The Politics Thread 4

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Irene Demova

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Dual » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:20 am

#humblebrag

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:21 am

Regginator3 wrote:
Moggy wrote:Sounds like Mogg needs a safe space to stop the plebs speaking out of turn.

"Speaking out of turn" and intimidation are two wholly separate things.


And yet Rees-Mogg himself wasn’t too bothered. He thought masks were a little sinister but said the protest itself was perfectly legitimate.

Edit: And the woman that was hit during the first physical violence wasn’t wearing a mask.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:24 am

KK wrote:Two articles on The Guardian website today that stand out to me.

1, just the general hypocrisy of this article, "Vogue criticised for unpaid internships", which the paper decided to lead on for the pysical paper: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... nternships

Vogue has been criticised for using unpaid interns in month-long placements despite the new editor Edward Enninful’s commitment to increasing diversity at the fashion journal.

The work is unpaid, but those taking up the post are reimbursed for travel expenses of up to £80 a week.

Tanya de Grunwald of Graduate Fog, a campaigner for fair internships, said she had reported Vogue to HM Revenue and Customs, which monitors payment of the national minimum wage. She said the workplace shadowing roles may amount to the duties of a “worker”, an official employment classification. Under employment legislation, anyone who is acting as a worker must be paid at least the national minimum wage.

Meanwhile The Guardian are doing the exact same thing with unpaid internship, and in 2017 was offering unpaid ethnic minority and editorial work internships. Maybe they should lead on their own crappy practices first.


Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

KK wrote:2, an example of just how epically out of touch some of their readers are: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... r-mariella

Will my girlfriend stop loving me if I earn less than her?

At 34, I’ve paid off my mortgage and have a couple of years’ salary in savings. I’ve recently been promoted, but am working very long hours, don’t have much time in the evenings and spend my weekends worrying about the work. I’m not sleeping well and partly due to Crohn’s disease have lost weight. I earn £46,000, which is far more than I ever expected (or feel I deserve) to earn. My girlfriend of almost a year is 33 and the love of my life, and I hope we will have a baby in around three years’ time. I’ve been offered a public sector job with a wonderful work-life balance but reduced salary (£36,000) and had decided to take this and spend the next three or so years doing all the things I/we want to before having children, as well as improving my health. During a conversation about this potential change, my girlfriend told me that she earns £45,000. I am not in the slightest bit chauvinistic about earning more than her, but need to feel that the choice I’m making is not selfish. I worry about not contributing enough and riding on her coattails. Changing to a lower-paying job might suggest I am lacking ambition and also have a negative impact on our relationship.

'I own my own house, I have no mortgage, I'll be on £36,000 a year, I've got almost £100,000 in the bank, and we're on £81,000 a year. For God Sakes Help Me!'


I feel like this is a little unfair, though. Whilst they may be fine financially, the question as to whether it would impact their relationship is a legitimate one.

User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Hyperion » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:57 am

Moggy wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:
Moggy wrote:
The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.


We have no idea if Momentum planned violence, the violence was from Rees-Mogg’s people.

No platforming wasn’t an issue here, Rees-Mogg was given a platform, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be heckled. Or should he have a “safe space”?

I’m no fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the faults are rarely on one side.

If Momentum didn't plan violence, why did they engage in it before even the "first punch" was thrown? The guy who started it claims it was because they were getting to the point they looked like they were about to harm Mogg. The others claim it isn't true. All we know is two sides were being violent. I think who was the first to hit someone else may be a point of interest but it doesn't change the fact that Momentum were there to non-peacefully no-platform someone. Violence doesn't just mean hitting people, it also means intimidating people and ganging up on someone and invading their personal space. Threatening is violence. The video makes it clear that was exactly what they were doing to Mogg.


They were at the back of the room shouting and heckling. Mogg’s man went over to them. Things got heated. Mogg’s man punched a woman.

Neither side are great.


Those people that interrupted Kahn the other day. Forgotten about, probably because Kahn didn't confront them, nor did one of his people punch them. Also it didn't fit the media's narrative

Image Image
User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:03 pm

Hyperion wrote:Those people that interrupted Kahn the other day. Forgotten about, probably because Kahn didn't confront them, nor did one of his people punch them. Also it didn't fit the media's narrative


What are you on about? It's hardly forgotten about. It was in the media for quite a while, hit BBC News, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Evening Standard - even hit overseas news outlets like the Washington Post. Pretty sure it was top trending on Facebook on the day as well. People don't talk about it right now because it was a month ago and news interest generally has an expiry date. The incident in Bristol Uni was less than a fortnight ago and has received increased attention because the exact same thing happened the other day at Cambridge Union as well.

Nothing to do with "the media's narrative"

User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by lex-man » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:09 pm

Regginator3 wrote:
lex-man wrote:I think the thing people forget when talking about taxation is that the only reason they can earn money is because we have a government. The work the government does massively improves all our lives and with out it we'd be back to a barter system. Money only exists because of the government.


I feel like I'm missing something here. I'm not an advocate for getting rid of government - we need one, I think only the most ardent anarchist would claim we literally do not need one - but why if we did would we be back to a barter system? Just because the government introduced it doesn't mean a country would stop being able to use existing money afterwards. There would be a lot of other problems caused, but that would not be one of them. Money doesn't "only exist because of the government". Would companies in the UK suddenly stop deciding to accept the pound as legal tender, and ruin their market reach? No. Would they stop paying their workers in money and letting them die of poverty? No. Would individuals stop deciding to use money and... I dunno, have to choose between growing their own crops or dying of poverty? No. There's no evidence that money in a government-less system wouldn't work. How well it would work, we have no idea, because it's never been tried before. I personally wouldn't like to be part of that experiment, but I doubt the money would be the issue.

Assuming the Bank of England wouldn't exist, we'd actually have a deflationary currency, which has its own problems (such as contracts being incredibly difficult to sort out/resolve since the value would always be going up) but would arguably be better in the system we're in where inflation rates dwarf interest rates meaning people who "save" money in "savings accounts" are literally losing money over time because although the amount of £ they have go up, it's by less than the value decreases.




We could have some form of money without a government but it wouldn't be as useful. You could replace it by something like bitcoin or a company backed currency (this use to happen back in the industrial revolution). But these have they're own problems. Also without the existence of some kind of centralised organised system you would never a situation where stuff like bitcoin could be created. If you removed government now people might keep use money for a bit but the system that maintains it would be gone and there would be no way ensure its value, or stop counterfeiting. Some organisations such as a multinational might take over the mechanisms for ensuring money stays valuable and usable but at that point that company is the government and will tax you in someway.

User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Hyperion » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:10 pm

Regginator3 wrote:
Hyperion wrote:Those people that interrupted Kahn the other day. Forgotten about, probably because Kahn didn't confront them, nor did one of his people punch them. Also it didn't fit the media's narrative


What are you on about? It's hardly forgotten about. It was in the media for quite a while, hit BBC News, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Evening Standard - even hit overseas news outlets like the Washington Post. Pretty sure it was top trending on Facebook on the day as well. People don't talk about it right now because it was a month ago and news interest generally has an expiry date. The incident in Bristol Uni was less than a fortnight ago and has received increased attention because the exact same thing happened the other day at Cambridge Union as well.

Nothing to do with "the media's narrative"


What are you on about? It was in the media for a day.
Top trending on Facebook :lol:

Image Image
User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:14 pm

Hyperion wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:
Hyperion wrote:Those people that interrupted Kahn the other day. Forgotten about, probably because Kahn didn't confront them, nor did one of his people punch them. Also it didn't fit the media's narrative


What are you on about? It's hardly forgotten about. It was in the media for quite a while, hit BBC News, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Evening Standard - even hit overseas news outlets like the Washington Post. Pretty sure it was top trending on Facebook on the day as well. People don't talk about it right now because it was a month ago and news interest generally has an expiry date. The incident in Bristol Uni was less than a fortnight ago and has received increased attention because the exact same thing happened the other day at Cambridge Union as well.

Nothing to do with "the media's narrative"


What are you on about? It was in the media for a day.
Top trending on Facebook :lol:

The Sun was even talking about it days later. It wasn't just a day... as was the Independent

That said, there wasn't much more to talk about. The culprits were identified at the start, and there wasn't any information to follow up on. With the Mogg situation there was the debate over "who started it", which obviously led to more media attention as well.

And yes, I'm pretty sure it was one of the top trending discussions on Facebook. It showed as such for me, anyway, I remember it pretty distinctly because that's how I found out about the topic in the first place.

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Karl » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:19 pm

Regginator3 wrote:Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

Is it? The Guardian is frequently very unintentionally funny, but I tend to reserve the word 'rag' for the papers that stir up FUD and hatred day-in-day-out.

The Express and The Mail are the real rags.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:33 pm

Karl wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

Is it? The Guardian is frequently very unintentionally funny, but I tend to reserve the word 'rag' for the papers that stir up FUD and hatred day-in-day-out.

The Express and The Mail are the real rags.

I dunno. Anything which tries to purport a set morality "This is the right way to behave, this is the wrong one" is pretty much a rag, especially when they don't abide by it themselves. The Express and The Mail are rags too for the reasons you say.

Also the Guardian stirs up FUD on a daily basis too, mostly against Brexit. We can debate whether that's a good idea or not but that's separate to the fact the Guardian literally constantly posts negative articles that almost always turn out to be false.

User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by lex-man » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:40 pm

Regginator3 wrote:
KK wrote:Two articles on The Guardian website today that stand out to me.

1, just the general hypocrisy of this article, "Vogue criticised for unpaid internships", which the paper decided to lead on for the pysical paper: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... nternships

Vogue has been criticised for using unpaid interns in month-long placements despite the new editor Edward Enninful’s commitment to increasing diversity at the fashion journal.

The work is unpaid, but those taking up the post are reimbursed for travel expenses of up to £80 a week.

Tanya de Grunwald of Graduate Fog, a campaigner for fair internships, said she had reported Vogue to HM Revenue and Customs, which monitors payment of the national minimum wage. She said the workplace shadowing roles may amount to the duties of a “worker”, an official employment classification. Under employment legislation, anyone who is acting as a worker must be paid at least the national minimum wage.

Meanwhile The Guardian are doing the exact same thing with unpaid internship, and in 2017 was offering unpaid ethnic minority and editorial work internships. Maybe they should lead on their own crappy practices first.


Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

KK wrote:2, an example of just how epically out of touch some of their readers are: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... r-mariella

Will my girlfriend stop loving me if I earn less than her?

At 34, I’ve paid off my mortgage and have a couple of years’ salary in savings. I’ve recently been promoted, but am working very long hours, don’t have much time in the evenings and spend my weekends worrying about the work. I’m not sleeping well and partly due to Crohn’s disease have lost weight. I earn £46,000, which is far more than I ever expected (or feel I deserve) to earn. My girlfriend of almost a year is 33 and the love of my life, and I hope we will have a baby in around three years’ time. I’ve been offered a public sector job with a wonderful work-life balance but reduced salary (£36,000) and had decided to take this and spend the next three or so years doing all the things I/we want to before having children, as well as improving my health. During a conversation about this potential change, my girlfriend told me that she earns £45,000. I am not in the slightest bit chauvinistic about earning more than her, but need to feel that the choice I’m making is not selfish. I worry about not contributing enough and riding on her coattails. Changing to a lower-paying job might suggest I am lacking ambition and also have a negative impact on our relationship.

'I own my own house, I have no mortgage, I'll be on £36,000 a year, I've got almost £100,000 in the bank, and we're on £81,000 a year. For God Sakes Help Me!'


I feel like this is a little unfair, though. Whilst they may be fine financially, the question as to whether it would impact their relationship is a legitimate one.


I guess everybody has problems, I could totally see why this would be a problem. That said I am a guardian reader. Although some of their stuff does go a bit too far IMO.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:58 pm

Regginator3 wrote:
Karl wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

Is it? The Guardian is frequently very unintentionally funny, but I tend to reserve the word 'rag' for the papers that stir up FUD and hatred day-in-day-out.

The Express and The Mail are the real rags.

I dunno. Anything which tries to purport a set morality "This is the right way to behave, this is the wrong one" is pretty much a rag, especially when they don't abide by it themselves. The Express and The Mail are rags too for the reasons you say.

Also the Guardian stirs up FUD on a daily basis too, mostly against Brexit. We can debate whether that's a good idea or not but that's separate to the fact the Guardian literally constantly posts negative articles that almost always turn out to be false.


Which newspapers are good in your eyes?

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Karl » Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:20 pm

Regginator3 wrote:I dunno. Anything which tries to purport a set morality "This is the right way to behave, this is the wrong one" is pretty much a rag, especially when they don't abide by it themselves. The Express and The Mail are rags too for the reasons you say.

Also the Guardian stirs up FUD on a daily basis too, mostly against Brexit. We can debate whether that's a good idea or not but that's separate to the fact the Guardian literally constantly posts negative articles that almost always turn out to be false.

I can't say that your view isn't logically consistent, it's just that for me overt encouragement of racism and xenophobia - and the constant kicking of vulnerable easy targets like immigrants or the very poor ("scroungers!!!"), and so on - is a lot worse than economics alarmism or a moralistic comment piece about veganism (and I hate vegans! ;) mostly-kidding...).

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Rocsteady » Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:51 pm

Regginator3 wrote:
Karl wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

Is it? The Guardian is frequently very unintentionally funny, but I tend to reserve the word 'rag' for the papers that stir up FUD and hatred day-in-day-out.

The Express and The Mail are the real rags.

I dunno. Anything which tries to purport a set morality "This is the right way to behave, this is the wrong one" is pretty much a rag, especially when they don't abide by it themselves. The Express and The Mail are rags too for the reasons you say.

Also the Guardian stirs up FUD on a daily basis too, mostly against Brexit. We can debate whether that's a good idea or not but that's separate to the fact the Guardian literally constantly posts negative articles that almost always turn out to be false.

On your first criteria that would suggest every single paper is 'pretty much a rag.' Having worked in newsrooms every paper pushes an agenda, even if it's just through story choice and prominence.

Image
User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:12 pm

Rocsteady wrote:On your first criteria that would suggest every single paper is 'pretty much a rag.' Having worked in newsrooms every paper pushes an agenda, even if it's just through story choice and prominence.

Yeah I agree to an extent, but then there's the additional hypocrisy. For example, as KK pointed out, running a story about how terrible it is Vogue have unpaid internships yet they do it themselves. That's a whooole other level.

Moggy wrote:Which newspapers are good in your eyes?

For me personally? I don't tend to read newspapers much. If I do, I don't mind reading the Times or the FT though. Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.

User avatar
Vermilion
Member
Joined in 2018
Location: Everywhere
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Vermilion » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:14 pm

Regginator3 wrote:Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.


It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:16 pm

Vermilion wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.


It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

I haven't paid much attention to the site, to be honest.

User avatar
Vermilion
Member
Joined in 2018
Location: Everywhere
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Vermilion » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:16 pm

Regginator3 wrote:
Vermilion wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.


It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

I haven't paid much attention to the site, to be honest.


http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/11/the-peopl ... d-7303780/

One of their latest headlines.

ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Hyperion » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:20 pm

That article's not even hypocritical.

Image Image
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by KK » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:28 pm

Vermilion wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:
Vermilion wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.


It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

I haven't paid much attention to the site, to be honest.


http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/11/the-peopl ... d-7303780/

One of their latest headlines.

The reason is it’s extremely cheap to produce, can be written by practically anybody (either in-house or farmed out) and under 34s love reading it. In other ways, it helps fund proper journalism...though not really, as Buzzfeed have shown with their latest cuts/debts. But that’s the mindset.

Image

Return to “Stuff”