Politics Thread 5

[<]:^D]

yeah sorry Lotus but im going to chime in and say your posts often come across as reductionist and sometimes dismissive of nuance/other peoples perspectives

[Tineash]

The editor of the London Evening Standard has been selling positive coverage to Uber, Google, and others

London’s Evening Standard newspaper has agreed a £3 million deal with six leading commercial companies, including Google and Uber, promising them “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment coverage, openDemocracy can reveal.

The project, called London 2020, is being directed by the editor. It effectively sweeps away the conventional ethical divide between news and advertising inside the Standard – and is set to include “favourable” news coverage of the firms involved, with readers unable to differentiate between "news" that is paid-for and other commercially-branded content.

I really expect better from the editor of the capital's leading paper. What sort of untrustworthy, morally bankrupt, greedy, degenerate....

Oh right!! I forgot!!!!





it's that man that basically ran the country for 6 years, cool cool

[Skarjo]

I mean, did you read that article though? I don't necessarily agree with the way she makes the argument, but it's difficult to argue that the crux of the matter (that women lusting over male actors is not necessarily equal to men lusting after female actors) isn't correct.

I did read it. And I disagree. For me the issue is the same with all of these double-standards; a behaviour is either acceptable or it's unacceptable, and therefore you apply the same standards to everyone. You don't start making exceptions based on skin colour, or gender, or anything else.

Well that's patently untrue, and overly simplistic.

We recognise the context of skin colour and gender and a host of other things every day, and that's perfectly fine given we recognise the power structures therein.

[KK]

Major win for Labour controlled council as Croydon town centre overhaul welcomes landmark John Lewis, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer stores

The revival of Croydon took a massive leap today when John Lewis said it will open a department store in a newly planned £1.4 billion shopping centre.

Green lit by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, and unanimously approved by Labour's Croydon Council planning committee, the new four-storey shop will house John Lewis, and a Waitrose on the ground floor, and form the centrepiece of the Whitgift shopping centre being overhauled jointly by the retail developers Westfield and Hammerson, which runs Brent Cross in north London.

The huge 165,000 sq ft John Lewis will be one of 300 shops, including a flagship Marks & Spencer, as well as restaurants, fashion boutiques, a multi-screen cinema complex, and up to 1,000 new apartments. It will be the seventh “full service” John Lewis department store in London.



Croydon, as it is today.

It is estimated that the shopping centre, a key part of a £5.25 billion regeneration project of the town centre, will make Croydon one of the most important retail destinations in Europe, with work due to start in 2019.



Croydon, post demolition.

Leader of Labour controlled Croydon Council Tony Newman said: “This is great news for Croydon. John Lewis and Waitrose’s commitment to be part of the £1.4 billion redevelopment of the Whitgift demonstrates their confidence in Croydon’s regeneration, its infrastructure and its growth. Rock on, tits out, job's a good 'en.

This is fantastic news for Croydon and we have been doing everything we can to bring the redevelopment of the Whitgift Centre to fruition so local people can benefit from its wealth of offerings, including the creation of 7,000 new jobs”



Jeremy Corbyn's vision.

South London arts centre Fairfield Halls also announced local organisation Savvy Theatre as its company in residence for the next 10 years.

The arts complex is set to reopen later this year following a £30 million refurbishment designed to be 'the South Bank of Croydon'.

Founder of Savvy and artistic director Sheree Vickers said: “We are so excited by this partnership and for supporting the vision of ensuring the community has a sense of ownership in this new cultural venue.

“Fairfield Halls is an incredible space with so much opportunity for creative work and we are looking forward to developing our exciting and accessible, participatory theatre programme.”

If they manage to pull this off they'll be singing from the himalayas.

[Lotus]

Karl's here with his usual moralising.

"Lust for reductionism"?
"Out here in the human world"?

strawberry floating hell.

I'll reply more in-depth later when I'm not in a meeting.

You're trying to make out like he's the crazy one and it's making you look bad.

I'm not trying to make him out as crazy, and nor do I think he's crazy. And I don't care what people on here think, so it's really not a concern if I look bad or not.

I mean, did you read that article though? I don't necessarily agree with the way she makes the argument, but it's difficult to argue that the crux of the matter (that women lusting over male actors is not necessarily equal to men lusting after female actors) isn't correct.

I did read it. And I disagree. For me the issue is the same with all of these double-standards; a behaviour is either acceptable or it's unacceptable, and therefore you apply the same standards to everyone. You don't start making exceptions based on skin colour, or gender, or anything else.

These issues sure are simple when you think about them devoid of any nuance or context. But where does your lust for reductionism end? Is it in your eyes rank hypocrisy that - to give one example - black people can use the N word and you can't?

Out here in the human world, actions and words don't exist as singularly and statically well-defined objects. Actions and words are given degrees of power and subtle implications by the social context of the author. The Guardian piece you linked so disdainfully earlier isn't out to make "exceptions" or "double-standards", it's trying to illustrate that social context for you.

One problem with "egalitarianism" (as it's used by Internet egalitarians) is that it ignores the realities of our culture and society. You can insist that you "don't see race/gender/sexuality/..." all you like, but others will still notice your social attributes and the social attributes of the person you are speaking to and assign meta-contextual information to that conversation, and if you're interested in equality you can't just refuse to deal with that. Another problem is that "egalitarianism" (again, at least as espoused by Internet egalitarians) is that it fails to recognise scenarios in which one people really ought to be treated preferentially. For example, often a disadvantaged candidate from a minority background that's under-represented in your field will be a much more valuable contribution to your company than some posh toff with slightly better credentials, for a whole range of reasons -- they probably worked harder to get there, their perspective will be more unique, and so on. How can you make the right choice in that situation if you "don't see" their social attributes?

It seems like we've now got a growing crowd of people who think they are advocates for equality, but who refuse to accept that social equality ever has nuance, and are therefore actually really regressive people who end up not helping at all, or - in the worst case - actively perpetuating inequality. And then they go onto Internet forums and say things like "best option is to avoid the feminism guff altogether". If you don't want to be that kind of person - if you've ever felt sympathy for a woman who has been belittled or bullied because of her gender - then you should support feminism as a broad-church ideology, even if you disagree with some other individual feminists on implementation details.

While the Guardian piece may be looking to illustrate the social context, it doesn't explain why it isn't a double-standard, like the sub-heading claims. Men lusting after women is bad, women lusting after men is fine - that's a double-standard, like it or not. Sure you can look at the past, power dynamics, whatever, but treating one gender differently to another is what that is. My argument is that if we're looking for equality in how we treat people and equality in opportunity, that's what we do, not look for different reasons why the rules shouldn't apply to some people. Presumably there are other double-standards you think are acceptable, and so I'd wonder at which point they no longer become acceptable - who decides when the power dynamic has shifted enough, when historical context no longer applies, when nuances no longer need to be considered. I'm not denying there's social inequality, but I don't see the issue with the over-arching principle of holding everybody to the same standard.

On feminism, I agree with the core principles; men and women deserving equality in opportunity, treatment, respect, social rights, etc. My issue with feminism - at least in its current form - is that its rife with hypocrisy, a victimhood mentality, in-fighting, pettiness...I don't feel the need to label myself as a feminist or associate with it as a movement.

And I don't know what an 'internet egalitarian' is, but it probably won't come as a surprise to hear that no, I don't believe affirmative action or positive discrimination is helpful. Clearly you live in the "human world" and I don't, but there are plenty of other people - as well as those within the groups you'd probably claim are in need of help - that also disagree with it.

Karl's here with his usual moralising.

Is social equality not quite literally a moral issue? On some level you're supposed to treat others well because it's the right thing to do, i.e. because you feel a moral imperative to do so.

I don't think you are a bad person in a holistic sense (how could I judge that based on some Internet forum posts?) but I think you have an ignorant and regressive POV, and, sure, I think if you updated it then that would be in some sense a moral improvement.

That wasn't really the fundamental point of my post though - any emotion aside, your model for how society works is still objectively, demonstrably over-simplistic - so I think it's interesting that that was your opening gambit.

I was referring to some of your posts on matters of politics and what's right and wrong and the unfounded air of superiority that accompanies them (IMO, of course). I mentioned it because the one above is another example of it. As for my 'model for society', I'm just making comments on an internet forum. I'm not taking this particularly seriously and trying to build a roadmap for how we live. Overly-simplistic it may be, that's my view.

yeah sorry Lotus but im going to chime in and say your posts often come across as reductionist and sometimes dismissive of nuance/other peoples perspectives

Okay.

I get the feeling you guys care about this topic a lot more than I do, and I've pretty much given the extent of my thoughts on it here.

[Skarjo]

You guys care too much.

Losers.

I'm still right tho.

[Squinty]

Apparently the petition to get Tommy Robinson released has reached 500000 sigs.

[Moggy]

Apparently the petition to get Tommy Robinson released has reached 500000 sigs.

500,000 utterly delusional cockwombles.

[Alvin Flummux]

Luckily, justice isn't democratic.

[Moggy]

Luckily, justice isn't democratic.

WE VOTED TOMMY OUT! RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! UNELECTED JUDGES SHOULD NOT DECIDE!

[That]

I don't care what people on here think, so it's really not a concern if I look bad or not. [...] I'm just making comments on an internet forum. I'm not taking this particularly seriously and trying to build a roadmap for how we live. Overly-simplistic it may be, that's my view. [...] I get the feeling you guys care about this topic a lot more than I do, and I've pretty much given the extent of my thoughts on it here.

Okay! I care a lot, but I'm not trying to force you to. You don't have to care. All I'll say is that if you genuinely don't care then I think that offers us an interesting way to contextualise your posts.

While the Guardian piece may be looking to illustrate the social context, it doesn't explain why it isn't a double-standard, like the sub-heading claims. Men lusting after women is bad, women lusting after men is fine - that's a double-standard, like it or not. Sure you can look at the past, power dynamics, whatever, but treating one gender differently to another is what that is. My argument is that if we're looking for equality in how we treat people and equality in opportunity, that's what we do, not look for different reasons why the rules shouldn't apply to some people.

I think the problem is that you are viewing these as "rules" rather than as arguments about whether particular scenarios for social interactions are acceptable. There's a subtle but important difference there. Of course "men lusting after women" isn't inherently "bad" (if that were true we would struggle to propagate the species!) any more so than the inverse is inherently "fine".

In the scenario outlined in The Guardian's article - a critic remarking upon the looks of an actor - there are a couple of factors at play. What message does the expression of lust send, and what impact will it have upon the object of that lust? Because by our traditional cultural standards men are encouraged to express their sexuality and women are belittled for their sexuality, a female critic writing that an actor is sexy is subverting that patriarchal ideal at no real damage to the man involved. (It's a rule of thumb, and the "appropriateness" could change hugely based on the individuals involved -- again, nuance!) On the other hand, a male critic leering at an actress will be read as a cultural reinforcement of male sexual power over women, and may well embarrass the actress and/or cause her work to be taken less seriously.

I am not a philosopher but I'm at least naively a consequentialist when it comes to matters of ethics. I think you should look at the consequences of your actions to assess their morality, rather than just seeking to fulfil a set of rules. I think rules-based thinking often works in our imaginations but falls down when presented with real, muddy situations ("out here in the human world"!).

Presumably there are other double-standards you think are acceptable, and so I'd wonder at which point they no longer become acceptable - who decides when the power dynamic has shifted enough, when historical context no longer applies, when nuances no longer need to be considered. I'm not denying there's social inequality, but I don't see the issue with the over-arching principle of holding everybody to the same standard.

I don't know when we'll know, but I know we aren't there now.

On feminism, I agree with the core principles; men and women deserving equality in opportunity, treatment, respect, social rights, etc.

If you truly in your heart believe this, then congrats -- you are feminist, whether you want to be or not. You aren't a terribly effective feminist though. For instance, you seem to have...

My issue with feminism - at least in its current form - is that its rife with hypocrisy, a victimhood mentality, in-fighting, pettiness...I don't feel the need to label myself as a feminist or associate with it as a movement.

...a lot of internalised misogyny here. Yeah, feminism isn't a hive-mind and its branches don't always agree, but do you hold other organisations & social movements to this standard? I think you're unknowingly regurgitating really cynical rhetoric used to undermine feminism.

(I'll ignore "affirmative action" -- a red herring. In your head that probably means quotas and all sorts of other implementation details that are a subject of active debate at the moment. I was only trying to convince you that there's worth in seeing someone's attributes and giving them a little mull over when you're interviewing your candidates, rather than pretending "all else is equal".)

I was referring to some of your posts on matters of politics and what's right and wrong and the unfounded air of superiority that accompanies them (IMO, of course).

Hey, sorry if I come across as having an "air of superiority". It's not intentional, I'm just not very good at talking to people. OTOH, by your own admission you don't care about this very much and I do, so maybe that's why I come across as having a relatively high level of confidence in the correctness of my beliefs.

[Herdanos]

I get the feeling you guys care about this topic a lot more than I do, and I've pretty much given the extent of my thoughts on it here.

> doesn't care much about topic
> writes essay about topic on internet forum

Alright petal.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

Major win for Labour controlled council as Croydon town centre overhaul welcomes landmark John Lewis, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer stores

The revival of Croydon took a massive leap today when John Lewis said it will open a department store in a newly planned £1.4 billion shopping centre.

Green lit by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, and unanimously approved by Labour's Croydon Council planning committee, the new four-storey shop will house John Lewis, and a Waitrose on the ground floor, and form the centrepiece of the Whitgift shopping centre being overhauled jointly by the retail developers Westfield and Hammerson, which runs Brent Cross in north London.

The huge 165,000 sq ft John Lewis will be one of 300 shops, including a flagship Marks & Spencer, as well as restaurants, fashion boutiques, a multi-screen cinema complex, and up to 1,000 new apartments. It will be the seventh “full service” John Lewis department store in London.



Croydon, as it is today.

It is estimated that the shopping centre, a key part of a £5.25 billion regeneration project of the town centre, will make Croydon one of the most important retail destinations in Europe, with work due to start in 2019.



Croydon, post demolition.

Leader of Labour controlled Croydon Council Tony Newman said: “This is great news for Croydon. John Lewis and Waitrose’s commitment to be part of the £1.4 billion redevelopment of the Whitgift demonstrates their confidence in Croydon’s regeneration, its infrastructure and its growth. Rock on, tits out, job's a good 'en.

This is fantastic news for Croydon and we have been doing everything we can to bring the redevelopment of the Whitgift Centre to fruition so local people can benefit from its wealth of offerings, including the creation of 7,000 new jobs”



Jeremy Corbyn's vision.

South London arts centre Fairfield Halls also announced local organisation Savvy Theatre as its company in residence for the next 10 years.

The arts complex is set to reopen later this year following a £30 million refurbishment designed to be 'the South Bank of Croydon'.

Founder of Savvy and artistic director Sheree Vickers said: “We are so excited by this partnership and for supporting the vision of ensuring the community has a sense of ownership in this new cultural venue.

“Fairfield Halls is an incredible space with so much opportunity for creative work and we are looking forward to developing our exciting and accessible, participatory theatre programme.”

If they manage to pull this off they'll be singing from the himalayas.

Do you think this will finally happen? Croydon Is essentially London’s third most important CBD after the city and Canary Wharf. I remember seeing many redevelopment plans over the years but this one appears to have the most legs in it. Plus large new shopping centres in London like the Westfield ones always seems to attracts gang wars and stabbings so Croydon will fit right in.

[Dual]

The sign of a town's regeneration in 2018 is having a John Lewis built.

[KK]

They've been promising the redevelopment of this shopping centre in some form or another since 2009. I can't remember what the specific reasons are but it just keeps getting delayed and delayed, and in the meantime every time I read about it they keep making the plans ever bigger and more extravagant on paper...and then years continue to go by and still nothing ever gets started.

Both Labour and the Conservative plan of attack appears to be the same gentrification manifesto that has worked elsewhere, thus all the luxury apartments, expensive shops, the second coming of The Shard...theoretically pushing 'the undesirables' out of the town centre and (presumably) further into Thornton Heath and South Norwood. Croydon is very much split in two: Surrey, as you'd imagine it (expensive, leafy) and London (urban, built-up, a gritty vibe that everyone immediately seems to notice or feel in the town centre).

Croydon is a transport hub though, bringing in school kids from everywhere - coupled with Croydon College - thus you are always going to get that congregation of young people. Plus it's the home of the immigration department, which means a lot of people just loitering around doing nothing in particular. I'm surprised Westfield and the town planners didn't also demand the Home Office be moved (like they apparently quietly requested of the Job Centre near Box Park, which either has already or is about to close as part of a wider relocation scheme).

[Return_of_the_STAR]

They've been promising the redevelopment of this shopping centre in some form or another since 2009. I can't remember what the specific reasons are but it just keeps getting delayed and delayed, and in the meantime every time I read about it they keep making the plans ever bigger and more extravagant on paper...and then years continue to go by and still nothing ever gets started.

Both Labour and the Conservative plan of attack appears to be the same gentrification manifesto that has worked elsewhere, thus all the luxury apartments, expensive shops, the second coming of The Shard...theoretically pushing 'the undesirables' out of the town centre and (presumably) further into Thornton Heath and South Norwood. Croydon is very much split in two: Surrey, as you'd imagine it (expensive, leafy) and London (urban, built-up, a gritty vibe that everyone immediately seems to notice or feel in the town centre).

Croydon is a transport hub though, bringing in school kids from everywhere - coupled with Croydon College - thus you are always going to get that congregation of young people. Plus it's the home of the immigration department, which means a lot of people just loitering around doing nothing in particular. I'm surprised Westfield and the town planners didn't also demand the Home Office be moved (like they apparently quietly requested of the Job Centre near Box Park, which either has already or is about to close as part of a wider relocation scheme).

I believe the home office have actually increased the numbers of staff working there as my sister in law recently had to move to Croydon along with at least a few hundred more members of staff.

[Lex-Man]

One of the HMRCs regional hubs has been opened there, so they've increased there staff in the area.

[KK]

A family member of mine also works there; I think he always comes back stressed.

[Lex-Man]

Croydon will do that to you.

[Ecno]

My friend and his girlfriend bought a flat in Croydon, last year in one of the new developments. I've been to visit a few types and the area doesn't seem bad at all now. There's some nice pubs and restaurants (though admittedly I did see a fight outside a not so nice pub at 6:30pm on a Saturday, which seemed a little early for me).