|
Tesseraction posted:Just discovered there's literally only one Welsh ASMR person. Feel this is severely underutilising the best accent the UK has to offer. Surprising, seems like a real growth market after they made almost everyone in Elden Ring welsh including the premium waifu. I do hope that leads to more welsh accents in video games overall, my favourite character in the entire Star Wars canon is Captain Bryn, a random questgiver in the MMO The Old Republic. Sounds like he entered the Imperial Academy straight out of Pontypandy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa4KRJoxhtQ
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:It's still referring to and othering the same kind of person though. Kind of. I don't know the full connotations of roadman vs chav. I think it's relevant here that prior to a certain point there was a lot less concern for sensitivity in language use around the disabled among adults too, so I don't think it was just kids using spastic as an insult, and it's also noteworthy here that the insult wasn't just used to imply someone was uncoordinated but that additionally that the person was mentally disabled too. It was a word that had also picked up associated gestures; calling someone a "spaz" in america was a throwaway word, but at least where I was from "spastic" was an entire category of insults from "spastic" to "spazzy" to sticking your tongue into your lower lip, holding a limp wrist out in front of you and slapping the back of your hand while making a wailing sound. Before the campaign to eradicate it, that last gesture combination wasn't just insulting, it was possibly the most insulting thing you could call someone, up there with racial slurs. I'm speculating now, but I think that helped the campaign to stamp out the word--among adults there was already a bit of a taboo around it because it was insulting enough to incite violence.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2022 09:38
|
|
|
Mebh posted:Do you all reckon that Lab and the SNP would form a coalition under the terms of allowing a referendum? Or that the lib dems would do their usual poison the well tactics by saying they're in second place and refuse to grasp at the reins in favour of being as poo poo as possible. I think Labour well and truly believes that they don't need to do any sort of deal with the SNP in the event of a hung parliament, the logic being that if the SNP refuse to just fall in line and collapse the government as a result, it will effect a 1980-esque collapse of the SNP vote. I'm personally confident this is a truly colossal miscalculation on their part. First, even if it was true, the SNP don't think it's true, so playing chicken like that will collapse the government and probably put labour back out of power same as 1980. Second, it's not true, the situation is significantly different now, the SNP's message on westminster for almost a decade now has been that Scottish voters are ignored, their wishes are not seen as worthy of consideration, and that the westminster parties expect the jocks to fall in line. Around Labour specifically the message has been that Labour lost Scotland because they felt they were entitled to their Scottish vote without being obliged to give anything back. You could hardly ask for a scenario that would prove the SNP's point more than the Labour party being willing to jeapordise their own government because they were unwilling to get round the table with the largest party in Scotland. I think some assume that the rhetoric we've heard from the Labour leadership around the SNP over the years is just talk, that when it comes down to it they'll do a deal, somehow, but I don't see any real reason to believe that will be the case, it is a message that has been consistent from the labour party for over 40 years at this point, an unwillingness to concede to the SNP is perhaps the one thing that almost every senior Labour figure on the left or right can agree on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2022 10:16
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It could backfire on the SNP if they were viewed as obstructing a government that wanted to do good things, but fortunately for them Starmer has pre-empted that one. I think the real problem that Labour has as regards Scotland, more than just the fact that Starmer is actively harmful to the cause, is the very idea that they are capable of framing how the SNP are viewed. That might become true at some point in future when the party has ossified, but right now it's the SNP that can frame the narrative in Scotland. Labour might bank on making it look like the SNP are obstructing a government wanting to do good things, but the SNP will argue that the Labour government preferred self-immolation to working with the SNP to get good things done. The SNP will be the one to win that fight, almost surely, they've had the luxury of being able to say for the whole of the last decade "we'll work with a labour government, the only thing we want in return is the second referendum we keep getting elected on a platform of delivering", while Labour has been the one that's felt compelled by its eye on the soft-tory electorate to say "we will never work with the SNP in a formal agreement". As long as those are the public positions of both parties, it's functionally impossible to frame the SNP as the obstructionists to the Scottish electorate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2022 10:59
|
|
|
BREAKING: Pictures show figurehead of the British Regime, not seen in public since July, to still be alive. After meeting with the state's tribal chief and high priestess, Elizabeth Truss--the new de facto ruler of the troubled state--returns to the true seat of power to begin the task of appointing loyalists to serve in her new junta.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
smellmycheese posted:My mate who is an ITV cameraman says everyone is being sent to “Operation Lion” positions. The BBC's version is Operation Unicorn, incidentally. I couldn't possibly comment if that's underway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 13:02
|
|
|
Ash Crimson posted:As The queen's englishness becomes terminal, gammons will make pilgramage to london ring the bells of awakening Edinburgh would make more sense surely, given that it's pretty much laid out like Lordran. Beat the castle and some winged tories whisk you away to Anor London.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
EvilHawk posted:If the Beebs royal correspondent is supposed to be dissuading rumours of her death, he's doing a loving awful job of it lmao. He's all but said she's dead already. The only circumstance it would make sense to hold off at this time would be if they wanted to give Harry time to arrive, I think the UK-based royalty should have had time to arrive by now. Bear in mind that if they could hold off on announcing her death, they could have held off on announcing she was in a serious condition until they had their ducks in a row. They've been preparing for her death for years now and known that she's likely to die sometime in the next two weeks for a few days, so there's no reason to hold off because this has caught them by surprise. Harry's in Germany apparently, so it's not out of the question they could be waiting an hour or two if she really has popped it, but it's important to the Establishment that the death be announced simultaneously by news media across the UK and not leaked by any outlet, so if she dies pre-watershed expect the announcement out ASAP. After that they can hold off for the morning news the following day, but they'll have the announcement ready to go immediately should they get any whiff that a foreign news service is announcing it overnight.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:BBC doing this weird thing of somehow talking in the past and present tense at the same time. 100% a case of ‘she’s dead but we can’t announce it yet’ There's procedures in place for how to handle this stuff, every minute the queen is dead but it's unannounced by the BBC is another minute that one of the American news services with a source in the palace could announce it first. They know she's going to die shortly, but if she actually dies before 8pm they'll announce it pretty much right away. Remember they bumped a king off early because it was seen as inappropriate for the death to be announced in the Evening papers. Now imagine how that same establishment would see it were the death announced first on MSNBC.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:That feels like given the chaos dimension we live in that means it's almost certain to happen. It's definitely possible, if she dies overnight they will want to wait until the morning news to announce it, sometime between 6 and 8am. But they'll have someone watching every single news service worldwide with their finger on the button to go if it leaks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Anyone know how long the Queen would be at Balmoral in the case where she lies in state there for a while? I think she gets moved to Holyroodhouse fairly sharpish?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
kecske posted:there's no day off for the death, only for the funeral and for the coronation of ol' sausage fingers We're probably getting nothing for the funeral, that's 10 days after death and so will be a week on Saturday or a week on Sunday if she goes today or tomorrow. It's not an official bank holiday so it doesn't move to the following monday. Alright if you work weekends I guess, but if you're monday-friday, keep your fingers crossed that she lingers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
EvilHawk posted:Lmao Harry wasn't allowed on the place that brought William up He's in Germany, so he's flying in from elsewhere. This is interesting: https://fr24.com/LNX01GC/2d628f1c Pope accepts Queen's confession and conversion to Catholicism on her deathbed lol
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:lets get a sweepstakes going for when queeny dies then Current rumour is it's going to be announced within the next 30 mins. So I'll say 6:30
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
BREAKING NEWS: Queen Elizabeth Windsor, tribal chieftain and high priestess of the troubled state of the United Kingdom has died, claim official sources linked to the ruling Truss Reigime. Rumors of poor health had been swirling in recent months as she had not been seen in public for some time. The news comes mere days after the new regime published pictures of the chieftess--who rules only as a figurehead--meeting with and legitmising the rule of the new leader of the CAUP Faction that has ruled the state for twelve years. Some will note that deaths and disappearances are not uncommon following changes in such states, and could indicate that the ascendant Truss faction of the CAUP were not confident of the chieftess' loyalty as the country moves closer to civil... SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL ARTICLE
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Here we go
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Wasn't the only William pretty successful? We've had 4 of them already. Current william will probably become William V when his dad dies, if we haven't rid ourselves of this millstone yet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:Sure but I worry, as I've seen some other posters do, that laying it on her will have the effect of absolving the people who actually took the decisions that she rubberstamped, and performed the atrocities. You know? Do you have any actual basis for that worry? Who is going to listen to an argument from someone here about the monarchy's culpability in imperialism and from that take that Queen Elizabeth is solely to blame? There's nobody on this earth who is going to be open to an argument that Elizabeth bears some moral culpability for those decisions who doesn't already lay blame for imperialism at the feet of british politicians. I dunno, maybe if someone's an actual lizardfolk conspiracy theorist who things Elizabeth was secretly an absolute dictator ruling over her mind-controlled political thralls I could see that, but I don't see how any rational individual gets to the conclusion "Elizabeth bears some responsibility for this" without first accepting the conclusion "Britain's elected officials carried out horrendous atrocities throughout the colonial era and beyond", and it's not like this additional inclusion of the monarch in the "people who are to blame" list is going to suddenly occlude all the others you've added previously. The default position on this among the british public, remember, is "The British Empire was cool actually"; there's no way to get from there to here without a whole bunch of intermediate steps that necessarily involve talking about the people who performed the atrocities.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I think you need a TV licence to watch iPlayer but you don't need a licence to watch the news streaming on the BBC website I’m pretty sure you’re supposed to have a license to watch the stream, but unlike with the iplayer, they just don’t check. Basically if it’s on TV right now anywhere in the world, you need a license to watch it. As long as you don’t do that, you don’t need one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2022 11:07
|
|
|
WhatEvil posted:So like, the bank holiday is gonna be taken out of your standard yearly holiday allowance, right? So it's not an "extra day off" it's just "now you have one less day of holiday you can take when you want", right? Check your employment contract. Mine has the phrasing "x days annual leave per year, plus bank holidays" so while I won't know until I go into work on Monday I'm expecting to get that day as extra holiday, since they made it a real bank holiday. Whereas I could imagine a contract which didn't mention bank holidays at all, or had phrasing like "x days annual leave per year, which includes y bank holidays" would be poo poo outta luck.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:People being arrested for saying stuff like "gently caress the monarchy" - meanwhile psychotic subservient plebs will line up for 7 miles to go witness a coffin with a decrepit thief in it. I'll confess I did briefly consider going to view the coffin, if only cause I've never seen a recently dead monarch before, but I'm not willing to wait for a billion years for the experience. Also the casket is closed from the sounds of it so you can't actually confirm she's dead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2022 11:45
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Dafuq is that supposed to mean This is pretty much a trope as old as time. The Prince of Wales is expected to be a maverick and a rapscallion, it keeps supporters of the establishment's orthodoxy honest by wanting to maintain the current monarch's power base as long as possible, while those with heterodox views cleave to the Prince hoping to find their views favoured in the next reign, encouraging them to wait peacefully for the transition, rather than rebel. Then the Prince becomes King and the experience is transformative, he begins to play the role of King exactly as society expects him to and everyone breathes a sigh of relief and thinks "ah, he's going to be a good King after all". The cycle is so old it's pretty much the entire plot of Shakespeare's Henriad plays. The cycle has lasted so long because it works, so it should be no surprise that the majority of the public who are apathetically supportive of the monarchy would pivot to "Charles is a good king", because the establishment is now reassuring them that it is so. Think about all the reasons people who aren't specifically republican would have thought Charles would make a bad king and then ask yourself if any of those things actually matter, if you'd actually think about them if the papers weren't telling you to care. Those reasons are soft and unimportant, so they can be easily cast aside. It's not like the Express or the Mail were in the past telling their readership to worry about Charles because monarchy as an institution is a moribund fossil, they were saying stuff like "he's multicultural" or "he talks about climate change a lot" or "his new wife is a scarlet woman", stuff that can be easily reframed or swept under the carpet, which they're doing right now. Sadly I think republicans who hoped that the transition would cause the scales to fall from peoples eyes because of their dislike of Charles underestimated how non-committal that dislike was.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2022 11:18
|
|
|
I think generally female is fine if its used as an adjective, it's only really a problem when someone's using it as a noun and tbh that's always been a clunky use of the word. Like, "Valentina Tereshkova was the first female cosmonaut" sounds ok, "Valentina Tereshkova was the first female in space" is ferengi talk.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
People often wonder how the Tories can commit such heinous evil, but the truth is they're just like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Nancy? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
Speaking of people who were much bigger in the 90s, last week I went to see Steven Page, former lead singer of the Barenaked Ladies. Bucking the trend he showed up with a few other people to play instruments and the concert was so good I literally wept with joy, the first time I've ever openly cried at a concert. I'm glad I went to that instead of Ian Brown.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Yes but... I think this misses the mark by focusing on the wrong thing a bit. The problem isn’t that we’re in a housing bubble, it’s that people not already on the housing ladder can’t afford houses. The bubble is the primary cause of that problem, but the crucial thing is that the bubble popping doesn’t actually do much to solve the problem. It destroys the wealth of lots of people (whether deserved or not), but doesn’t really make it easier for new buyers to get on the market—builders don’t want to build when the prices are way down, and owners don’t want to sell when they’re underwater. The people who will actually be selling up will be the banks after repossessions and the investment firms who have bought purely as investment vehicles, but the vast majority of those properties are going to go to other investment firms gambling that the bubble will simply reinflate. And it’s that last part that’s key I think. Without some major structural change there’s no reason to assume a popped housing bubble won’t just reinflate. Houses aren’t tulips or bitcoin, they’re good stores of value because they’re intrinsically valuable objects. So the bubble popping is only good in the long run if it comes with some plan to fix the main pain point it causes, locking the young and the poor out of home ownership. A bubble that pops because a radical Labour government builds 5 million council houses is a good pop. A bubble that pops because of some vagaries of monetary policy and just reinflates in a few years is of little to no help for the pain it causes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:There is some possible here, in that cheap finance is what allows the bubble to inflate in the first place. If interest rates stay high over the next 5-10 years, the bubble won't reinflate because the loans to sustain such a high valuation are too expensive to be profitable. The problem with that though is that the prices would need to utterly crater in order for that to be an assist to the people marginalised by the bubble. First time buyers generally need good loans or help from their family to afford a house. A crashing economy is going to make it extraordinarily difficult to save in order to take advantage of those rates (especially if you rent), and when the rates are sky high, will it be possible to get a loan affordable to a first time buyer? For a scenario like this to work in favour of first time buyers, houses would need to drop to the point where first time buyers can reasonably put down 50%+ deposits in a truly hosed economy. I just don’t see that, not without a massive increase in supply, which this government clearly has no intent to deliver.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
I’ll be honest I don’t really understand why this particular budget is crashing the economy. Like, I know in principle the issue is something like “tax cuts mean higher borrowing, which has spooked buyers of UK bonds” but I don’t exactly understand exactly why the cuts were so massively explosive like this. Governments have cut taxes before and have increased borrowing before, so why is this so much worse?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:UK prime ministers the last couple of years has been like a Summoning Salt speedrun history video, with each subsequent contender finding new ways to go from appointed to ousted fastest or in the most spectacular fashion. But on the 23rd of September 2022, Truss got on a run that looked like this...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 12:31
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:WTF? That's as bad as the fash stealing the OK sign, a cartoon frog and some other inocuous thing people do that I can't remember but was probably akin to the way some people (including self) say "Cheers!" as "Thank you" in shops etc. Admittedly I could be wrong on account of my refusal to read a daily mail article, but I could almost guarantee that the original study was nowhere near as black and white as suggested in that headline. Gen Z-ers perceiving a thumbs up emoji as passive aggressive or sarcastic isn't some new thing, I'm sure it would take most adults no serious effort at all to imagine a scenario in which they might give a physical thumbs up IRL as a gesture dripping with sarcasm. Sometimes a thumbs up means "that's great, thanks!" and sometimes it means "whatever you say idiot, gently caress off". Because of generational shifts in language there's always going to be some drift over time which could cause confusion between people younger and older. Possibly young people use a thumbs up sarcastically more often (and as a result report that secondary meaning more often), but I doubt any young person who sees thumbs ups flying back and forth in an office context is going to fail to parse those as sincere. Heck, I've spoken to Gen-Zers in text format who definitely used a thumbs up earnestly. Same as the last time this stuff came up I'll recommend Gretchen McCullough's book Because Internet for anyone who's interested in a pop science look at how casual text communication has changed in the last few decades. EDIT: Lol not even a study, a reddit post haha gently caress me Reveilled fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Oct 13, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2022 10:26
|
|
|
kecske posted:never forget that the government's multi billion pound covid track and trace system was not only just an excel spreadsheet, but an XLS format spreadsheet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBoKwArgC3A
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:Everybody could receive the benefit and then it could be clawed back through self-assessment, so it is effectively a tax, where those risks you mention already exist I suppose, but you could get on the line with HMRC to avoid overpaying the tax before it is due. And the most vulnerable (generally) wouldn’t being do self-assessment in the first place (I do appreciate there are definitely exceptions here, e.g. many of the self-employed). What is the benefit of it being "effectively a tax" vs it just being actually tax?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
Gort posted:The other good things about giving everybody benefits regardless of their wealth is that the wealthy are fewer in number so them getting a benefit isn't very expensive, and the wealthy have more political power than the poor, so when they get a benefit the chance of that benefit sticking around is greater. This is the thing. There's an important inflection point with universal benefits around the middle class. The ultra-wealthy are too few in number for the cost of providing them benefits to be more than a rounding error, and the benefits are too small for them to even notice their absence. The very poor truly need the benefit, so the only way to save money on that end is to use shady tactics to deprive the people who the means tester supposedly claims to be "deserving" via trickery. So the place you save money on a means tested benefit are among the people who have more comfortable lives, those who would be enriched by the benefit but don't actually need it, who would get by if it never existed but will feel the sting if it is removed. Someone on 40-50k can almost certainly get by without the benefit of a cap on their household energy bill. And right now because the benefit is still essentially theoretical they won't notice so much if they never get it. But if that benefit went into force and stuck around for ten years and they began making financial plans relying on its existence, they would fight tooth and nail to keep it in place should a future government want to cut it, and that helps ensure the poor keep it too. Means-test that benefit so that the person on 40-50k never gets a penny, and they will happily support its removal from the poorest sections of society because it is of no consequence to them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
I thought you could use a birth certificate and either a payslip or a letter from the benefits office
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Rarity posted:This is the most relatable she's ever been. Who among us? I'm reminded of a story I once heard about a guy in some person's workplace having the nickname "threedas" cause his Da had died three times.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:Wait what the gently caress? Braverman's a strong Truss ally as I understand it, so either this is the beginning of the end of the end, or Hunt is clearing house to isolate Truss, in preparation for a later deathblow.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I was being sardonic when I said that, but holy poo poo are you serious? LOL. The UK parliament has several “opposition days” where the minority party sets the agenda, giving them the opportunity to propose motions and bills to be passed into law. Generally when the government has a comfortable majority these are performative, as the government can easily defeat any bill at some stage or just tie it up in committees or other procedures. For some mind boggling reason Liz Truss has tied herself to the mast of resuming Fracking in the UK (even the oil companies are doubtful of its economic worth) so this opposition day motion to ban fracking was a direct political shot at her. That’s made worse by the previous Conservative administration vowing to continue the ban, because even most Tory MPs don’t like earthquake machines in their mostly rural constituencies. Truss decided that last night’s vote was going to be a confidence vote in the government, basically threatening to call a general election if she lost that vote and threatening expulsion from the party if her MPs rebelled. As noted previously, many members of her party really really did not like that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
It doesn’t seem unreasonable at all to me to describe the position of PM to Americans as being “like if the Speaker of the House had the President’s powers and responsibilities” for example
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:Let's say all this (Boris resigning, Liz Truss PM, mini-budget proposed) had happened pre-COVD/Russian energy crisis. Do you think everything would have played out the same way? From the outside I imagine the mini-budget fell on its face only because of how bad things are going already. That’s true in a trivial sense, the problem specifically with the mini-budget was that it was doing the opposite of the thing the Bank of England was recommending. The Bank wanted to get inflation under control and so was recommending reducing borrowing, the mini budget was a massive increase in borrowing. So sure, if this happened in a time where the Bank of England wasn’t recommending the exact opposite thing then it wouldn’t have collapsed the government. But I’m not sure that’s a particularly useful observation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 15:54
|
|