|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
and i must meme posted:the british people like authoritarian leftism at the moment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Propertarians would consider him wanting to expropriate empty houses to give to Grenfell survivors authoritarian, but lol propertarians.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
LeoMarr posted:so more police means less authortarianism jn the streets? and wben l these unarmed police officers start getting cut down by militants?just keep increasing it? That sure is a lot of Questions, are you having fun Just Asking them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Hey now! It's not unique! There are tons of other 3rd world countries with militarized brutal police forces. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Isn't Corbyn more libertarian left?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Cultural Marxist posted:Fixed that for you. Hey now, we shouldn't use "third world" pejoratively. America is a core capitalist country at the heart of empire, regardless of how much of a failed state they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Corbyn is an actual social democract wtih some socialist leanings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:That sure is a lot of Questions, are you having fun Just Asking them? this countrt is undwr constant threat of terrorism and corbyn has showb ti.e ans time again. a lackadasical responae to the ordeal that norml cotizens experi3nce or worry about. in concerned that the guy may make things worse on the gloval stage and in that may beunable to maintain civil harmony between religious sects. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Domestically Jezza's a pretty safe, moderate social democrat but in terms of foreign policy he's a dangerous radical and enemy of the status quo. The madman doesn't even want to blow up the world and he thinks bombing people in the global south only makes thing worse the lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
I think Corbyn's responses to the terrorist attacks were actually very good compared to the non-answers that centre-left politicians often give, and explain why he wasn't destroyed by them like some people were predicting. He talked about both how to help combat the attacks with domestic policing and how to address the source of the problem with foreign policy changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Corbyn is an actual social democract wtih some socialist leanings. I feel like he might make a good anarcho-syndicalist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:this countrt is undwr constant threat of terrorism and corbyn has showb ti.e ans time again. a lackadasical responae to the ordeal that norml cotizens experi3nce or worry about. in concerned that the guy may make things worse on the gloval stage and in that may beunable to maintain civil harmony between religious sects. Yeah, his insistence on negotiated peace settlements to end conflict is going to make things worse on the global stage. How will we cope if we're not semi-permanently at war with someone? Won't somebody please think about BAE Systems' profits??
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:this countrt is undwr constant threat of terrorism and corbyn has showb ti.e ans time again. a lackadasical responae to the ordeal that norml cotizens experi3nce or worry about. in concerned that the guy may make things worse on the gloval stage and in that may beunable to maintain civil harmony between religious sects. I figure he's probably got a pretty good glove game in his allotment shed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Also boo corbyn for not caring about the terrorism I and 99% of the country don't experience as opposed to the economic problems most of us do. What a oval office.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:this countrt is undwr constant threat of terrorism and corbyn has showb ti.e ans time again. a lackadasical responae to the ordeal that norml cotizens experi3nce or worry about. in concerned that the guy may make things worse on the gloval stage and in that may beunable to maintain civil harmony between religious sects. I would be asking where your Carer is but then I realised that most Carers would struggle dealing with your Intellectual disability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:I would be asking where your Carer is but then I realised that most Carers would struggle dealing with your Intellectual disability. I wirk for AIMA
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:The risk is that there might not be enough resources in the whole world to spread that wealth to everyone else. That's my liberal centrist worry: we actually can't produce enough for a global surplus at our current level of technology and when that becomes obvious people will get violent so as to get their share. At present (or at least a little while ago) we produced enough food for everyone on earth to be well-fed. Food production growth has outpaced population growth for two decades. This is a relatively unoptimised output because food production is kinda hosed, but that's still a shitload of food. The issue is that an enormous portion of this goes into bins, and even of the food that makes it into mouths, a load of it is going into the same mouths so people are eating like 3000-4000 calories when they need 2000-2500. The trouble is, like the Empire did in Ireland and India, modern states do in Africa and the middle east; food doesn't go to the starving because the starving are too poor. LeoMarr posted:this countrt is undwr constant threat of terrorism and corbyn has showb ti.e ans time again. a lackadasical responae to the ordeal that norml cotizens experi3nce or worry about. in concerned that the guy may make things worse on the gloval stage and in that may beunable to maintain civil harmony between religious sects. I'm genuinely getting concerned you're having a stroke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Its a self evident fact that true harmny between religioisous sects can only truly be enforced with guided missiles
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
spectralent posted:At present (or at least a little while ago) we produced enough food for everyone on earth to be well-fed. Food production growth has outpaced population growth for two decades. This is a relatively unoptimised output because food production is kinda hosed, but that's still a shitload of food. The issue is that an enormous portion of this goes into bins, and even of the food that makes it into mouths, a load of it is going into the same mouths so people are eating like 3000-4000 calories when they need 2000-2500. The trouble is, like the Empire did in Ireland and India, modern states do in Africa and the middle east; food doesn't go to the starving because the starving are too poor. It's not food we need to worry about : It's stuff like metals, fossil fuels (even if just for plastics), the stuff used to make western consumer goods generally. We can feed the world, sure, but can we cloth and house them to 1st world standards?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
communism bitch posted:Im not sure how i feel about international trickledown organised around importing labour to care for our ever growing population of methuselahs. oh, it's awful, no doubt. but if somehow climate change wasn't a thing, overpopulation would resolve itself and is pretty quickly even within the horrific poor consuming framework of capitalism. this is why Germany gets to look oh so tolerant and progressive for letting all the poorest countries in the world throw their best and brightest at her for free in the form of refugees, which can then be exploited all the more for the horrors they had to escape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Isn't Corbyn more libertarian left? There are certainly authoritarian leftist groups in the UK, but they tend to be wankers like the SWP or whatever George Galloway is doing at the moment. Corbyn seems to prefer community type approaches to big government spy initiatives. i didn't mean corbyn, just the british public in general that survey of social attitudes showed support for redistribution and social liberalism, but also indefinite detention of terrorist suspects
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:It's not food we need to worry about : It's stuff like metals, fossil fuels (even if just for plastics), the stuff used to make western consumer goods generally. We can feed the world, sure, but can we cloth and house them to 1st world standards? I mean I'd be fine living in a wooden house and wearing nothing that isn't made of cotton, cotton's hella comfy, I wish people would stop making things out of polyester. Give me a wood house, cotton pants, a lifetime supply of potatoes and an internet connection and I'll be quite happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:It's not food we need to worry about : It's stuff like metals, fossil fuels (even if just for plastics), the stuff used to make western consumer goods generally. We can feed the world, sure, but can we cloth and house them to 1st world standards? See, this is why I think the fantasy of fully automated luxury communism is a dead end. There may just be enough to go around, but the barrier isn't just the finitude of rare materials it's also stuff like the environmental cost of extracting and processing them. In global terms a fairer distribution of material wealth might actually necessitate some form of austerity in order to become sustainable. With the literal fate of the planet hanging in the balance, though, I think it'd probably be okay and worth it. Maybe if folk are more collective about ownership we won't need to have so many electronic devices to one person, or for every person to have their own car or a house or flat to themselves. When you get right down to it collective ownership offers economies of scale unattainable under consumer capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:It's not food we need to worry about : It's stuff like metals, fossil fuels (even if just for plastics), the stuff used to make western consumer goods generally. We can feed the world, sure, but can we cloth and house them to 1st world standards? I dunno, maybe not, but is that stuff necessary to have a happy society? Something Awful's great and all, but I can't say it justifies millions starving. We'd find stuff to do, especially if in this magic universe where we actually care about global society we had a major switch to renewables and thus much greater energy security. It'd probably be a future where we have way more public infrastructure and way fewer iphones and nice cars, but I can't say that'd really be worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
You're arguing with someone who is very clearly off their face
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:See, this is why I think the fantasy of fully automated luxury communism is a dead end. There may just be enough to go around, but the barrier isn't just the finitude of rare materials it's also stuff like the environmental cost of extracting and processing them. In global terms a fairer distribution of material wealth might actually necessitate some form of austerity in order to become sustainable. With the literal fate of the planet hanging in the balance, though, I think it'd probably be okay and worth it. Maybe if folk are more collective about ownership we won't need to have so many electronic devices to one person, or for every person to have their own car or a house or flat to themselves. When you get right down to it collective ownership offers economies of scale unattainable under consumer cpitalism. Yeah, exactly. I mean, we can synthesise hydrocarbons, too. Fischer-Tropsch's existed since the 20s. Germany was using it for something like 25% of it's wartime fuel production. Hell, since it extracts CO2, imagine if we were using renewable energy to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and turn it into plastic and raincoats?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:See, this is why I think the fantasy of fully automated luxury communism is a dead end. There may just be enough to go around, but the barrier isn't just the finitude of rare materials it's also stuff like the environmental cost of extracting and processing them. In global terms a fairer distribution of material wealth might actually necessitate some form of austerity in order to become sustainable. With the literal fate of the planet hanging in the balance, though, I think it'd probably be okay and worth it. Maybe if folk are more collective about ownership we won't need to have so many electronic devices to one person, or for every person to have their own car or a house or flat to themselves. When you get right down to it collective ownership offers economies of scale unattainable under consumer capitalism. That's why it's fully automated SPACE communism, comrade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Well yea: if renewables pay off and give us the holy grail of free energy, we can synthesise most poo poo via chemistry: the burden has always been the energy cost to do so more than the understanding. Honestly, I personally see space-mining as a possible solution to this problem: Only way to not run out of metals on Earth is to take them from space, which punts the problem a few hundred years in the future. Also means we won't have toxic environment-destroying mines all over the planet. Hence why it needs to be space-communism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
communism bitch posted:It feels like it sometimes, but no. I mean you probably have a dungeon right
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:See, this is why I think the fantasy of fully automated luxury communism is a dead end. There may just be enough to go around, but the barrier isn't just the finitude of rare materials it's also stuff like the environmental cost of extracting and processing them. In global terms a fairer distribution of material wealth might actually necessitate some form of austerity in order to become sustainable. With the literal fate of the planet hanging in the balance, though, I think it'd probably be okay and worth it. Maybe if folk are more collective about ownership we won't need to have so many electronic devices to one person, or for every person to have their own car or a house or flat to themselves. When you get right down to it collective ownership offers economies of scale unattainable under consumer capitalism. Driverless cars are going to be a massive step towards this. Why would a lot of people want to own a car when you can summon one from a smartphone app to wherever you are?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Genuinely a secure life to me would be valuable enough to give up a lot of hypothetical possibilities. A secure home and a worthwhile job and a bit of time to myself is all I can ask of life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
jabby posted:Driverless cars are going to be a massive step towards this. Why would a lot of people want to own a car when you can summon one from a smartphone app to wherever you are? Because getting blown while doing 90 in a school zone is cheaper than a cocaine habit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A secure home and a worthwhile job and a bit of time to myself is all I can ask of life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I'd be fine living in a wooden house and wearing nothing that isn't made of cotton, cotton's hella comfy, I wish people would stop making things out of polyester. Why d'you think cotton farming isn't terrible? It cost us the Aral sea
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:Technology doesn't produce resources, resources get, like, used up. Stuff like water, energy, that kind of thing I just want to say I appreciate you using two of the very few examples of resources that can't actually be used up. It may make the intended irony a bit blunt, but I laughed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:Why d'you think cotton farming isn't terrible? It cost us the Aral sea I think you can farm a lot of things sustainably or unsustainably. And given most of my cotton clothes last a few years at least with regular wear I think you could eliminate a lot of clothing production demand by getting rid of consumption driven clothing purchase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Well yea: if renewables pay off and give us the holy grail of free energy, we can synthesise most poo poo via chemistry: the burden has always been the energy cost to do so more than the understanding. Renewables can give us free energy, the issue is nobody wants to build them because either NIMBYs or fossil fuel lobbyists. Yeah renewable is less efficient but it's not like we're short of wind or sun, especially if, say, we just covered the sahara in solar panels or something. That's even before we get into insane super-engineering ideas like a giant space satellite that beams solar power to the earth via laser or something. OwlFancier posted:Genuinely a secure life to me would be valuable enough to give up a lot of hypothetical possibilities. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Renewables can give us free energy, the issue is nobody wants to build them because either NIMBYs or fossil fuel lobbyists. alternately we could build a shitton of nuclear power plants and actually increase our energy use by a lot, and it would probably be both easier and cheaper then covering the entire Sahara with solar panels
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I feel like he might make a good anarcho-syndicalist. And that's how we know he truly is a Good Egg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I'd be fine living in a wooden house and wearing nothing that isn't made of cotton, cotton's hella comfy, I wish people would stop making things out of polyester. The wooden housing bit, not your cotton kecks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:That doesn't scale well with populations density though. Not with density no, you need better materials for that. Though I've a soft spot for stuff like windcatchers and underground irrigation as a substitute for AC and other low density solutions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 21:07
|
|