HopperUK posted:

I watched In the Loop for the first time in a while last night and it kinda feels like a beautiful fantasy nowadays.

Malcolm and Jamie are definitely boyfriends

OzyMandrill posted:

That's.. er.. that's the special necklace isn't it?

josh04 posted:

Avizandum is probably an aggro dumbass and I've never listened to Trashfuture. It's just funny that this particular piece of Internet lore hinges entirely on one party unquestionably being The Good Landlord.

josh04 posted:

Should women be able to eject rapists from their home? Obviously yes. Is this a defense of the moral quality of being a landlord? I don't think that's obvious at all. Avizandum was mocking someone for being a landlord and refused to compromise on that notion. Was she also a huge dickhead about it? Probably, I don't care. But it's clearly some ridiculous twitter bickering that's been rewritten in an outrageously leading fashion that would make a daily mail headline blush, and there's something very unseemly about the way these anonymised lists of past transgressions form and attach themselves to women, particularly trans women.

Barry Foster posted:

If you're on android just download youtube vanced

Bing bong so simple, now you have youtube with no ads, plays with the screen off, plays in windowed mode, etc

fuctifino posted:

James not-so-cleverly

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1580455529021046784

Nephthys posted:

Nobody said Biden was good, but he is getting some good things done. Which is a hundred times more than would be done under Trump.

Will Starmer be bad and implement awful policies? Yeah, but I also imagine some policies will have positive outcomes and he'll reverse some of the turbofucking the tories are carrying out.

Natural 20 posted:

I'm not starting from a position where Starmer is anywhere to the left of the Tories.

I am simply arguing that he's more competent than the current Tory government which is so terrible that it is pissing off huge portions of its own supporters with policies that are tremendously stupid for everyone from poor to the rich. And simple competence is enough to stop a lot of vulnerable people from starving or freezing.

learnincurve posted:

Ahh that dude can gently caress off.

Aileen Getty is a long time AIDS campaigner and was for years before she discovered she was HIV positive herself. She runs several charitable foundations but we all know why he’s calling her “controversial”.

Tesseraction posted:

Kinda shows how hosed our society has become when people can act like that without feeling embarrassed.

Tesseraction posted:

Halisnacks posted:

My posts are like 80% hating the Tories and 20% arguing Starmer’s Labour will be better than the Tories, while acknowledging that Starmer is still poo poo.

I’ll shut up about the latter as it’s not a productive discussion here, but I don’t think asking how a lower proportion of public spending can end up in the rich’s bank accounts should be off limits. Yes, the answer ought to be “higher and more progressive taxes”; but under the Tories that answer is not available to us.

keep punching joe posted:

Great until you have around 200 of them all with really similar names because you are lazy as poo poo, and you need to keep referring back to check what cells have been defined with them.

peanut- posted:

Named ranges are spreadsheet crime and make anybody else who has to pick up and interpet/maintain a workbook absolutely hate the author.

Halisnacks posted:

The answer is indeed 0. Would making people who currently pay 45% tax on some of their income (i.e. those who earn >£150K) ineligible for this benefit result in the deaths of vulnerable people? I have a hard time imagining that edge case. But if it exists, okay I will agree it is not worth it.

Halisnacks posted:

But is the logical conclusion that every single benefit should be dispersed to everyone regardless of how high-income and wealthy they are? Should the rich receive universal credit?

I’m open minded to the answer being yes, but it seems suboptimal.

Halisnacks posted:

I agree with you completely, other than I don’t think I’m asking for what you’re suggesting. I want the principles you outlined, but in their absence, I thought a modified version of what you ascribed to me would be better than what we currently have:

- Everyone gets enough to live on, but if you are quantifiably among the richest in our society according to our relatively simple tax code, you should get less from us.

If it’s impossible to operate that in an ethical way (and the thread consensus appears that it is), then I agree we shouldn’t want that.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I don't think this interpretation holds up, as universal systems result in fewer operations.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

what’s the point of using the back door if it is also in full view of the press

FiftySeven posted:

This may be the reality of how it works, but there comes a point at which their party has clearly shown that its not fit to govern anymore, and that was literally months, if not years ago. Continuing on is not only damaging for their party, its damaging for the entire county and they really cant ignore that anymore. General elections have been called for far less than this.

Puntification posted:

Labour being gleeful at the return of boris is going to bite them in the arse when he makes starmer eat poo poo on polling day. This is the democrats donating to fascist GOP candidates campaigns situation all over again.

forkboy84 posted:

Ukraine seems to have been fairly consistent for Corbyn: War bad

namesake posted:

NATO is an aggressive military alliance of the USA and European states allowing them to maintain their hegemony internationally, safe in the knowledge that military threats to their core lands will be crushed by the alliance as a whole. Goals include containment of Russian influence, preserving European influence in north Africa, legitimising USA imperialism anywhere it fancies and others.

JoylessJester posted:

I thought I might be able to express some mild concerns about who/how the UK states was given arms as a first resort, without being called a traitorous Putin stooge who lusts for dead Ukrainians. Oh well.

Not So Fast posted:

If they're being done for bad reasons (the breakup of Russia and the eventual monopolisation on world power by the West) then yes, it's bad. NATO isn't defending Ukraine for good reasons. Even if you think Ukraine should win and not get invaded / divided by Russia by force, NATO and other Western institutions like the IMF getting involved are only going to immiserate the working class of Ukraine.

Shyrka posted:

Tankie is used by liberals in the same manner as Woke is used by conservatives. Its use as a perjorative outweighs any fixed definition.

forkboy84 posted:

Oh for goodness sake. I see your rich understanding of politics is matched by an equally deep understanding of history. "Some rebellion". It was the Hungarian revolution & it happened 3 years after Stalin was dead. Khrushchev was firmly in charge in the USSR & it was about 6 months after the speech at the 20th Party Congress that began some form of de-Stalinisation.