOV and the £3 supporters, which completely backfired on them. They hosed up the suspension of Corbyn with the NEC reinstating him. Someone was stupid enough to store their incriminating backed up whatsapp messages in their official party email account.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Rumda posted:So then tell me why should a queer leftist trans woman give any money to a party that despises every part of her? I'm not going to tell you to give money to Labour, it's understandable if you don't. But "the party" does not despise you, "the party" is made up of hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are queer leftist transpeople of all stripes who are, with their allies, fighting for trans rights along with the rest of all the socialist principles. It's a hard fight, even some older lefties who are otherwise decent have bad opinions on this. But if all the people who support trans rights left the party, there would be no one to fight, and the party's policies would never change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I'm not going to tell you to give money to Labour, it's understandable if you don't. But "the party" does not despise you, "the party" is made up of hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are queer leftist transpeople of all stripes who are, with their allies, fighting for trans rights along with the rest of all the socialist principles. It's a hard fight, even some older lefties who are otherwise decent have bad opinions on this. But if all the people who support trans rights left the party, there would be no one to fight, and the party's policies would never change. so yo u are saying that by not giving money to the party of Rosie Duffield and Jessflaps that i really just shooting myself in the foot because of all the member who may be more sympathetic to me, despite that money previously being used against the party's interest and by a party which shows at no point any desire to listen to it membership. or how about the party who had their shadow chancellor give an interview to Mumsnet
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
CancerCakes posted:The only value that the labour right see in the party is the brand. They want the name because it will always provide a seat at the table of the media circus, and the past because you can then claim to be continuing traditions while doing the opposite. I don't actually agree with this, while some of the Labour right are totally cynical I think a lot of them are actually true believers, or have just been so cowed by their experiences of what is possible in society that they think they are doing the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Rumda posted:so yo u are saying that by not giving money to the party of Rosie Duffield and Jessflaps that i really just shooting myself in the foot because of all the member who may be more sympathetic to me, despite that money previously being used against the party's interest and by a party which shows at no point any desire to listen to it membership. As I said, it's understandable if you don't want to give money to Labour. But Labour is also the only party likely to be able to hold national office that is ever likely to have good trans policies. But it never will if there aren't trans people and their allies in the party making that happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
what is it with boomers being so resistant to going to the doctor. My dad had apparently been feeling extremely run down for a week and my mam forced him to finally go and it turned out he'd had a small heart attack so is now in hospital overnight for monitoring. It was similar with his bladder cancer that he was having problems for months before he finally got convinced to go
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
ANYTHING YOU SOW posted:What makes me stay in Labour (for now at least) despite the Labour right being terrible and in ascendancy is that I think the left has a chance in taking back the party. This is just my opinion but i'd strongly disagree that the left's ever getting power back in Labour and even if they did its tainted. If there's any hope for the left then its in a new party, optimally one made from Labour left splitters, that then fights in the ongoing 'culture war'. One with fire in its belly that outright states all landlords should get in the sea and other incendiary poo poo. Be the dangerous leftists the press says Labour is anyway. It's loving tiresome, this circus of pretending everything is normal, or that we can even get back to normal. Covid, climate change, unrest, inequality. It's all going out of control. Nothing is going to put these fires out. They're going to have to burn themselves out. The Tories and Labour are dinosaurs that won't survive the violence to come. The fight is going to be what new politics emerge out of the rubble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:This is just my opinion but i'd strongly disagree that the left's ever getting power back in Labour and even if they did its tainted. If there's any hope for the left then its in a new party, optimally one made from Labour left splitters, that then fights in the ongoing 'culture war'. One with fire in its belly that outright states all landlords should get in the sea and other incendiary poo poo. Be the dangerous leftists the press says Labour is anyway. It's loving tiresome, this circus of pretending everything is normal, or that we can even get back to normal. Covid, climate change, unrest, inequality. It's all going out of control. Nothing is going to put these fires out. They're going to have to burn themselves out. The Tories and Labour are dinosaurs that won't survive the violence to come. The fight is going to be what new politics emerge out of the rubble. this is why the left need to be angry and aggressive next time
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
Jose posted:what is it with boomers being so resistant to going to the doctor. My dad had apparently been feeling extremely run down for a week and my mam forced him to finally go and it turned out he'd had a small heart attack so is now in hospital overnight for monitoring. It was similar with his bladder cancer that he was having problems for months before he finally got convinced to go It's not boomers, it's all humans. If you ignore it it might go away, but if you go to the doctors it might turn out to be something nasty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/on3ness/status/1365341803872985091 If they taught this kind of thing at school I might have paid attention in History.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Did they include the other side which is just "CVCKOLDS WE COME" Cary's regiment is odd, they changed sides at some point so I guess he just decided that calling the cavaliers beta cucks was more fun than being a toff. E: or did he change to the cavaliers, actually, I don't remember now. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Feb 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:The problem is that they won't be invited onto question time every week with an audience that mysteriously appears to be hand picked from UKMT posters every week. "This fedora-wearing man with a wispy beard who asked about nationalizing Games Workshop has not only appeared on three previous Question Times, but we have now obtained evidence that he has been posting in UKMTs for over eight years! Panorama Exclusive 10pm tonight."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Rumda posted:so yo u are saying that by not giving money to the party of Rosie Duffield and Jessflaps that i really just shooting myself in the foot because of all the member who may be more sympathetic to me, despite that money previously being used against the party's interest and by a party which shows at no point any desire to listen to it membership. Yeah like, being in Labour offers a theoretically greater chance of changing it than being outside Labour, but there has to be SOMETHING there being given to a prospective member in the first place. It can't be the job of trans people alone to enter the party and turn it around, we just don't have the numbers or money even if it was a morally acceptable burden to put on us. And even if it were both our job and pragmatically possible, we'd be better off doing it to the Tories anyway seeing as they're the ones who have power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2021 20:15
|
|