|
Students entering sex work are either doing it for financial reasons or non-financial reasons. Noting that students are increasingly entering sex work means either they're more desperate for cash or the average British person is getting better at doing sexual things so it's cool and good to find (even) more opportunities to do it. I'm going to go with the former reason as the primary driver and so for the university, inevitably the major cause of costs for students, to see this and then facilitate support rather than lessen the financial burden is poo poo. No objection to student societies and whatnot offering support but coming from university services directly it's bad.
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Cutting the support isn't going to stop the students from doing what they have to to meet financial obligations though is it. And if she thought about it that way she could have written it that way but she didn't. I don't really care about Abbotts take on it, just making my point. The University has obviously noted the change in how students support themselves and felt a need to act but ignored their role in creating the conditions causing the change in student behaviour. 'More students needing to take on additional income to study with us.' should cause universities to consider the financial burdens they put on students, not on making sure the jobs they take aren't too dangerous.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The correct solution of course is that they shouldn't be sanctioning loving anybody. Yes exactly. The correct position is to call on structures with the real power to make a difference to take a pro-active approach rather than passive, responsive ones. Sanctioning people doesn't enable people to find work and so unemployment support schemes shouldn't do it and should be tasked with creating employment suited to them instead, universities have major controls over student costs of living and so should be pressured to lessen them rather than abstract support training for students needing extra employment to study.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But that is the point of a university, it is a business that uses a racket to coerce people into giving it money for services that are largely useless absent the entirely artificial qualifications centered structure designed to prop up the university business. I think a shitload of educators and people in general disagree with your assessment of what a university HAS to be. Regardless it's impotent defeatism to say 'this thing has to be this way' and then refuse to criticise its actual practices when resisting might cause change or create replacements.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am specifically skeptical of the idea that opposing support for students who are doing sex work, is going to somehow lead to a reduction in university related expenses and/or otherwise better conditions for the students. Of course it won't, that's not the point. You can argue 'should a university offer this kind of support or not' or see that that framing is missing the overall point that students are seeing increased financial hardships, universities have a great deal to do with that and that the first argument is entirely as a result of universities not actually changing their ways to lessen hardships. It's better to tackle causes than symptoms and that's where your efforts should be pointed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Okay but you weren't until I brought it up. it's very easy to get caught up in important moral arguments but that's sort of the point, if you do then you miss the important casual structural criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
MMT is for reformist dorks, just argue the rich don't deserve their wealth and power and it will be seized by force by and for the working class.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
notaspy posted:We're as likely to affect real change as you are Maybe but we're both demanding to hold state power and the political will to rearrange society as we wish and your vision to inspire the masses to support of you and give you that authority is tweaking the tax code. It's dorky and incredibly limited given the tools you'd need to implement it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
It doesn't matter and people don't actually care one way or the other, it's a post hoc justification for the feeling they have about the person. Scruffy or authentic, true to themselves, driven by values not appearance? Well kept, snappy dresser or overpaid, pretentious vain wanker? All depends if you think they're in your corner or not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:MMT has nothing to do with the tax code. It's a framework for understanding that currency-issuing governments aren't constrained by a lack of money, that government spending isn't funded by taxation, that money doesn't "come from" the private sector being all wealth-createy, and that government deficits aren't especially bad, but surpluses are because the government's surplus is the economy's lack of money (by definition). But winning that point only moves language from 'can the state spend' to 'should the state spend' which is what actually happens anyway. When theres a financial crisis or a pandemic then the state can spend whatever it likes and only a small powerless group actually worry about raising the funds and yet leftwing spending plans are inherently cast as irresponsible and excessive because funding arguments are just rationalisations for actions that classes want to see happen anyway. The ruling class rules so money is always available for their class needs and nothing is available for threats to their power, the dorky working class argues about propensity to save versus spend and how government spending on services has a great multiplier effect and appeals to credibility of their plans and whatnot and socialists argue for the destruction of the class system by overthrowing the ruling class. If you actually possess the power to hammer through your particular agenda against the wishes of the rich then you have the power to break their power at the source rather than grant them legitimacy and commit to fighting a long reformist (losing) battle against their power by loving around with currency and taxation rates. Also im very excited about the Kings Speech this Christmas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
radmonger posted:What this analysis ignores is the existence of the middle class, who have both wealth and wages. So what their interests actually _are_ is subject to analysis, debate and even persuasion. Since Thatcher, they mostly side with capital, largely because unearned money is sweeter than money you have to leave the house to get. There's 3 major points to your argument here and I don't think I really agree with them: 1) That the middle class (defined as holding significant wealth but also living from wages) predominantly votes based around a balancing of their class interests which has meant they favour Tory policy since the 80s. 2) That the middle class so defined decide election results. 3) That an elected government in the UK has 'pretty much unlimited power'. The first point supposes that Tory policy materially benefits small wealth holders, arousing their favour and getting their votes, and I don't think that really bares out. Tory propaganda projects itself as the party of business appealing to our nation of shopkeepers but policywise it only helps big business and even when it offers some benefits to smaller companies it's delivered in a form that similar benefits are also passed onto larger operations. IR35 implementation, UC limitations on payments to the self employed after a year, the pandemic aid schemes completely loving over small businesses and the self employed, the deliberately created dominance of the finance sector in the economy, no protections for high streets or policy on independant shops all mean a serious lack of actual support for any small wealth holders over decades with the except of housing, which is a non-productive asset and even the initial asset infusion from selling council houses is now gone as most have been sold onto landlords rather than occupants. Small wealthholding voters might feel better under Tory governments but they certainly won't be richer because of it. So either housing is so massive influential that it carries the tides of elections with it (honestly a pretty reasonable position but one which should ring serious alarm bells to any group intent on building a functioning, improving society as landlordism and economies based on non-productive assets is a regressive and destructive instinct even to liberal thought) or there's a broader social force which pulls those votes in time after time - nationalism being the obvious candidate. In either case winning an argument around MMT is likely to be ineffective about winning them over as it will tackle landlordism and the domination of personal wealth as it attempts to move more of the social product into the hands of labour rather than capital or there are other historical forces which will be uneffected by them. Second point, that small wealth holders decide elections. According to Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy there's only about 1.4 million SME owners with employees which would indicate the owner also having notable capital rather than much larger group (4.6M) without employees - the intellectual middle class of lawyers, accountants, etc and those working construction who are labourers but are involved in tax dodging either on their own or their employers part which doesn't give a strong an indication of their wealth. Now that is a reasonably large chunk of the electorate (assuming they all vote and all vote tory) but is heavily weighted to London and the south of England which generally aren't battleground seats. Blair might have cobbled together a massive coalition of the middle class and the rest of the working class in 1997 but implementing the New Labour manifesto has destroyed Labours core voter working class base ever since and it seems that that move, losing them Scotland particularly, which has doomed them electorally ever since. Even if homeownership in general, 23 million households or so, is taken as the primary force driving voting patterns (not unreasonably) then the issue is the same as on the first point - it's a non-productive asset which only sucks in money, there's bugger all that can be done except for fighting it as it's bad economics, even for the property holders. Thirdly, the government does not sit supremely above society creating divine laws, it is a powerful entity yes but by two means - that of legal process (seem as moral and correct) and of force. Both can be challenged and used to defeat a government when the opposition to them is strong enough so merely holding state power does not give total control. Class society, with all its own wills and powers, exists well outside of the state. A leftwing government in the UK must then continue to fight the will of the CBI, the Murdoch press, the WTO, the US military, etc to achieve its goals so it must come into power on the back of an irrestiable wave of support and the lukewarm chipping away of power through increased buying power of labour and decreased returns on assets is completely sound logically as a long term plan and very uninspiring politically. So in conclusion, MMT might well be sound in terms of economic management, it's not a political rallying cry. It's not a key to winning over an important voting bloc nor will it inspire a powerful movement demanding it. Save it for technical discussions amongst comrades rather than arguments and recruiting. Edit: Also sounds like a bomber was about to target a womans hospital today but the cabbie driving him locked the bomber in the cab. That cabbie's the sort of hero I'm saluting today. namesake fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:loving Hell, what an actual hero if this is true. Did he manage to get out? Non serious injuries which suggests a pretty narrow escape.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I assume that the entire shad cab is on a hair trigger to get the thoughts and prayers out ASAP because that's Proper Grown Up Politics, making sure you get the right magic words said as soon as possible. "I'm sorry that happened." is the only line that Labour ministers are allowed to say in interviews, anything else gets them into some sort of trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Remember that the best media strategy you can possibly have is to release all your dirty laundry when it's going to be the second item on the news. Most people won't hear, a lot of those won't care and then whenever it gets brought up again then it's old news. The only exception to this is when it's part of a wider narrative which relies on public consciousness, broadly meaning media narrative and reminding the public, that this is an issue. All of these obvious corrupt dealings only matter if they are referenced next week when talking about the state of the party or the politician in question, otherwise it's just dumping all the filth in the river and hoping there aren't any receipts left around for anyone important to find to point a finger straight at a person.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Also the membership absolutely will elect Sunak, sorry. The only thing that ultimately matters to Tories is that you're a Tory. Lol nope. The tory party membership are heavily weighted to the most awful parts of their base and are definitely spiteful racist reactionaries as a voting majority. Andrea Leadsom was going to be leader if it had come to a vote.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2021 11:54
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Is this about NFTs? No its a poorly phrased character reveal for the next series of Peppa Pig.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2021 11:40
|
|
|
Just Another Lurker posted:While all that is going on π is sneakily moving around with a one month incubation period and a 75% fatality rate that bypasses all the current vaccinations. This is a joke because we all know the π variant will have an R0 value of a little over 3.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Lib Dem Skrillex wallets more like
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
There's a small group of people who will mask regardless of guidance, a small group of people who will never mask regardless of it being a law or not and then a huge group of people who understand the reasoning behind it but have no perspective about the overall impact of it, so they'll do it when they have to without any fuss and not bother when they don't have to. We should have kept it on transport at the very least because only tiny groups of people actually had a problem with it and the benefits are really drat good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2021 21:28
|
|