|
Was Bovril not good for kids? The line at the bottom of this poster seems weird.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Dead silent here. I think people are done with clapping atm.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
It really does feel that for a lot of people in charge teh 90's never stopped. It's just the same old people in charge and refusing to change or grow in any way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Rishi Sunak as Mac from It's always sunny.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Edward did the ultimate faux pas that you could do as a Royal, he did a charity thing with oiks that actually raised money instead of them spending the oiks money. Huh, when/ what was this?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:That 'Its a Royal Knockout' he organized. Okay, so this is weird but kind of harmless? I can't believe that this doofus is more disliked by his family than the creepy "none sweat" man.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Basically he was the youngest, and while in normal families he'd be the beloved one it works differently for royals. Brenda had dropped the Heir (with whom you're always gonna have a strained relationship because their entire life is spent training for the day you die), a girl (useless), and the Spare (Andrew, who is her favourite), so there wasn't really any space left for Edward. The fact he's named after the Queen's uncle, who she absolutely *despised* (she considered his abdication a dereliction of duty, and believed it hastened her father's death), should be a bit of a clue. Oh that's just sad. Don't make me feel sorry for Royalty now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:It really can't be stressed enough that despite everything Andrew is still beloved by Brenda. Will be very interesting to see if Andrew's status changes when she pops her clogs and Charles takes over. I suppose the operative question is "why is he her fav"? Is there a reason beyond "Charles will eventually replace me" or whatever? Also I am still of the opinion that Charles is going to pre-decease his own mum.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:Given that we are not getting to a point when COVID is eliminated entirely any time soon, when do perma-lockdown goons want to start looking at opening up? Like honestly quite a few of you seem to be perfectly happy and find ridiculous the idea that anyone might at some point in the near future want to resume something like normal life. And yes, sorry to say it, but the vast majority of people including me understand that opening up will mean some deaths that wouldn’t happen if we stayed in lockdown until next year. To the vast majority that’s a price worth paying. I’m not saying open up now obviously, but there comes a point when you have to and the fact that that means that some people will die is just the nature of viruses. This seems almost unbelievable selfish though? Like "You should be okay dying for things to be normal again" is something that only villains think, it is something that if you said out loud makes you sound like a loving super villain. We could though, couldn't we? There is nothing stopping us from checking folks at the airport and making sure that they don't have it. It's just that people in charge don't want to. You seem more eager for people to reconcile themselves with the world than accept the idea that the world should be reconciled to people. Why? TBH there should be vaccines and more stuff put in place to make sure no-one gets anything, and then we can start re-opening stuff. However I think that staying in lockdown as long as necessary might actually be a good shout. Lock down is loving awful, but I'd sooner inconvenience myself horribly like this. If I were in a different situation I may well disagree, and I do not mean this to be a moral judgement. But it does need looking at at least a bit. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
The Perfect Element posted:It's an interesting question : does the fact that others are suffering more than you invalidate any grief you might feel about your own situation? Like, is ANYONE entitled to ever feel sorry for themselves in the developed world, when bombs are being dropped on other people who are objectively worse off? I think it hard to tell really. It's kind of the reverse "there are starving kids out there" situation. I suppose it also matters as to how and what we do to counter it. Also this was linked a little bit ago and it seems quite interesting, obviously not in favour of Starmer but it does help to put stuff in context: http://newsocialist.org.uk/transmissions/bad-week-starmer-or-worse/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I think he's trying to get tested. Today was the first I heard COVID even being considered: last Wednesday he went to the GP & they said he probably has COPD & they were going to schedule a hospital appointment to have his chest looked at, it was really only the weekend when he got really bad. Until then he struggled a bit in the morning when he woke up with the air being so cold but he could eventually ramp up & get through the day. So uhhh, if he's got COPD & COVID that's a heck of a double whammy. I am so sorry forkboy, all the best to your dad. You keep safe too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:"corbyn was such a skilled politican i've lost all hope, if even he can't do it... who can?" Electoralism is not all politics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
In general I think that the second option was not the best and we should have stuck with the somewhat ambiguous stance that we had in 2017 whilst also doing down the Tory version as insane and the lib-dem one as based on nothing. I don't think that that idea appealed to most Labour members though.CoolCab posted:the belief that we could have run it again, and would have won it loving somehow - in sharp contrast to literally birthing a political party called Brexit to run against Labour candidates the microsecond we even vaguely came out in favour of another referendum - is more important. which of course the labour right understood far better than you did, apparently. You do realise that they would have run against Labour anyway, right? Like you seem to be placing a lot of belief in the honesty of Nigel Farage here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:If you thought that Labour could have won with a remain/second vote stance then it's reasonable to defend that, but if, as CoolCab believed and turned out to be true, that those policies would torpedo Labour then continuing to defend them as the right thing seems like a Bad Idea. It doesn't matter if you're right if you lose. It doesn't matter if you win if you're wrong. You have to be right and win to make a positive difference, but you might not be able to be right about everything. I'd argue the EU is one of the those issues that Labour could be 'wrong' on and go full 'better Brexit' because it isn't anywhere near as important as the raft of issues they're far more right on. Okay, the thing is though that they might have been bad politics but they might have been the correct thing to do. The highlighted bit is exactly the same as all the centrists on twitter, but from the opposite side. I don't think it's necessarily even an incorrect point to make, but just because you are willing to jettison certain things doesn't mean a lot of people are in the same boat. That's fair. It's just unfortunate and I do think that if the Lib-dems had had another leader they might have shown an ounce of nounce and we'd not be in the mess atm. Ahh well, what could have been. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:and boy howdy it would be really dishonest to describe kier starmer as a liberal or somehow less than entirely truthful, lmao Do you think that it was all a trick played on the membership? Your apparent take is that the Brexit party couldn't possibly have run against Labour if they had also been for Brexit, appears to ignore the wishes of the membership of a party that is trying to democratise because it gave the wrong result and believes that the Lib Dems and Greens would not have picked up people in the shuffle if Labour had changed tack? I know it's not really possible to prove a negative and we have to live in the world as it exists, but do you not see how this might sound a little naive to people? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:i think from starmer's perspective it was, yes. i am sure there are plenty of people who genuinely thought starmer was being sincere, and i suspect quite a few people voted for him. What is this based on? This gives Starmer a sense of power and control of messaging that is not really bourne out by how shite he's been at winning anything since then. It's closer to a conspiracy theory. It's not "impossible" but it sure as gently caress means giving no agency to people making choices and an awful lot of power to a man desperate that others stop calling him "Keith". This appears to be a failure to consider context. To give a hyperbolic example: "there was no Covid in Britain in February 2019, it's only been 2 years since then and I don't see why anything should have changed so I am going to go outside without a mask and meet all my friends". Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:yeah it's crazy it's almost as if he was elevated to leadership based on his factionalist abilities and position rather than personal qualities huh? "It litterally happened" doesn't mean it happened because of the reasons you state it does. If I were to say that a tree falls down not because of a weakening of support over many years but because a secret elf named "Nimbol" snuck up to it in the dead of night and pushed it over that'd be mad. Your argument is "X is true, therefore Y is true" without linking the two up necessarily. I think that May was a weak leader of the Tories, the ambiguity worked in 2017, that going for Brexit meant ignoring the votes of Labour members and going for either option on 2019 would have lead to losses. If you think that the losses would have been lessened by going full bore "Pro-Brexit" then I can't stop you and you are quite possibly correct. However I don't think there is proof of it. I think we would probably also have lost a lot of support from young people that contributed hugely towards success in 2017. I am not even arguing against what you think entirely, it's just that your argument isn't necessarily convincing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:haven't i? i've articulated several concrete changes between 2017 and 2019, including the formation of the brexit party and evidence that extremely specifically in heavy leave areas we lost sixteen points. the issues you are claiming are mitigating were there in 2019 too - that's why i call it A/B. Not really. You've said that "my take is we have an A/B here, within two years of one another, with the exact same contextual participants." We didn't have the same contextual participants. We had similar participants, but not the same ones. And I am very sorry but I still don't follow you. You appear to be saying both that "We lost because of Brexit party in the North taking votes" and then saying that "Nothing differed between the two elections". The only way you can prove something true is to have it happen. Your idea, because it doesn't rely on observing things but exists as a potential, is much more believable to yourself. It's why lots of people think that "Brexit would have been great IF". It's based on going "this is how it could have been" and then trying to be much more sure about it because you don't actually get to test it's efficacy. I don't think strong leave areas could have won us the election either. Because we probably would have lost more remain seats than we did, due to going against remain.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:he's actually a very pleasant and deeply insane person to chat to. This is how I want to be described in my old age.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I'm so confused. It's from "Don't Hug Me I'm Scared" a very weird, dark and entertaining youtube series. It's essentially a mock up of various "fuzzy animal learns about things" programming from the 90's and early 2000's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9FGgwCQ22w
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
I do find that once you get passed "Vicky" it becomes a whole fuckload of Georges and Edwards whose loving numbers I can never remember.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think "series of opportunities to pay for the same game" might be more accurate. I've always wondered about this particular critique. Does it extend to all of the CoD games as well? Also, I don't think I have sat down and watched a TV programme in about a decade now. I'm glad people are having fun with it though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2021 13:43
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I don't think I like any CSI, though; Scandi noir is where it's at. What are the CSI's about? From a purely exterior perspective it seems to be "police procedural, but solved via magic"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:No fiction books either? TBF I think this is a problem I have sometimes. I end up thinking silly things like "why not use violence in this instance" when it's a story being told to you, you are supposed to analyse the themes it is trying to put forward, not look for plot holes. Though I also often feel the same way towards actual history so there is that 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:that's why you gotta build abs Very much this. I'm less than a kg away from hitting my weight goal, but my tummy isn't entirely flat yet. You need to do a lot of stomach stuff first!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
I mean the wine drunk at the time probably had to have water added to it. I think the Romans were forever complaining that the various different Celtic groups drank their wine "neat".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Labour ditched the entire Liverpool mayoral election process for unspecified reasons - none of the existing candidates allowed back in. All "newcomers" now have 48 hours (starting NOW) to get their ballots in. Well, I say unspecified, but I mean that the outright socialist with the support of Corbyn and the unions was favoured to win ... It's just so stupid. What powers does a loving mayor have in this country? And yet the people in charge have to stamp down on leftie dissent so hard it causes them to keep slipping on dog turds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Well sometimes Andy Burnham doesn't 100% lick Kieth boot, so any candidate with the backing of Corbyn and the unions must be stopped. Any other candidates are just chaff that gets in the way. I can't see how the current candidates are going to like that. It's just so drat foolish. If they'd tried to make inroads into even some area of the soft left they might have done better, but instead it's just "we need to be Blair!" and nothing else. Just rank foolishness driven by a fear of newspapers and the over 60's. Gyro Zeppeli posted:Sweet, got my appointment on Monday to get vacc'd. Turns out I got moved up the list cuz I'm my mother's carer. Congratulations!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Y'all want to feel old?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Ash Crimson posted:Got any proof that you actually even exist as a human being mate Such a thing is impossible. We can't prove that we exist, nevermind that other people do. As regards DnD talk I once made the profoundly stupid decision to try and run a DnD game for 9+ people who were learning the system over facebook chat. It was an absolute pissing disaster.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 09:46
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:In my opinion literally any path to socialism is such a long shot that Both of these things are very true.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 11:20
|
|
ing anyone's chosen course of action is (a)too easy & (b)profoundly unhelpful
|
serious gaylord posted:https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1224662165271056385?s=19 Just over a year. Gods Bones
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 12:02
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Can you prove thinking is occurring? I can't even prove that I'm thinking!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think i stopped watching all of them except thought slime cos TS is funny and also gets to the point (and the point is almost invariably correct). Also minimal theatrics. I like theatrics myself, being someone who gets sad a lot but wants to do so in an attractive way. WhatEvil posted:E: Oh yeah and her vids are often an hour or longer it seems. Seems like 20 mins or so is a better format for that kind of content. I can't say what it is exactly, but would it be that you don't like the whole "pseudo-socratic ignorance" thing?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
WhatEvil posted:Seems feasible. Can you expand a bit on what that means exactly? Socratic ignorance is a method of argumentation where you start off appealing ignorance and use it to get people to define terms, before then coming in with "well you and I know that" and then getting into the argument. It's a way of defining terms. However it is also used as a debate tactic that is a bit liable for abuse as it means the other person has to do your work for you. It also doesn't help when you are not involved in a dialogue. Personally a lot of us already know a lot of basic facts about things, but presenting them in a feigned neutral way can come across as silly or even being wilfully obtuse. "Lets think about why landlords, whom we all love forever, might be baaaaad" seems silly because we already know that very few folks, and certainly not someone who we know is leftist, is going to go to the bat for landlords. Personally I would prefer coming from it without any hint of "but whyyyy" and instead just go "I don't think these things are good for the following reasons". But I also know I am not the best at persuading folks. OwlFancier posted:I don't dislike theatrics necessarily I just don't generally find them to be a positive contribution to an informational video. Entirely valid and understandable. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think it's also just that the political stuff is just an excuse to make videos and the making videos that look interesting is the main point. But that is frequently the only way that people watch what you are making vs, just reading it. Using a visual medium is important and making videos that look nice and also get the point across is also important.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:For some, for me it just makes me... stop watching it because the signal to high chromatic saturation noise is too low. But this is the thing, to a lot of people the lights the "show" as it were is as vital, and in some cases more vital than a lot of the way things are stated. I would, again only personally, say that "content" and fancy costumes are the same thing for a lot of folks. In the same way that sometimes we wear nice clothes even when we know no-one is going to see us.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Speak for yourself, I generally don't wear anything if nobody is going to see me. See I like to wear my nice clothes sometimes because it makes me sometimes feel a bit better about myself. It's why I shower every day and put on deodorant even though I am probably not going to be seen by more than 3 people over the course of a week and not for longer than 10 minutes at most. (London living with housemates) I think that having some level of "presentation" is important for reminding ourselves that we are ourselves.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My self is an unclothed troglodyte then. Again, "nice" can mean just putting on the fancier loincloth and/or Bogwitch attire. But I take your point, it's just very outside of the way I feel about things, I don't want to sound dictatorial when I say these things, just chatting!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
CoolCab posted:you run the risk of communicating one thing with your words and a radically different one with your presentation I don't think that is possible unless you have no appearance of appearance at all. We are all trapped inside how we understand things and there is no way to fully remove ourselves from this. You cannot create something wholly new, it will always be informed by both who you are, where you are from and a whole host of other factors. I suppose the argument is between "you cannot use this because it is from this place" and "whatever works to get us where we want to get to".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 18:28
|
|