Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

NotJustANumber99 posted:

Rather than going home and cooking some food. The being waited on even if it's a shithole with a tray. You're still being served. For every meal.

Centralised food preparation is vastly more efficient from pretty much every angle, including waste management, than everyone cooking individually though.

National Kitchens should absolutely be on the manifesto of any vaguely Leftist party.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Desiderata posted:

Wow, they finally did it. Even out of office, they are still driven to crush him.

Seriously... You do have to wonder if he had actually won 2019, if they would have just gone full Bolivian coup style on that election and in that alternate timeline we would all currently be in Red Brigades, defending the last redoubts in the north from the encroaching Nationalist militias.

Edit: Seriously what's that phrase for the using the legal system to depose leftist leaders in south america again?

Lawfare

E;fb

Active Quasar fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Oct 29, 2020

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

therattle posted:

Right. Tone-deaf. Apart from being distressing, and feeling like he’s dodging the specific issue, it’s bad politics. Did Abbott receive harassment from within the party as well as without?

Large amounts of explicitly racist abuse, yes.

Julio Cruz posted:

how hard do you have to be clutching at straws when your main attack on Corbyn is “he didn’t condemn antisemitism, he condemned antisemitism and other forms of racism too :qq:

Particularly in the context of the Blairite war against Muslims. Probably important to ensure that the ethnicity that the party had previously been disappearing into torture camps doesn't feel sidelined in the "fighting racism" mission.

Active Quasar fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Nov 1, 2020

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

G1mby posted:

To be fair, I'll agree that it can come across as a bit "All lives matter". And while we can probably say that BAME targeted or Islamophobia or anti-traveller racism may be a larger problem in British society as a whole than AS that's not (as it appears from therattle) how it should be addressed when you are being asked about AS in particular. There is, after all, plenty of time to discuss those in different settings.

Weirdly enough the time to discuss those in different settings never materialised.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011
Now that the NEC election is over. Is there any reason to stay in the party? My wife explicitly asked me to leave today because of the whole "racism is now fine if it's the right marginalised group" shebang.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

CGI Stardust posted:

The press only treated Corbyn in the best of faith


1984 convinced me that the mind control would be subtle and delicate: Individual changes in specific wordings across every piece of archived misinformation but nope, turns out dumb and stupid works just as well because all people really want is an excuse to kick down, no matter how flimsy.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

forkboy84 posted:


Corbyn was soft & thought the best of people & squandered quite possibly the only chance the left will have to take power in our lifetime because he was too nice & I doubt I'll ever forgive him for that.


There's no way he ever would have been allowed to win. If he had purged the party, capital would have made absolutely sure that the libs became the new opposition.

This just isn't fight that can be won via electoralism. Corbyn proved that once and for all in a way that wouldn't have been so clear if he'd fought dirty. The real war can start now.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

Yes I think it was the panicked (or calculated) move to do a second referendum that probably did a good proportion of the damage for labour.
Just about everyone I know from either remain or leave camp just wanted it over and done with. I also had a heated discussion with one of my brothers who is more left than me and would normally have voted labour under Corbyn, but extremely pro EU and who voted libdem because they were the party promising to stop 'leave' even though there wasn't a chance in hell of that happening and a leave agreement under someone who actually cares about people instead of the self-serving, personal wallet-stuffing tories would have been the best chance.
The smears did have a big effect too though especially the ones which might hit the pockets of the >£80k earners (never could figure out why people in a country where the median income is under £30k and where only 5% of people earn more than £80k seemed to think labour was coming for their wallets, I do not know.) And the purported 'anti-military, pro-terror' smears. I don't think most people gave a poo poo about anti-semitism allegations, I doubt half the country even knows what that is. But it was just another 'nasty smell about corbyn'.

The antisemitism stuff is basically a shibboleth to allow the Liberals to attack minorities and the young whilst feeling like they are the good guys. When the only thing holding them back was their own self-perception of being on the Right Side Of History, providing a band-aid for just that was a winning move.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011
The libs won because they control the media. They have actual power and leverage. Until the left can get mass demonstrations causing actual economic damage, no amount of electoralism will do a thing. The left keep trying to go into gunfights with a toothpick.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

namesake posted:

This'll work until some random person at a hustings asks them something like 'What makes your platform different from the Tories?' and they make an absolute arse of themselves.

If centrist dads in America can be convinced that there's "light years" between Biden and Trump then centrist dads in the UK can be convinced of the isomorphic equivalent.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

Just another example of why you shouldn't trust someone to look out for you on the grounds of shared race or religion or anything else if they have power and you do not.

E: whatevil's post, not the podcast.

The Bund absolutely recognised this fact

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

feedmegin posted:

Modern Hebrew has vowel markers iirc

Niqqud are over a thousand years old and do more than just vowels, e.g. differentiate between 's' and 'sh' depending on where they are placed on ש. What modern Hebrew has is a method of spelling WITHOUT Niqqud כתיב מלא, ktiv mala), which uses letters as vowels.

Yiddish is pretty close to that (because modern Hebrew cribs a bunch from Yiddish...) and also uses letters to represent vowels, and also markers derived from Niqqud, confusingly, although these are optional and you can usually work out what's going on. Yiddish uses Hebrew as a true alphabet rather than an abjad.

Miftan posted:

The five actual vowels: three different A sounds, an OO/O sound, and an EE sound.

Worth pointing out that one of those vowels also doubles as the consonant 'v' because why not.

Edit: Generally niqqud are utterly useless for modern times because they don't actually represent the spoken pronunciation anymore. You'll be totally surprised to hear that there are multitudes of language purists who refuse to even consider the idea of updating them so the end result is nobody bothers with them.

Editedit:

Miftan posted:

e: I scrolled back to the bagel argument. I'm not sure about Yiddish but bagel in Hebrew is spelled in a weird way that involves the EE vowel (twice in quick succession) and the 'eh' vowel marker on the B sound. It is prounounced bay-gel (hard g), but also actually has a separate Hebrew word despite everyone calling it by its english name.
The Yiddish is:
בווגל

I've never seen it written with a tzere on the bet in Hebrew though.

Active Quasar fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Nov 19, 2020

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Miftan posted:

Really interesting about the Yiddish though! Is it still pronounced bagel or more like bvegel? This thread is now a Yiddish Appreciation Zone, No Corbyns Allowed.

Actually that was me hitting vav on the phone when I should have been hitting yod (thread NB: These two visually similar letters are right next to each other becauae, again, why not). Shouldn't be posting in abjads-as-alphabets so late at night. בייגל is correct. Apologies!

You don't need the tzere/segol for the eh, because יי in Yiddish makes the long a (EY) all by itself, as in אוי וויי (oy vey).

Active Quasar fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Nov 19, 2020

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

ThomasPaine posted:

Mao's Little Red Book is also extremely good but let's not go there lol

His essay "combat liberalism" is probably a more accessible read and also just generally spot on.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Nothingtoseehere posted:

combat liberalism is just a Linkedin rant dressed up in communist language.

Why should Liberals be the only ones who get to rant.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Nothingtoseehere posted:

Sure, but it's not like it's any profound statements.

I have genuinely seen it change minds. "Standing up to Liberals' ideological bullshit" is a hugely relevant point to be hammered home after the Corbyning happened. It doesn't have to be profound. Sometimes pointing things out in a certain phrasing is enough.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011
Given that actual Jews were successfully smeared by the hard right of the party as anti-Semitic, and given the treatment of JVL, it's clear that there is no magic trick here. History has shown over and over that appeasement doesn't work. The left needs to stop trying, denounce the apartheid regime for what it is and stop compromising principles. Compromise with people who want to destroy you will never work: It's just voluntarily losing.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Bobstar posted:

The problem is that it's gone:

1. Consequences happen because of convention and gentlemen's agreements
2. Those in power realise that you can just ignore point 1
3. ????
4. There are consequences again

Where point 3 either has to involve those in power spontaneously becoming honourable again, or enacting official routes to consequence.

3 is the left rebuilding its ability to do economic damage.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

multijoe posted:

Honestly being a Jewish leftist inside the Labour Party must drive you to madness

When I shaved my sheloshim beard last year, after my father died, the only thing I could think of was how the hard right destroyed the relationship I used to have with my dad. I don't think I will ever be able to let go of that bitterness.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Gonzo McFee posted:

A question I have is why a need to slap down any criticism of Israel is on the Rise in the UK while even in America it's becoming less and less popular and more the niche interest in Boomer Evangelists.

Because the rulers of the UK have a particularly strong need to demonise muslims.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

WhatEvil posted:

No they are absolutely not.


Seconding this. Plenty of the other racisms get AS folded in as "Jews control the savage <MINORITY> to displace the noble white". That open racism is still pretty niche, even in the South, though because dog whistles work so hard.

The structural racism that the dems also support tends to ignore Jews though (at least I've never heard of the cops murdering Jews).

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

therattle posted:

Yes. It changes the environment. It's an authority figure presenting a different view. It doesn't condone and embolden hatred. Actions speak louder than words, sure, but words still have some power.


That why I wrote about not understanding Likud's endgame. How can it lead to any kind of sustainable outcome? If they are so intent on preserving Israel, how does their strategy lead to a long-term peaceful solution? (On the basis that a perpetual conflict is not sustainable). Leaving aside the immorality of it, I don't even see how it works. And the cost to a society of participating in or being complicit in that level of oppression is deeply unhealthy. Even if one doesn't give a gently caress about Palestinians I can't see how it works out well for Israel in the long-term.

Likud doesn't give a gently caress about any kind of endgame. It's purely about Bibi drumming up racism to stay in power for as long as possible.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Miftan posted:

The Israeli right's plan is and always has been perpetual conflict where they can make sure they're always on top with PR to keep the rest of the world on board. This sometimes extends to trading favours with other awful regimes - military aid for UN support etc. Pretty sure we have proof at this point of Israel selling weapons/training to the junta in Argentina in the 70s who literally disappeared thousands of jews. The other side of the coin is internally they use enough terrorism (bombing, assassinations, blackmail of LGBT palestinians, crushing protests with overwhelming force, arresting people without trial for months or years on end, not giving palestinians any rights, etc etc etc) to keep palestinians scared and "in their place". That's it, that's the long term plan: "If they don't bother us and do what we say we won't kill them all"

I genuinely think this is overthinking things. Bibi has committed a ton of crimes and is basically open for justice as soon as he's out of power. He's clinging on minute by minute as things fall apart around him. The only response of such "leadership" will always be violence.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Miftan posted:

You might be right about bibi specifically, but I was talking about the Israeli right and Likud in general. Pre and post bibi. That's the Israeli "moderate right" btw. It's without getting into the israeli far right who are jewish supremacists, sometimes to the point where if you switch the ethnicities around you couldn't tell them apart from actual nazis.

Likud are far-right and Jewish supremacists (and let's be honest, they are Ashkenazi supremacists) The fact that some people are even more extreme doesn't negate that. "Moderate" is a term that the right use to normalize their poison and I'll have none of it.

I agree with you in general though but i also think that right now, it's all about Bibi.

Edit: It's insane that the UK left has to consider Israeli politics.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Miftan posted:

The " " I put moderate right in was supposed to be sarcastic, it's all on a scale that starts at the BNP and ends at actual nazism with regards to social issues and I/P. Don't get me start about the economic bullshit.

Fair. Tone often gets lost on the internet.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Not So Fast posted:

Not defending the CCP remotely, but the "social credit" system isn't quite as bad as Black Mirror - not yet anyway.

https://www.wired.com/story/china-social-credit-score-system/

How is a "credit score" not literally a "social credit" system? It's basically a measure of how good a conformist you are (much much more so in America than in the UK, it must be said).

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Soricidus posted:

There’s a hint in the missing word. A credit score doesn’t care about social anything, it’s purely about your participation in capitalism.

That was kinda my point really. The CCP have a "good communist" score and we have a "good capitalist" score.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Nothingtoseehere posted:

that's just reduced to the point of absurdy though. A number private firms use about lending money to you is very different to a actively-state sponsored numerical activities.

I've mainly interacted with the US system and its used for a hell of a lot more than just lending money.

E.g. USCIS will make decisions based on this score.

Edit: Also I know for a fact that financial jobs in the UK will also look up your credit score history Mine was also checked when I applied for a DBS to work with children.

Active Quasar fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Nov 22, 2020

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

goddamnedtwisto posted:

My credit score doesn't change if I jaywalk though.

Jaywalking doesn't make you a bad capitalist.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

goddamnedtwisto posted:

The one with the DBS is a Transunion identity check, not a credit check, like with the covid tests. I mean it's still sketchy as gently caress, but it's a different kind of sketchy.

(Playing capitalists advocate as well - if I were employing someone handling cash I'd probably want to know whether or not they owed £20k to a company called "Big Sergei's Totally Legitimate Internet Gambling" before I gave them the keys to the unmarked nonsequential notes cupboard)

I definitely got a credit check at the same time so maybe it was the charity itself running it.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons behind these things I'm just pointing out that analogues exist over here too. The importance of credit scores is vastly higher in the US (as I originally mentioned) but the basic idea is there in the UK too.

As an example, a US citizen family member got told earlier in the year that she needed to spend more on credit to get her score higher. She was recently told to spend less as spending too much (and repaying) had caused her score to drop. This isn't just a case of broad stroke "are you a risk", that is actually finessing someone's economic behaviour into a defined range of acceptability.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Vitamin P posted:

The argument that any discussion of trans people needs to have a trans person in the room is just silly, purely from numbers most of these discussions will be between cis people and they'll be arguing from principles not experience, implying all those discussions are inherently illegitimate is counterproductive and dumb. It would be nice to have more trans people in the media sure but don't be so precious and kneejerk.

All discussions about minority groups to now be conducted by old white Tory males. Such is the white man's burden.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011
There is an absolute gigantic difference between a mass-broadcast interview and "telling bigoted guy in the pub to gently caress off"

Edit: Beaten by OF

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011
Having actual minorities, of any ilk, up on public broadcast is cool and good because then people can see that they are just normal, boring folks. Having two "advocates" instead makes it so much easier to other the subject of the discussion.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011
Top notch dog.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

OzyMandrill posted:

English don't hate the Scots. They don't care. If it's a marriage, Scotland is the trophy wife kept at home while England spends all their time pissing about with their drunken posh boy mates.

They hate "uppity" Scotts plenty.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

WhatEvil posted:

I've just skimmed over the last 4 pages of the thread getting trolled again by a low-effort shitposter, so apologies if this has already been posted, but this is a good video:

https://twitter.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1331910592446263298?s=20

(despite the clickbait title)

Naomi is such a good egg. Every time I've had a chance to talk to her she's just been the kind of kindly lefty grandma you'd want in your life.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Zero Gravitas posted:

High effort if you please

It's the same recycled centrist stuff we've seen a hundred times before, similarly without any analysis as to why the previous two centrists failed so badly and without any reflection on how the change in Brexit policy might have have affected things. That's low-effort, bordering on trolling. If you want to seriously engage in an adult discussion then you do actually need to be able to reflect on yourself as well.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Zero Gravitas posted:

Nah, I don't think a lot of what came my way was what we could call "adult discussion".

Throwing insults for putting forward a different point of view that Starmer might have the temerity to expect the loyalty of the party as leader every bit as much as corbyn did isn't the essence of reasoned or balanced discussion and the lot of you sincerely need to think about how you come across in your own moments of reflection much as I am now as I apologise for a combative attitude.

"Centrist" shouldn't be spat, the dialogue should be open and writing people off immediately for the wrong opinions isnt the way forward either for the thread or the party.

The thread has given me some things to think about, but God do you guys need to figure something out for the future because right now youre like that caption for theme hospital nurses, smouldering wreckage, burning up with hate.

Your very first post was going on about the "Corbyn cult" and was followed with some pretty pointless one-liners that we've all seen a hundred times.

If you want to engage seriously then initiating a discussion,in your very first sentence, by throwing insults is not an adult way to proceed. Getting upset that, having barged into a group with that level of tone, you are met in kind, is also not an adult way to reflect on where things went. It is exceedingly silly to think that this level of crocodile tears is not only going to be immediately obvious for what it is, but will also not be met with the disdain it deserves.

Stop throwing stones in glass houses.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

OwlFancier posted:

I'll say this for the right, when they lose they aren't so desperate to internalize and blame themselves for the loss that they experience loving ego death or whatever and completely abandon the actual poo poo they want, if anything it only makes them more clear about what they want. What they want is disgusting, but they know what it is, and they've only gotten more and more clear about it over the years.

Mostly the right are driven by power and use principles to attain that. The left are driven by principles and (mostly fail to) use power to attain that.

The "principled" right have given up plenty, at least in terms of their public media image: Hatred of homosexuals, defense of paedophiles, antisemitism, support for globalism. Sure they've adopted other godawful things in their place but they show a surprising willingness to tack with the wind. Once May was gone, she was gone, as will Johnson. They are after all only tools to maintain the power of the aristocracy.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

TheRat posted:

Good lord this really is the most easy to troll thread on the forums

That's a good sign that people haven't yet given into fatalistic detachment.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply