|
Happy new year all of you, don't let the superstructure make you stop caring.
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2020 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:The polls on leadership are loving pointless before the hustings, Corbyn was a 100-1 outlier at this point in 2015 It's not quite the same thing. When Miliband changed the Labour leadership process it was 100% supported by Blair and the shitlibs because everyone in the establishment/media class genuinely truly believed the left was dead and that a Liz Kendall type would romp it, when Corbyn entered the race that assumption was still in place. 5 years later everyone acknowledges that the left exists and probably is factoring that in now. I agree that pre-hustings polls are kind of bollocks though, we don't yet know how the contest will look. thespaceinvader posted:Great, Keir Starmer. He's the preferred candidate of the Remain psychopaths, a ton of his support will be frontloaded. If he's able to grow that support without leaning left I'd be very surprised.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:Imo a strong remainer like Starmer or Thornberry would actually be pretty loving useful in the coming year for holding the Government the gently caress to to account for the coming Brexit shitstorm. If everyone could please resist the urge to lose elections in the pursuit of literally nothing that would be great. Will rejoining the EU be an election winner in five years, no probably not, is rejoining in the second Parliament from now after Johnson deregulates like it's his kink even possible, again probably not, so let's not tie ourselves onto talking about a fake idea that just lost an election.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:By all means ignore the specified timeframe or the specified purpose. Or the entire rest of my post. I cut out the rest of your post because I agreed with it but fair point. I don't think focusing on brexit as the lead cause of problems for the next 5 years is a good idea because the government is going to use brexit as a morally defensible smokescreen for a ton of negative domestic changes too. It's like how a small VAT increase means every shop knocks the price of 20 Marlboros up by 50p, they have a quite widely known fake justification for it and brexit is the most useful fake justification ever outside of a legit war or something. We should just focus on living standards and inequality, if we buy into brexit then we look like whiners while also giving them cover.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
jaete posted:Meh, I want to like Jess Phillips but I just... can't. Her attitude is kinda promising, why does she have to be completely terrible Her idea of speaking truth to power includes posing with Rees Mogg for an Observer special article about how these dangerous ideologues are dividing us, your lizard brain is protecting you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Whichever one of you made the gently caress THE TORIES playlist on Spotify is ace.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:And without a force independent from the Labour party - and especially the PLP - holding them accountable ain't gonna do poo poo. (Because the internal conflicts within the Labour party are going to reduce any potential leader to a melt if they have any hope of being elected the leader.) endlessmonotony posted:That being said, ultra-local stuff can and does grow into bigger movements that are able to make coherent demands and to affect change. Having them be parties while FPTP still exists is at best questionable and that's why I use words like "organizations" and "movements". Starting a process like this while Brexit was ongoing would have been impossible due to time constraints and to avoid diluting the strength of the Labour party... but now Labour is more of a collection of albatross necklaces than an useful tool to bring about change. You've contradicted yourself within one post. Yes the PLP is a systemic impediment and yes ultra-local stuff can affect change. And one change that ultra-local organising can quite easily involve is changing the local Labour candidate, in fact it's a much easier change than a vague 'bigger movement' plan, and they aren't even contradictory it's chewing gum and walking. There's no benefit to abandoning the Labour Party in that analysis it's just pointlessly giving up an opportunity in favour of some lovely aesthetic choice. endlessmonotony posted:Or in much clearer terms: I think using the Labour clout is a trap because it brings with it all the problems with Labour not having anything approaching a coherent direction or a way to grow and change. You don't want anything committed to respecting Labour's structure, values or history - indeed you shouldn't be averse to just getting rid of it all if it better serves the cause. "the Labour clout" is a bullshit term and you know it, this country is FPTP, that isn't 'clout' it's structural power that exists and isn't going anywhere. If we don't use it then it will be working against us so using as much of it as we can is closer to optimal. The problems with Labour are miniscule compared to the problems throwing toys out the pram would mean, the CUKs were absolute slaves to power and they still didn't get anywhere, a left-wing version of that would do even worse. Using Labour as a tool doesn't mean fighting most of Labour at all, the Labour membership are sound, and that's a fake concept anyway. Aside from the Blairite PLP pedophiles the actual problem is how to tackle media bias (which would be even worse against any edgy labour-party-be-dead-movement btw) and sure that's a problem we've gotta figure out how to tackle but that can be tackled from within Labour too sooooo
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:When your primary means of influence is through the Labour party, the concessions Labour is forced to make limit your ability to act - when you're acting as a part of an external force toward the Labour party you can instead demand concessions. What are the alternative 'primary means of influence' you are alluding to here? Honest question.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I really wish the fascist Board of Deputies wasn’t being legitimised like this, but all the candidates are signing up to is enacting their own interpretations of that rubbish list. This is not the end of the Labour Party, lol. Yeah it's absolutely bullshit, them and the MCB would be mates if their particular flavours of authoritarian sectarian anti-enlightenmentism didn't require them to flacidly hate each other.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:The entire point is "stop treating change from within the Labour party as a sensible option and organize outside it, then roll up to the party as an already unified group so you don't have to balance your values with the internal Labour politics while you're still trying to figure out trying how to express those values". Why is that preferable to organising whilst within Labour? Rocking up to the party with no links within it will be less effective than rocking up to it when you are already have links. endlessmonotony posted:Political organizing within-parties is a trap in itself because it makes it about the party and not about the values. Absolute false equivalence, parties are comprised of people unified around non-policy moral and intellectual values, that we currently have a lot of PLP careerists doesn't change that. If you are saying that party work is inherently unprincipled then gently caress off thats Guardian-op-ed level baby thinking. endlessmonotony posted:Also Labour has clout because it has a lot of existing supporters, it has name recognition and it has resources. That's on top of FPTP making any open competition between left-wingers just a recipe to get the right into power - unless there's mutual understanding that election time isn't the time to compete against each other. That's a very well made point for why we shouldn't abandon Labour so cool?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:(And restating that the competition is good because it allows people to make choices about who, specifically, to support and avoids the triangulation trap of "eh the left wing will vote for us anyway".) You are MI5 and I'm claiming my name on a blacklist, you've already mentioned FPTP so you definitely know it exists, this is the dumbest possible take.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Am I being just strung along by people deliberately getting what I said wrong so that I reply to correct them and repeat myself again in the most Sisyphean example of a name/post combo? actual lol Saying that you acknowledge Labour as an umbrella organisation is essential whilst also saying Labour is dead and we should let it die and working within the party is a albatross is inconsistent so people are responding to your stupider statements.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Debbie Does Dagon posted:This is from pages ago, but I think it's with mentioning that this is one of the central conflicts in the show. The power of the slayer was thrust upon a teenager who just wanted to have a normal life. So you do get dissonant moments like the one you mention, where she has become so surrounded by death and suffering that it's become almost commonplace, and escaping into something "normal" like going to prom becomes the all consuming goal. I genuinely can't believe Buffy is so unexamined whilst Harry Potter is this perpetual lib zeitgeist, they are both such perfect expressions of the late 90s urge for meaning (that honestly hasn't gone away but post 2000 we've accepted it and found solace in whichever narrative we most like and that benefits us) and I find the parallels and divergences so interesting. Like Buffy and Harry Potter are things I would non-ironically and not as an insult, even though the implication is kind of insulting, call genuinely impactful influences on white western culture. Buffy has the supernatural as yeah it gives meaning to life but it's also kind of a hassle you have to deal with and connecting with the earthy mundane world is also important, the narrative is that if the supernatual could be ended and the nice monsters were being chill then Buffy would hang up her stakes. But Harry Potter is way more occult, it's a secret exclusive society that is also really cool and fun and sure the heroes whack a protection spell on muggles or whatever but the supernatural structure is not something he'd ever give up, obviously. The earthy socially-connected story is broadly forgotten while the inherently heirarchal exclusionary one has flourished and I think it's interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:Long-dead people, the Potters are old-money aristrocracy. Why the Potters were rich is my absolute favourite thing about the HP books. JK tweeted a few years ago that 100s of years ago one of them invented some amazing medicine or something but whatever, decade-late tweets are fake. Within the books Potter is an ancestral line of Peverel, the Peverels were the 3 brothers that cheated Death and created the Deathly Hallows. One of those was the invisibility cloak Harry inherited. Talking about it Ron I think is like 'whoever had that cloak would be rich as gently caress' and the implication is that you'd use the cloak to rob rich people, and when Harry realises Potter=Peverel it's this revelation moment and reading it you're like 'oh yeah and thats why he's rich too!'. It's the most amazing thing, that JK originally wrote HP being weirdly rich because his ancestors were Robin Hood figures except lol they actually kept the money for themselves and put it in a goblin vault. Rob the rich but perhaps don't give it to the poor? It's the perfect example of that specific flavour of weak left-leaning lib aestheticism where yeah screw billionaires! i hate the injustice but the best use of those appropriated proceeds is probably to make me upper middle-class. It's so perfectly Polly Toynbee et al I love it. Vitamin P fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jan 14, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:Don't have kids This seems like such a dumb take. Like a person that would even consider not having children themselves to help the wider family of humanity then cool that's super principled and big-brained, but it's also loving weird, and as a horny normie that doesn't have that weird long-term brain thinking I will not be pursuing that course. If someone cares so much about climate change that they would choose not to have a family then that's hosed because the future is going to need their weird long-term brain. These people need to be less selfish tbh because in 90 years their grandkids might inherit their weird brains and potentially be actually useful whilst I am certain that my grandkids will just be posters. Call this a eugenics argument if you want but it's loving true, you do not want the offspring of Vitamin P to be the future braintrust.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea that not having children is a heritable trait is nonsensical on many levels. Who said that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:There are plenty of children already out there in need of a home. That's my approach. That's a good take but environmentally-minded people don't say 'instead of having children adopt kids in need and teach your values' they say 'don't have kids'. That is a really strong take though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I might have got a bit lost but you're suggesting people who don't want to have children should have children because then their children will not want to have children and that makes them... good at other stuff? No I'm saying the 'don't have kids' meme is dumb, because it self-selects for people that are environmentally conscious but has no influence on people that aren't environmentally conscious in the context of a generational threat. I think that being willing to not have your own family over it is weird-brain stuff and the future may need those weird-brains, but nature v nurture I think 90% of that is nurture which is why the above post about adoption low-key owned me. But to address your point the '...good at other stuff' yes absolutely. The next generations are going to have to make some big loving choices about climate change that might seem impossible to us and it almost certainly will be some form of socialism or some form of barbarism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Adoption is not the easy process a lot of people who've never encountered the system seem to think it is "we'll just adopt" I hear people say. It doesn't work like that. In any kind of discussion like that adoption is used as really easy rhetorical panacea. If you were approved why did you end up not adopting?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Long story that many years later still makes me cry. Completely inept social workers. Do you think the problem was the social workers individually or the systemic process? And yeah it's so insane that you remember a kid you knew and suddenly realise they are now an adult.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Hi britgoons i am working on a sousvide brexit survival kit Potato position doesn't matter, the key is gravy position. Pour a little bit on the sausages (only the sausages, never the mash) and leave a generously full gravy dish alongside the meal. If there is veg involved then position them on the plate as a sort of Switzerland-esque third party.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:What are you doing with these dishes, freezing them for yourself or others? I don't like gravy as it happens. Presenting a plate of sausage and mash lives and dies by the details mate. Jaeluni Asjil posted:Mainly systemic. I don't know a thing about how the adoption service works but if she'd decided to adopt him at the arbirtrary age of 16 rather then the arbitrary age of 18 do you think that would have helped? I hope the lad is doing okay.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I have to wonder why people have such strong feelings one way or another about the labour leadership candidates cos I know basically gently caress all about any of them. I think he played a pretty big role in Labour moving to second referendum position, he might well be a 'strong leader' in the competent behind-the-scenes politicking work us plebs don't see. From a non-Westminster perspective he's done some Human Rights resume building but that's about it, the anti-brexit stuff is the closest he's come to meaningful leadership. I know it's form letters but it feels so tedious that Labour send all this stuff when you rejoin, their algorithm or just email history must know full well I'm only rejoining for the leadership selection and will send them a snarky bitch email resigning membership about free speech again the moment it's done. There's enough people that give Labour money each month but deliberately reject membership that it should be a thing in their system.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:God loving drat I hope RLB wins this, I'm very concerned that Starmer might just edge it and if he does we lose years of progress It probably (not definitely!) will be Starmer and yeah it sucks, but don't see it as losing progress poo poo doesn't work that way, it's not an Ubisoft game where each icon we knock off gets us closer to the magic 100% and Starmer is going back to an older save. There is no magic 100% that saves the country just as there is no world that Corbynism didn't happen in. I despise that second-ref pushing little prick as much as anyone but it's not the end of the game if he wins. It is a really good time to start getting involved in your constituency party though the weak poo poo Starmer would do needs people in the local org pointing out how weak poo poo it is. The establishment wants you to be rundown and have no morale right now so the left can be neutered again, don't do them any favours.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:1. She just *gave up* instead of actually losing any votes or being rejected by Labour voters (even if this was extremely likely) Getting defeated is long-term more damning than technically choosing to step down for X honourable reason, Crace is absolutely pathetic for pretending he can't intuit that. I hate these loving liberals, the dumb-dumb line isn't credible any more, going forward every drop of blood is on their hands equal to the tories. MikeCrotch posted:2. She clearly had no plan of how to actually win the leadership election after trashing the membership (the people she needed to vote for her) and clearly not having put any effort into preparation or getting a trade union on board She expected the media to manufacture a landslide for her, Starmer was a safer bet for a pliant Labour leader so they didn't. Can't blame her honestly it wasn't a stupid roll of the dice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:if Labour had been smashed in 2017 I highly doubt Corbyn would have been around to fight the 2019 campaign It's possible he would have been, the 2017 result was a luminous shock upset to everyone but absent it you wouldn't necessarily have just handed the metaphorical car keys back to the drunk blairites.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Trapped in a pub waiting for my brothers train to come in and give him a lift home, Telegrath Youtube stream projected on the wall, can't have another pint because I'm driving and literally got called gay for ordering an orange juice by a fat boomer oval office that's acting like he just won a war. I am having the most emblematic Brexit night. I hate the EU but gently caress this this is worse than anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 00:34
|
|