Politics Thread 5

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Karl_
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Karl_ » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:12 pm

Yo guess what, I can do a Guido Fawkes and Google someone's Instagram too.

Here it is: https://www.instagram.com/robinboardman/

Looks like he did for sure go away on a foreign holiday. In 2014. 5 years ago. When he was 16 years old.

Extinction Rebellion was inspired by "the IPCC report that we only have 12 years to stop catastrophic climate change", which was published last year.

He is such a HYPOCRITE!!! for flying on a plane as a child, then being inspired to not use planes by a scientific report he read as an adult.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:15 pm

Preezy wrote:(They probably looked at his instagram)


Modern journalism at its finest :lol:

So is he still having lots of foreign holidays or are they saying he had lots of them a few years ago? Because only the former would make him a hypocrite.

Edit: Karl got there first :x

User avatar
Karl_
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Karl_ » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:23 pm

It doesn't even matter, you can advocate for changes to a system while still participating in a system. I think there should be government disincentives for eating meat*, but I still eat quite a lot of meat. You don't need to be some kind of morally flawless messiah to propose a good idea.

But yeah, in this case it looks like the guy hasn't been hypocritical at all, it's just Guido Fawkes / Daily Mail tabloid gossip bullshit.



* Possibly some kind of very harsh "eco" tax, but I do worry it would be regressive and hit the poor the hardest. It'll do as an example of vacuous "hypocrisy" anyway.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:39 pm

Karl_ wrote:It doesn't even matter, you can advocate for changes to a system while still participating in a system.


In general that is true, but somebody jetting around the world while saying that nobody should fly is a hypocrite.

But if he no longer flies and thinks nobody should then he isn’t a hypocrite.

User avatar
Karl_
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Karl_ » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:43 pm

I agree it would be very hypocritical in that scenario, but I feel like sometimes hypocrisy (real or imagined) is given unreasonable weight when assessing a person's arguments. An example we can hopefully agree is dumb is "haHA, you cLaIm to be against child labour BUT YOU HAVE CHEAP CLOTHES AND A SMARTPHONE!!!".

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Rocsteady » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:47 pm

I’m torn with this one.

On one hand I agree with their aims and think although change can be enacted within current systems, sometimes a notable shift in public disorder to disrupt the status quo is helpful.

On the other hand most white guys with dreadlocks are strawberry floating pricks.

You can see my dilemma.

Image
User avatar
Karl_
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Karl_ » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:48 pm

:dread: locks

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Rocsteady » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:54 pm

To add to the list of pricks, I cannot strawberry floating stand Adam boulton. From the Kay burley school of ‘journalism’. You think he goes home at night, looks himself in the mirror and thinks “good job today, nailed it.”

Imagine realistically he goes home with a bag of coke and a hooker, but still.

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

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Vermilion » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:14 pm

KK wrote:Image


I can think of many reasons why it would be fun to annoy Jeremy Corbyn, but climate change is not one of them.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by captain red dog » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:18 pm

Moggy wrote:
Karl_ wrote:It doesn't even matter, you can advocate for changes to a system while still participating in a system.


In general that is true, but somebody jetting around the world while saying that nobody should fly is a hypocrite.

But if he no longer flies and thinks nobody should then he isn’t a hypocrite.

So what is the alternative? No more flights? Because its going to take more than 12 years to come up with a mass clean flight alternative, and if you want to stop flights then you are kind of in UKIP territory and back to crashing global economies and creating further poverty.

You can't make flights only for those who need it either, otherwise it becomes a luxury of the wealthy. So this kind of boils down to Extinction Rebellion having no reasonable demands.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:19 pm

captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl_ wrote:It doesn't even matter, you can advocate for changes to a system while still participating in a system.


In general that is true, but somebody jetting around the world while saying that nobody should fly is a hypocrite.

But if he no longer flies and thinks nobody should then he isn’t a hypocrite.

So what is the alternative? No more flights? Because its going to take more than 12 years to come up with a mass clean flight alternative, and if you want to stop flights then you are kind of in UKIP territory and back to crashing global economies and creating further poverty.

You can't make flights only for those who need it either, otherwise it becomes a luxury of the wealthy. So this kind of boils down to Extinction Rebellion having no reasonable demands.


I doubt many of them seriously think there’ll be zero flights. But if their actions reduce the number of people flying then they will see that as a win.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by captain red dog » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:25 pm

Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl_ wrote:It doesn't even matter, you can advocate for changes to a system while still participating in a system.


In general that is true, but somebody jetting around the world while saying that nobody should fly is a hypocrite.

But if he no longer flies and thinks nobody should then he isn’t a hypocrite.

So what is the alternative? No more flights? Because its going to take more than 12 years to come up with a mass clean flight alternative, and if you want to stop flights then you are kind of in UKIP territory and back to crashing global economies and creating further poverty.

You can't make flights only for those who need it either, otherwise it becomes a luxury of the wealthy. So this kind of boils down to Extinction Rebellion having no reasonable demands.


I doubt many of them seriously think there’ll be zero flights. But if their actions reduce the number of people flying then they will see that as a win.

It won't though.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:36 pm

captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl_ wrote:It doesn't even matter, you can advocate for changes to a system while still participating in a system.


In general that is true, but somebody jetting around the world while saying that nobody should fly is a hypocrite.

But if he no longer flies and thinks nobody should then he isn’t a hypocrite.

So what is the alternative? No more flights? Because its going to take more than 12 years to come up with a mass clean flight alternative, and if you want to stop flights then you are kind of in UKIP territory and back to crashing global economies and creating further poverty.

You can't make flights only for those who need it either, otherwise it becomes a luxury of the wealthy. So this kind of boils down to Extinction Rebellion having no reasonable demands.


I doubt many of them seriously think there’ll be zero flights. But if their actions reduce the number of people flying then they will see that as a win.

It won't though.


It will if some of those drivers in London miss their flights.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
SONM & Cake Sec.
SONM & Cake Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by OrangeRKN » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:05 pm

captain red dog wrote:So what is the alternative? No more flights? Because its going to take more than 12 years to come up with a mass clean flight alternative, and if you want to stop flights then you are kind of in UKIP territory and back to crashing global economies and creating further poverty.

You can't make flights only for those who need it either, otherwise it becomes a luxury of the wealthy. So this kind of boils down to Extinction Rebellion having no reasonable demands.


There is a massive amount of unnecessary flying that can be cut down on. Just last month I had a colleague fly from London to Newcastle because it was cheaper than the train. That's a massively wasteful flight that can be almost eliminated entirely without any detrimental affects by fixing the broken economy around it - make the same train journey cheaper. You don't even have to ban anything, you just need to tax and invest smartly as a government in order to encourage the desire behaviour.

With business flights, plenty of people are being flown to meetings that could be achieved instead with modern technology when we have the internet and video conferencing. Again government policy can be useful here in discouraging such flights, as can pressuring corporations directly.

Where flights are necessary, there is a big difference between flights themselves. Economy only flights are much more efficient because more people can fit on a single plane - if everyone flies that way, the number of flights can be reduced. Business class is such a decadent waste, I think very little of worth would be lost. Again any economic necessity of flights isn't lost.

On the average person flying to go on holiday, education about the environmental impact is important, but I don't think I have any fundamental objection either to increasing taxation to better reflect the true societal cost of flights due to their environmental impact.

It's definitely not a choice between carrying on as we are and banning all flights.

Witty biological-political hybrid jokes are the reason this place fails to cater to a wide audience
Image
Image
Web - RedBubble - @OrangeRakoon - GOTY 2018
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Lex-Man » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:10 pm

Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Karl_ wrote:It doesn't even matter, you can advocate for changes to a system while still participating in a system.


In general that is true, but somebody jetting around the world while saying that nobody should fly is a hypocrite.

But if he no longer flies and thinks nobody should then he isn’t a hypocrite.

So what is the alternative? No more flights? Because its going to take more than 12 years to come up with a mass clean flight alternative, and if you want to stop flights then you are kind of in UKIP territory and back to crashing global economies and creating further poverty.

You can't make flights only for those who need it either, otherwise it becomes a luxury of the wealthy. So this kind of boils down to Extinction Rebellion having no reasonable demands.


I doubt many of them seriously think there’ll be zero flights. But if their actions reduce the number of people flying then they will see that as a win.


I heard that we should be flying once every five years. I'm on holiday now, I decided to go to Devon for a few days but I drove down here which is probably pretty bad really.

I wonder if we could all be given some kind of C02 rations ever year.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Garth » Thu Apr 18, 2019 2:15 am


:shock:

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

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by KK » Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:47 am

David Blunket writing in today’s Daily Mail:

Sorry, but I don't need any lectures from any Johnny-come-lately on the urgent need to tackle climate change.

Eleven years ago I was one of more than 600 MPs who voted to pass the Climate Change Act, committing Britain to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. I am committed to much more ambitious action in future.

But by causing mayhem in London's transport system over the past three days, the group Extinction Rebellion has not won my sympathy. On the contrary, it has left me feeling outraged.

I feel angry and irritated that it has chosen to make people's lives a misery. By yesterday, because of road blockages, 55 bus routes had been suspended, inconveniencing 500,000 passengers.

While the group pulled back from trying to close the Tube network, it has not withdrawn the threat — saying that it wanted to see how yesterday's disruption of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) went before making a decision on whether to block the Underground system.

By yesterday the police had failed substantially to clear any of the areas affected by the protests. Attempting to move protesters from one area to another, as they have been trying to do, simply doesn't work.

Last night, they appeared to be making some attempt to clear protesters from Oxford Circus, Waterloo Bridge and Parliament Square, yet these vital thoroughfares have been blocked for three days, which is simply not acceptable when people need to go about their business.

As Home Secretary between 2001 and 2004 I had to deal with the anti-globalisation protests and the Reclaim the Streets movement. I had to make decisions as to how far you allow these protests to go.

What I learned was that you had to be tough. The full force of the law needs to be used against those who have been warned and yet who persist with their anti-social protests.

Over the past few days, police have arrested more than 340 people, yet many of them have been released and allowed to go straight back to join the protests.

The protesters are treating it as some kind of game. What we need is a firm hand and decisive action. Without it, these anarchists will see all the publicity they are enjoying and will engage in this kind of action again and again.

It is hardly as if the police have had no warning about these protests. Extinction Rebellion has been blocking streets and bridges since November. It has repeated its tactics on a regular basis.

On this occasion, police held meetings in advance with the protesters. They knew who was behind the protests, where and when they were going to be held and the methods the protesters were going to use.

So why have the Met not provided a stronger response as the great metropolis of London has ground to a halt? And where is the Home Secretary?

The problem with anarchists — which is what Extinction Rebellion are — is that by disrupting the lives and wellbeing of their fellow men and women they damage the cause they are trying to advance.

Instead of engaging in debate and dialogue they have turned against them the very people they are trying to persuade.

They are using tactics — bullying and intimidation — which in any other context they would condemn. They have disrupted emergency services and put lives at risk.

Extinction Rebellion says it has no option but to cause chaos because we are facing a climate 'emergency'.

Yet over the past three days, as ever in a large city, there have been dozens of genuine emergencies which have required ambulances, fire engines and police cars.

The actions of the anarchists have made it much more difficult for emergency vehicles to respond and have diverted valuable police resources.

Not only that, their actions have resulted in deeply perverse outcomes. They claim to be campaigning to cut pollution, but by choking up a capital city and causing traffic jams, they have achieved exactly the opposite: increasing pollution and damaging the environment.

You don't have to be highly intelligent to work out that, by blocking bus routes and disrupting trains, you discourage people from using public transport and force them to take to their cars to find a way round the jams.

Bankers who normally commute by DLR were reported to be resorting to taxis to get around — spewing out diesel fumes in the process.

As the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: 'It is absolutely crucial to get more people using public transport, as well as walking and cycling, if we are to tackle this climate emergency.'

Extinction Rebellion has launched its assault not on the politicians it is trying to address — the Commons and the Lords are both in recess this week — but the poor men and women who are just trying to make a living.

Many fear their Easter breaks are in jeopardy. Businesses face severe losses. According to West End shops, hundreds of millions of pounds could be lost to the London economy.

These anarchists seem to think they own the issue of climate change, yet they have blithely ignored the serious efforts that are being made to reduce pollution more generally. Last week, for example, the first phase of London's new ultra-low emissions zone came into effect, banning the most polluting vehicles from the city centre.

There has been huge investment in renewable energy, improving insulation in buildings, promoting hybrid and electric cars and tackling carbon emissions in many other ways. UK carbon emissions, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, have fallen by 44 per cent since 1990.

These are achievements which Extinction Rebellion should surely be praising. Yet the anarchists ignore them, and instead try to make out that governments, over many years, have done nothing, while only they have recognised the seriousness of the threat of climate change.

Unlawful protests in a democracy ultimately achieve nothing. Just look how Occupy the Streets failed in its campaign to bring down capitalism.

If climate change protesters want an example of how they should be conducting their campaign, they should instead look at the Make Poverty History movement, with which I worked when I was Home Secretary.

The organisers didn't break the law. Instead, they organised peaceful demos and staged concerts around the world.

They conducted their campaign in a manner which persuaded rather than alienated — and as a result they achieved their objectives.

They persuaded world leaders to agree to debt relief for developing countries and also contributed to efforts tackling climate change.

It fills me with contempt to hear the protesters 'apologising' to the public for causing disruption. People who make no effort to engage in public debate don't deserve our support. They claim to care about the public, but frankly they don't care one bit.

Extinction Rebellion wants us to think that it is central to the fight against climate change, but it is rapidly turning itself into an utter irrelevance.

The real work tackling climate change is being done with those who engage in proper political debate, not those who engage in childish acts of sabotage.

Image
User avatar
Mystical Ninja Starring Danmon
Go for it, Danmon!
Joined in 2008
Location: Peach Mountain

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Mystical Ninja Starring Danmon » Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:50 am

KK wrote:David Blunket writing in today’s Daily Mail:
The real work tackling climate change is being done with those who engage in proper political debate, not those who engage in childish acts of sabotage.

The only problem with this is that it isn't.
Complete tripe.
But then it's the Mail, so what do you expect?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:08 am

Sad to see an ex-Labour Home Secretary writing "old man shouts at cloud" articles for the Daily Mail.

Although Blunkett was always a twat so it is not a surprise.

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

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by KK » Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:19 am

Emma Vogelmann, a disability rights campaigner, for the Huffington Post:

Extinction Rebellion's Protests Are Making Life Harder For Disabled People Like Me

I fully support action on climate change, but I cannot support any action that prevents an already marginalised group from living their lives as they wish to.

Extinction Rebellion’s mass disruptions in London have dominated headlines and angered many commuters like me this week. The aim of the group is to make people take notice of the serious threat of climate change and force politicians to take action. I’ve certainly taken notice, but not in the way Extinction Rebellion intended.

Let me clarify something first – I completely support action on climate change and I understand the severity of the issue. However, as an experienced campaigner and as a disabled person, I do not support how Extinction Rebellion are protesting.

I am an electric wheelchair user and I cannot use the underground, due to only one in five stations being fully accessible. My commute requires taking a taxi from King’s Cross station to my office. This is not a luxurious choice I am making because I dislike crowded tube cars – I need to take a taxi if I want to go to work, where I campaign to get better support for disabled people.

This is a perfect example of one of the many additional costs associated with disability. The roadblocks have caused increased traffic where cars simply don’t move, which is an inconvenience that Extinction Rebellion want people to experience. But have they considered wheelchair users like me who are sitting in that standstill traffic and have to pay for that time? I don’t believe they have, and this is irresponsible of them.

My journeys into work this week have been more expensive than the average journey I have been doing for the past 18 months due to traffic caused by the roadblocks. I don’t have the option of the underground or getting out of the cab and walking the rest of the way, which means every minute it takes to get to that destination, I pay for. This is not fair to me and others who are prevented from using other transport options.

Yesterday, I seriously considered working from home to avoid the protests but, as someone who campaigns to get more disabled people into work, I could not allow them to prevent me from doing just that. Instead I have attempted to contact the group to explain how their methods of protesting are disproportionately impacting disabled people, but so far they have not replied.

I have worked and volunteered in the charity sector for over five years and in that time I have learnt a lot about how to run effective and inclusive campaigns. You have to consider the impact your campaign actions have on all people but particularly marginalised groups. For their campaign to truly be for all of humanity, how can they ignore the situation of the 1.2million wheelchair users in the UK?

As I’ve said, I am fully aware of the seriousness of climate change and I support action – but I do not support any action that prevents disabled people from living their lives as they wish to. Social isolation is a very real problem faced by the disabled community due to many places are inaccessible and cuts to care packages that support people engaging in their communities. When I see a protest that seeks to make it even more difficult and more expensive for disabled people, I cannot let this go unchallenged.

If anyone at Extinction Rebellion is reading this and want to discuss how to make their campaign more inclusive, I’m more than happy to talk!

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ex ... k-homepage

Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: <]:^D, Blue Eyes, IAmTheSaladMan, Jezo, Lex-Man, Mafro, OrangeRKN, Peter Crisp, Preezy, shy guy 64, Tafdolphin and 65 guests