|
I'm genuinely surprised they even made the distinction and didn't go full on using the larpers as a scapegoat tbh.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's broadly the same issue with representing say, the monarchy, as good, well meaning, sympathetic people. Because the actual monarchy is a massive wealth extracting nonce club, and it's a massive wealth extracting nonce club because it's the monarchy, its structure makes it that thing, the two are inseperable. It can be done though. Song of Ice and Fire has tons of likeable and sympathetic monarchic characters but the theme of 'feudalism is a pain machine that needs to end' still shines through.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
Swap the peas for mushroom and that's an incredible breakfast.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:Incredibly wrong, yes. Oscar Romeo Romeo posted:I hate peas but gently caress off vitty that thing is for the bin. How well do you people eat that you'd turn your nose up at that? You'd don't even have to finish it all but dip a sausage in a poached egg, spoon a bit of beans onto the toast wtf is wrong with you? I swear half this thread is "I spend £14 a week on food and get by" and the other half is on some Prince-Andrew-quail-egg-and-smoked-epicure business and there's zero in-between that's an excellent breakfast.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Who is erasing the concept of sex? Is that what rubbing one out means? Yeah I've never seen that argued, gender being a social construct that usually also expresses a sex is the basic bitch trans-accepting position and that obviously doesn't erase sex as a concept it just doesn't erase gender as a concept. Even if she is arguing against some specific fringe person imagine being rich enough that you could basically be doing anything with your time and this is what you do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Yeah, I said as much to a gammon on another forum. If anything the statue is more historically notable now than it was 24hrs ago - then it was just a controversial but uninteresting statue of a dead slave trader. Now it's The Statue That Was Pulled Down In The Protests Of June 2020. It has actual history in and of itself now, rather than merely commemorating a historical figure in an (at best) half-truthful way. That is a really interesting and solid argument god drat. The only valid argument, besides small-c-conservatism-for-the-sake-of-it which is a thing, for keeping the Bad Statues was that they were the product of a historically specific period of time and should be kept to help us reflect on that but why on earth isn't the present moment also historically specific? Even if someone absolutely whitewashes imperialism, slavery etc and tries to present the current situation as pure vandalism, destruction of heritage etc all that does is make everything morally-grey, if the same morally-grey tide of history that put the statues up then decides to tear them down and throw them in a river why is one historical moment objectively more valid than the other? You are absolutely dead right, put the busted up statue back up somewhere or keep it in the river, either way it's a more interesting thing than it was before.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:I think the right-wing talking points bot has spewed up a new angle, because I'm suddenly seeing lots of 'concerned citizens' saying that pulling down the statue was racist because the statue was made of black gunmetal, they used a rope (so it looked like a lynching!) and most of the 'baying mob' were white. Radlib IDpol poo poo is more useful to the right than it is to the left, I've been sayin', and seriously your instinct to mock it there is absolutely correct. No-one spitting out hot takes that The Lumpenpeople Are Actually Racist Because X gives the slightest gently caress about helping ethnic minority people have better lives, they especially aren't humanists that think everyone should have better lives, literally the only thing those 'concerned citizens' care about is delegitimising working class people having the gall to do things independently.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:yeah the right will dump bad faith Legitimate Concerns over any issue, don't see how that's an argument against identity politics (which is literally what BLM is) BLM isn't identity politics, it has actual statistics on it's side that black people in the US are objectively and provably more likely to be victims of police violence than citizens of other races are, that should and luckily does disgust people across racial boundaries and it's also intellectually unjustifiable, on first principles grounds it offends every ideology from ancaps to communists, basically everyone except the nazis, that's why it has such widespread support, even apolitical white people are on side from the last polls I saw. Degrading BLM to being just an expression of identity politics is loving grotesque tbh it objectively is more materially coherent, post-racially supported and objective than that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Yeah, I think 'modern slavery' works well to distinguish itself from chattel slavery, with all the implications that while the slaves aren't legally property, the authorities of austerity stripped states not being able to do anything about that past "we condemn all forms of slavery" leaving the slaves in functionally the same position. I think 'legal slavery' as it's own term makes more sense. If only to stop some pedant saying 'oh it's not technically slavery' about some sex-trafficked woman that can't speak english and has had their passport stolen and is systemically being used as a human product with zero recompense beyond basic survival needs and coincidentally has also been introduced to drugs by her abusers hmm yeah are we going to say that isn't functionally a slave? Or are we gonna pretend that the economic, sexist, nationalistic and racist power structures that also exist coincidentally just happened to create a functional slave class that is magically not slavery just because the legal structure wasn't involved (and also please ignore systemic failures of policing including that 90% of exposed prostution rings in the UK have had local police officers on the client list)? Slavery being only 'explicity legally sanctioned' is dumb as gently caress just call that 'legal slavery' don't pretend a woman literally locked in a basement with no bank account, passport or interaction outside the household isn't a slave. Vitamin P fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
bionic vapour boy posted:I went back to work slightly earlier than other retail workers (builders warehouse is more essential I guess) and other than supplying PPE they're doing uh, basically none of the poo poo they said they would in terms of limiting customers. It feels like there's this pervasive idea of Let's Get Back To Normal, Stop Messing About as if a virus is somehow going to be deterred by a stiff upper lip. Not retail but I'm back at work now helping get us ready to reopen and same, management don't give a poo poo. We made a plan of how we can minimise risk and honestly there were a few things on it I thought were a bit precious but even basic poo poo like 'give basement a lovely £100 laptop so rather than various people running downstairs with a physical piece of paper 9 times a day we email it to them', 'customer-facing staff should be allowed to wear masks if they want' and 'take the pointless loving timelock off the downstairs bathroom so staff can wash their hands when they get to work' is being rejected. Management themselves will of course be continuing to work from home for a period because There's No Point Risking Spread Of The Virus and they've already Adapted To Perform Their Role Despite Challenging Circumstances. They're so loving proud of themselves for managing to log into their work email from home and download Zoom it's loving repellant. The one bright point is that searching desperately for any positive measure we can take that they can't veto we asked in Whatsapp about peoples commutes to minimise public transport and literally every single member of staff that takes public transport can be carpooled into work for like 6 minutes extra travel for the drivers and everyone is really up for it. One staff member literally calculated how much the petrol would cost and promised to give driver the £2.16 each week and the woman giving her a lift said "That's ridiculous I'm happy to drive you in, I'll enjoy your company" it's genuinely nice how the staff have come together but yeah nothing wrong with being scared and you aren't crazy, your employers don't actually want you to die but they're perfectly comfortable with the The Logic Of The Market leading to it. Jose posted:litearlly none of the people being racist in the report have suffered any kind of punishment Never believed that Starmer wouldn't be absolutely terrible but him posting this sterile, posed, weak and profoundly fake photo while also condemning the Colston Owners pushed me over the edge I despise this piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
bessantj posted:Sorry to drop in the middle of jkr chat but has anyone here actually experienced white guilt? Someone I was having a chat with said that the only reason that white people were backing BLM was because of white guilt, I suggested that he was talking bollocks and no one I know has experienced white guilt but it did make me wonder if anyone I could speak to had actually experienced white guilt at all. Your friend is dumb as hell, if it was left-handed or green-eyed people getting disproportionately killed by police you wouldn't expect the opposition to that to exclusively come from left-handed or green-eyed people that doesn't change because the specific arbitrary characteristic is race. White people could back BLM because they aren't identitarians and feel sympathy/concern for people of other races, they could back BLM because they have black people in their lives that they like/love and would want to be protected from potential harm, they could back BLM because racially targeted killings offends their principles of justice and equality, your friends take is loving ridiculous (unironically has extremely good IDpol praxis though). To your question I definitely have experienced white guilt. Back in the day I was really active on progressive Tumblr performatively unlearning my whiteness and all that shite and looking back it was really negative, not in a 'push through the difficulty to emerge stronger' way but just in a 'every single thing you've achieved is because you were born white don't feel any pride in it whatsoever, the world would probably be better if you weren't born and that feeling can't be alleviated in any dependable way because any poc poster is your moral and intellectual superior no matter how dumb or cruel their take is, and oh by the way there's no actual plan or structure to any of this except you are bad'. If you're already sort of alienated and get into a toxic space like that, and you think it's the intellectually sound and morally correct framework, of course you're gonna feel an aimless sure but still really sincere guilt. Vitamin P fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jun 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
Yes and no. 'Guilt' is absolutely different to 'verdict', like someone can be objectively guilty of a crime but not feel any guilt or remorse for it just like they can not give a homeless chap a quid because they didn't want to faff about opening their bag but then feel genuinely guilty about it 15 seconds later. Guilt is amorphous and vague and saying "you're not prepared to deal with" it is kind of a dumb take because it's not 'verdict', it's not that concrete or simple, a constructed process for how every specific person should deal with their varying feelings of guilt for varying crimes/not-crimes in the varying circumstances that informed them is genuinely impossible it's a ridiculuous expectation it's pure rhetoric.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Guilt the emotion, not the legal concept. I know you're not stupid enough to sincerely think that post was about legalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:also Voldemort and the fash wizards and all the people saying "mudbloods". Is she Harry or Hermione when the latter's trying to liberate the slaves and the lads are all "hahahahaha imagine, thinking elves deserve to be free hahahaha" 🤔 Anyone that dunks on the Harry Potter books for not supporting our current astute political readings of the text but also somehow didn't twig that the fictional S.P.E.W. the Society for the Promotion of Elvish Welfare might actually be an extremely obvious reference to actual historical S.P.E.W. the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women and riffs as though they aren't also an idiot needs to be burned alive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Angepain posted:question time doing a great job as usual Without watching any of it I'd bet elderly black Sepiroth on the middle left ended the state funded Discourse Period feeling frustrated.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:Yeah the solution isn't to let Labour lose, it's to build our movement outside of the party and drag the cunts to the left by physical force This is probably the only way, that's actually quite scary because there doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion of what that movement would actually be and look like, for what's it worth a hundred independently valid small things that all agree on one big thing is the only method I can imagine, but that doesn't mean abandoning Labour. Building that movement isn't exclusive to also being in Labour and occasionally voting to make the party minorly less lovely, especially I think highlighting and exacerbating the contradictions between the leadership/membership could be really useful over the next 5 years. But biggest thing is that 'dragging the cunts to the left' is much more likely to succeed if the cunts that would resist being dragged are relatively weaker internally than if they are stronger internally. Big Talk here but I'm starting to think the next 5 years are actually a fantastic moment for the UKMT to join Labour, not in the sense of being activists that knock the doors they're told to in that specific month before an election but in a local leadership way. This thread is a resource that the myriad careerist right wing cunts that are currently trying to use literally your local branch to build their political CV with don't have but you do, just as you also have at least some moral clarity, a sincere desire to help the working class, a sincere desire to stop black people getting murdered by police etc etc material concerns that are only going to become more relevant over the next 5 years. And being serious why not? Why shouldn't you be a local councillor or have a bigwig role/be influential in the local party apparatus? Why does it always have to be someone that thinks Jess Philips is good actually? It's not the revolution but it's something 90% of the posters here would be better at doing than the alternatives so why let them just have it, get in the local game. Gonzo McFee posted:https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1272462537062318080 Paywalled too obviously, he's such a streak of poo poo, but what possible argument is there for not letting people declare their own gender? It's loving culture war poo poo, yes Boris was trying to bait him but what does Starmer actually gain by being Above It All? The answer is literally nothing; he fucks off trans people obviously, he fucks off people that happen to have a trans person they like/love in their lives, he still looks weak to transphobes and legitimately doesn't even actually satisfy the liberal TERFs, those people don't want recognition of their argument they want full-blooded support no matter how many suicides it leads to. Starmer is the most popular opposition leader in history or whatever that poll said but calling it, there's no political nous or strategic calculus to his achievement it's literally just that one not-tory leader is being soft-balled while the previous not-tory leader had the statistically harshest press coverage in the history of the UK, by a country mile btw, and the tory-imposed material conditions are still lovely so the dislike for them is there and is just looking for acceptable expression. Vitamin P fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jun 16, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
radmonger posted:According to the polling companies that get elections right, 4% of the voting populace describe themselves as left wing. That’s not nothing, but it’s not a lot. But basically every vaguely populist left-wing policy position out there polls extremely well, what's your point? If someone wants the railways renationalised, free childcare, more social housing, lower rents, an end to foreign wars and no more PFI in their local hospital but still doesn't describe themselves as left-wing that smells more like systemic opportunity than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Cerv posted:of Starmer's faults I don't think we can blame him for Murdoch corp's pricing model yeah fair cop, in my defence he does have form for shadow-miniesterial-articles-as-policy-position paywall shenanigans but yeah you're right there
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I wonder what the the choice is between "an opponent who hates you and is transparently evil" and "an opponent who hates you but is institutionally disguised in your own symbology, rhetoric, and gives the appearance of friendship" It's very obviously a meaningful choice, the former is actively incentivised to escalate force against you while the latter will be forced to hesitate before escalating to a then more limited force against you, because the latter is bound by that shared spectrum of symbology, rhetoric and appearance of friendship because they don't know where exactly their various supporters are on that spectrum so don't know know how hard they can go, it's inherently a limiting factor in their ability to do harm and forcibly stop revolutionary change which the former party doesn't suffer from. If both parties are bourgeois and hate you, but one is systemically weaker at using the force of the state to crush you because it would be institutionally more hesitant to impose martial law, put the muslims in death camps, impose explicit censorship, BOOTS ON THE GROUND TO PROTECT CHURCHILL (oh that was a spook lol guess we've normalised military police tho), end womens suffrage etc then even if you think electoralism is fake it still benefits you to have the weaker, more bound bourgeois party as your governmental opposition. And honestly I'm not an anti-accelerationist dude at all but it has to be intellectual and with a plan, "bloo bloo Labour and the tories are both bad so for me it's neither" is weak as gently caress there are obviously marginalised people that would be hurt more by bourgeois tories than bourgeois labour it's loving cruel and lying to pretend otherwise. Nothingtoseehere posted:Thanks to capitalisms continued destruction of local communities for not making a profit, for many people work is their main outlet for social interaction - especially those who have had to move for jobs and don't have any roots in a local area. The sudden severing of those connections has cut many people socialization off - primarily single people, whether single parents or just young adults. Yeah it's kind of sad but even though none of us want to be there, and we all feel a wierd amorphous guilt/fear/anger that we're spreading or contracting the virus for no reason other than to help the shareholders afford more child prostitutes, it has been really nice being around the work friends again this week.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
TACD posted:Today, she got in touch with HR to ask about her paycheck and surprise surprise, it turns out that “100% pay for 9 days’ holiday” actually means “we retroactively declared 9 furlough days as holiday and topped up the pay for those days to 100%”. I’ve told her to email HR clearly stating that’s not what she was told, not what she agreed to, and to ask them to confirm those days will not be considered holiday. (And if they refuse, that she should go to an employment lawyer.) My work is trying to do this too, apparently those 'putting tape down at intervals and arranging no-one takes the bus into work so we maybe might not get sued' skills are so important I was allowed into an upstairs meeting today and back-dating furlough days to magically have been holiday was discussed as a cost-saving measure. For what it's worth my management seemed most discombobulated by a potential email chain with an employee constantly saying that non-essential workers following the lockdown was a government order and that they couldn't perform their role with the business being closed anyway and that's not a holiday period, so I'd say do that. Make a paper trail of that discussion and they won't have a leg to stand on and they do know it. Missold PPI is gonna be replaced by furlough abuse on the radio adverts, businesses are just taking the piss.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:He started a new job at Manchester Uni just before the covids. So yeah its basically Owen Jones and that's it now. Aditya Chakrabortty is also pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
TACD posted:For those people heavily invested in my partner's lovely boss and the time-travelling holidays: Good news! She sent the sternly-worded email yesterday evening and around lunchtime today got a reply from her boss in a tone I'd describe as business grovelling apologising for the misunderstanding and asking her to instead take eight days of holiday a couple of weeks from now, with uncharacteristically extensive quotes from company policy that implied he'd received a very serious talking-to from HR and/or the general manager for his cavalier loving about. Nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Wonder if any paper is going to observe that the disunity was caused entirely by the Labour right refusing to work with Corbyn and actively sabotaging him, therefore ahahahahahaha gently caress no they won't it's time to make sure Corbyn's dead and buried The Guardian covering the anti-semitism stuff so deeply and then paying absolutely no attention to the massive revelation that internal elements were sabotaging the direct handling of complaints, a development that recontextualises the entire story, is so loving blackpilling. They never gave the slightest poo poo about anti-semitism as an objective issue. They were just doing a smear campaign. And honestly it bums me out just in a really earnest let's-be-nice way, there were party members spouting hateful poo poo about Jewish people and the right wing of the party deliberately conspired to keep those people as members for longer, they deliberately delayed the expulsions and allowed those people to claim the sociopolitical credibility of a major party, that's a big loving deal they actively promoted the political legitimisation of people they knew were anti-semites it's loving disgusting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:A better comparison is to plot minimum wage against median wage, since it reflects how minimum wage workers do compared to 'average' workers better. It's better than plotting against average wage obviously but I've never understood why there's any point plotting against median wage either, if the argument against poverty wages is still tacitly 'get a better job/move' then as a logical neccessity those living standards are the only meaningful data point. If as a society we've accepted that those jobs need to be done and we've agreed the recompense for the work then there's no wriggling out of it, those roles are essential, legitimate work and the living standards of those workers should be the baseline, if the 'average' or the 'median' earns more then cool those people can go on holidays or start a Space Marine army, I genuinely don't understand why any arbitrary metric except the poorest on-the-books workers is actually relevant in the slightest. Sure it's been pointed out but the reopening oh-so-coincidentally being the 4th of July gives me a deep sense of dread this is a loving Breitbart government. Vitamin P fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Angepain posted:ok i don't know what the precise limit to how much Posting About Graham Linehan the thread can take but i just wanted to share this wonderful clip where Graham complains about how Google is pushing the trans agenda by not promoting the three or so flawed studies that terfs trot out every time they need a sciencey-looking number, and instead showing studies that must be wrong because they show being trans is a thing, actually I don't know what I'm meant to be outraged about that just seems like every other Zoom call, wretched and depressing, but yo Linehams a Douglas Murray poster? Douglas Murray is legit the most interesting and meaningfully establishment influential person living today that is also a crypto-nazi, and that's me saying that cunts here call me a crypto-nazi well here's your actual real deal, this piece of poo poo needs more attention paid to him. I'm gonna effort-post about this charismatic oval office someday but as a general rule anyone who uncritically cites Murray is dogwhistling/is an actual fascist Lineham needs to crawl into a cave, Vitamin P fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Also gently caress me if the forums are going I'd better hurry up this loving deep level air raid shelters post. You have an actually-readable-local-working-class-history book in those posts, if the forums close I hope you have the posts saved remotely because they are actually a thing, license a few relevant photos and it's a legit product. Sort of baffled at how many people appreciate the UKMT but don't post, there's no quality control most of the posts are bad don't feel shy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:Several years ago one of my friends said "as soon as I get paid for something I immediately resent it and lose interest" Seems like something that nobody who's ever actually been poor would say but okay. I'm saying providing people outside the UKMT a potential method to access the legit good content would be cool and if it brings in a few quid too that's no sin.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
penus de milo posted:Pretty sure that resenting and having no interest in a thing you get paid for is a thing everybody who has been poor can identify with Resenting the situation or being bored by the work broadly isn't the same as resenting and losing interest in the particular specific thing that is giving you the money you need to not die. If doing a late shift at the soul-destroying call centre is the difference between making rent in two days or not no-one is resenting that extra shift and they don't find the concept of that extra shift boring either it's acutely interesting because it's their human needs being met or not. The experience of living on low-paid work is boring and breeds resentment but the actual material act is something you set an alarm to show up to do and every day you prioritise doing it over every other element of your life. The 'once I get paid I've been sullied by the dollar and my interest fllits elsewhere' idea is scummy as gently caress congrats on being rich enough that you can divide your labour not by survival but by whim.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
namesake posted:Alternatively: You've recognised union bureaucracy and then suggested that a Dynamic New Link to an organised working class is a medium-term achievable goal in the same paragraph, and then you recognise that your one historical example of how fptp can be thwarted only succeeded because much stronger, much less centralised unionised workers made the difference. Saying 'we'll just do that again' when you've admitted in the same post that the key element couldn't be replicated today doesn't make any sense. Your argument assumes a historically unprecedentedly, incredibly strong/competent/effective party can just emerge and that we should put all our chips on that unlikelihood and like, no? That's obviously not a good gamble? And it's not about committing to a decades long campaign under some particular flag, it was nice when we had that for a bit but now we don't, so any hope for positive change will neccessarily have to be a combination of different methods and endeavours that can hopefully be coalesced together but even then why would you want the British Labour party to be more not less sympathetic to that movement? Even if it's just to have them cucked and inclined to coalition/being bullied by you rather than them actively amplifying the stamp-down of your hypothetical movement? If you see Labour as an enemy then why would you not encourage saboteurs, even from an abolutist anti-electoralism stance it still makes no sense to encourage surrendering Labour.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Jose posted:honestly might just not vote next election depending on my options lol "won't vote against the tories" is a new level of wanker congrats
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
namesake posted:My point was 'well we're trapped in FPTP, guess we'd better continue to throw our lot in with the rightwing dickheads and wait for them to gently caress up' is not the only way of proceeding. Political power exists outside of electoral politics and can be seized upon, if you assume that parliament won't be providing solutions to the problems in society then building and influencing if not controlling those sections of power is actually preferable to having parliamentary power. Your first point yes, just blindly voting Labour and thinking that's enough is obviously insufficient. Parliament not being a panacea doesn't mean we shouldn't use Parliament for harm-reduction and reducing the legitimisation and potence of negative forces. And yeah staying in Labour will mean biting your tongue and playing along with evil bullshit for a bit, loving get over yourself hide your power level to stay useful to the cause and also help build the other power structures that we need, those approaches aren't mutually exclusive. Your fudge that it requires "independence from current Labour Party attitudes" is obviously the case but also a non-statement, none of us believe in the evil Starmer poo poo anyway we're already divorced from those attitudes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
namesake posted:If you can't advertise your politics you can't recruit to them, if advertising your politics get you kicked out the Labour Party then...... Either you believe in parallel power structures or you don't, don't gotcha your own argument. You can run a food bank and locally organise/radicalise while still not being banned from Labour if you stay calm on Twitter this "advertise your politics" is an electoralism thing you've just now decided matters as a dumb fake counterpoint, it contradicts your earlier position.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
ronya posted:A great deal of that skew seems to be crime and punishment: death penalty, harsher sentencing. There is no longer that famed decades-long majority support for the death penalty amidst the equally-firm elite majority against it, but it's still a high level of support Yeah the actual questions they used feel almost a decade old the social stuff is meaningless. The only takeaway from it is 'people who vote tory that are on less than £70k a year are loving rubes' and we did know that. ThomasPaine posted:Social liberalism is an illusion that I don't really think has ever existed or ever can exist. Every freedom promised by liberalism has come from a desire to maintain markets and trade and profits, and every supposedly liberal country has been more than willing to get the truncheons out when people start to use their apparent freedom to attack those commercial interests. A state where everyone can do whatever they want at all times can't also be a state where everyone is provided the means to meaningfully be who they want to be. Sometimes genuine freedom has to be imposed by authoritarian means. (/Rousseau) Social liberalism isn't an illusion that hasn't/can't exist because it's not a binary on/off thing it's a spectrum. A country that criminalises homosexuality is less socially liberal and shittier than a country that doesn't, just because capitalism perverts and exploits everything, and liberalism is particularly vulnerable to it, that doesn't mean social liberalism itself is inherently suspect. If two societies both have the working class being stamped into the dirt but one allows trans people to express their gender that is the better society even if both are still poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Jose posted:migration watch are going to be extremely angry Migrant Watch have gotten quite tepidly pissed off but broader racists probably won't care too much, people from Hong Kong don't set off the psychosexual fear like north African or muslim people do. Alt-righter perspective will see 3 million high-IQ submissive grateful immigrants, half of which are waifu material, coming as a managed immigration bloc while also bumping up the raw number as basically okay and even an opportunity to usefully muddy the anti-migration discourse waters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Stop posting Glenn Greenwald. Is this meant to be some damning indictment of Greenwald? The voters/members/MPs graphs a few pages back in this very thread showed that tory leadership is incredibly more economically right wing/anti-populist than tory voters are, there's a real vulnerability there which is why they're jumping on every possible culture war spark to try and make fetch a thing and stop people talking about the money. It's also why the entire renewed critique of Corbyn was top-down imposed amorphous He A Bad Man or culture war poo poo, if left-wing economic ideas get a hearing then working class people across the spectrum do hear them, see UK 2017. Right-wing populism is suspect because it correctly identifies problems but then has no actual solutions to them, or it uses the 'those darn globalist elites' righteous anger to try and sneak in it's actual, sinister proposals, I think it's an overblown dumb meme but if that's the term we're apparently using for traditionally right wing voters that have noticed inequality is kind of bad actually then what's the actual argument for not talking to, sympathising with the actual shared problems and trying to convert these people? The lefty arguments against economic inequality are far stronger than anything the right can begrudgingly offer so why not, you have nothing to lose and a strong chance to gain. This take of "Stop posting X" is just so stupid and counterproductive. Try and enforce a fruity little echo-chamber literally everywhere and think it's praxis or whatever if you want but it's a dogshit strategy, and btw Greenwalds close posts against Bolsonaro have probably done more to hamper the actual growth of an actual fascism than most of us here can claim to have achieved. Vitamin P fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jul 2, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What do you think the word "fruity" means? Performative and cosseted.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:I don't really get what GG is asking for though..antifa to work with fascists against the centrists? Haven't listened to the specific podcast at the end of the article but the general argument he's been making and the broader populist left/populist right discourse discussion is that the left should stop being obnoxious cunts, if someone wants 90% of the meaningful economic changes you do but they're also imperfect in some culture war way then if you just nope them it literally only helps capital and no-one else. Which is entirely true btw. I disagree with the idea the populist right is actually a thing intellectually though, I think it's just bigots adapting to the worsening economic conditions and there's no potential future alignment with like Tucker Carlson or whatever, but even though "right-wing populism" is a fake meme the normal humans it's manipulating do exist and we should be manipulating them too rather than jacking off calling them nazis etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What you call "imperfect in some culture war way" usually means being opposed to the entire existence of some of our comrades. It is not a thing that can be simply ignored, nor is it the fault of the left when they take issue with it. gently caress off, either claim there's no class barrier to the new cultural language or say you think poor people are evil don't hedge like 'will absolutely call a transwoman lass but has never heard of a nimby' isn't a thing, and don't you dare imply a hatefullness that doesn't actually exist. "Opposed to the entire existence" gently caress off don't lie that people are worse than they actually are. Comrade Fakename posted:Lol, a lot of words to justify why it’s okay that GG is revealing himself to be A-OK with fascism as long as it doesn’t effect him personally. “Trump was cool and good until he got elected and didn’t follow through with his campaign promises” is a hell of a take. GG is obviously observably not a-ok with fascism, he's done more to fight it than you have, and yeah no poo poo the BNP as a small party tried to wrap itself in lefty rhetoric when convenient? Right wing populists can identify problems to sneak in sinister solutions you're making the same point I was.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
Red Oktober posted:They all just print the quotes without any actual thought or intelligence, it’s so loving frustrating. Literally all of our institutions are broken. feels bad man.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:Rayner has always struck me as someone who actually has principles. Not sure how long she'll be prepared to go along with all the poo poo that Starmer's been saying and doing. Rayner definitely has principles, but they're stupid dogshit principles that poo poo on actually important principles. Like she still hasn't actually walked back this disgusting poo poo https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-rayner-ban-anonymous-social-media-abuse-labour-facebook-twitter-a8551716.html all she's done is said 'issues are complex', she's actively anti-enlightenment and genuinely thinks plebs being polite cattle is preferrable to them being sometimes obnoxious humans, she's low-key more authoritarian than even the New Labour cabinets were. Rayner is Rees Mogg-tier, stupid piece of poo poo with immediately harmful views that needs to be excluded from power at all costs. She'll go along with Starmer forever too btw there's no rebellion happening there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2020 23:43
|
|