Politics Thread 6

Fed up talking videogames? Why?

Who will you vote for at the next General Election?

Conservative
10
9%
Labour
45
40%
Liberal Democrat
26
23%
Green
19
17%
SNP
8
7%
Brexit Party
1
1%
UKIP
1
1%
Plaid Cymru
1
1%
DUP
0
No votes
Sinn Fein
2
2%
The Independent Group for Change
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 113
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Squinty » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:12 am

Moggy wrote:
Dowbocop wrote:One of the most irritating things I find with Conservatism in general is the underlying notion that anyone who wants a fairer society is naive and needs to wise up about human nature. It's like compassion is a childish trait that must be eliminated in order to progress in life.


It's funny really as it's the exact opposite of what we teach children they should be.


That's true, and it's something I never really considered.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:50 am

So "Tommy Robinson" is now a refugee. :lol:

Image
User avatar
Tomous
I Pissed My Pants
Joined in 2010
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Tomous » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:52 am

Moggy wrote:So "Tommy Robinson" is now a refugee. :lol:



An immigrant with a criminal record

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:54 am

Tomous wrote:
Moggy wrote:So "Tommy Robinson" is now a refugee. :lol:



An immigrant with a criminal record


Why is Spain allowing a wealthy criminal extremist into the country? He's got a smartphone so can't be a refugee!

Image
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Squinty » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:27 am

Like strawberry float did he have an arson attack. He literally moved to Spain because it's sunny. Dat freedom of movement as well.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:30 am

Squinty wrote:Like strawberry float did he have an arson attack. He literally moved to Spain because it's sunny. Dat freedom of movement as well.


And probably because he has a court case coming up.

Image
User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by BID0 » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:39 am

Hexx wrote:
BID0 wrote:
Hexx wrote:And if they lost you'd have the worst press of a legal strike against them for "antisemitism"

Well this outcome is even worse as it will undermine a number of currently ongoing investigations in to former, now suspended (how long for now that some have been awarded this money) labour staff who were accused of holding back historical antisemitic investigations thanks to the leaked Labour documents


Not sure I agree that undermining the fight against perceived filthy traitors to the beloved leader is in anyway worse than the media would make losing this court case appear to the public.

This whole mess could have been avoid if previous leadership had responded quickly and properly to the allegations rather than angrily and viciously to the anyone who questions them (should have taken legal advice. You can easily make a counter point with leaving yourself exposed to defamation/libel.)

It does amuse me the Corbyn's learned nothing and is now at risk at being personally sued.

Sorry to bring this back up again (only just logged in online), but the cases have nothing to do with Corbyn. Did you not read about the Labour leaks/ongoing internal investigation/BBC Panorama episode? You don't seem to understand what happened with antisemitism and racism during the previous two shadow governments.

Last edited by BID0 on Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:41 am

Moggy wrote:
Squinty wrote:Like strawberry float did he have an arson attack. He literally moved to Spain because it's sunny. Dat freedom of movement as well.


And probably because he has a court case coming up.


Why doesn't he stay at home and fight for his country?

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:41 am

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Squinty wrote:Like strawberry float did he have an arson attack. He literally moved to Spain because it's sunny. Dat freedom of movement as well.


And probably because he has a court case coming up.


Why doesn't he stay at home and fight for his country?


Country is lost mate, it's run by leftist Muslims now.

Image
User avatar
Karl_
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Karl_ » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:09 am

If only!

User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Oblomov Boblomov » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:22 am

I have wondered about the evolution aspect before – is it not true that while we are social animals to an extent, once outside a fairly local social circle we are evolved to be very tribal and essentially racist towards people who are different?

Not that this has any bearing on how anyone should act in the modern world. We obviously need to challenge our unconscious biases and actively work to reverse tribal behaviours.

(Also I am an idiot and could be talking complete bollocks. I should have this disclaimer in my signature.)

Image
User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Eighthours » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:27 am

BID0 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
BID0 wrote:
Hexx wrote:And if they lost you'd have the worst press of a legal strike against them for "antisemitism"

Well this outcome is even worse as it will undermine a number of currently ongoing investigations in to former, now suspended (how long for now that some have been awarded this money) labour staff who were accused of holding back historical antisemitic investigations thanks to the leaked Labour documents


Not sure I agree that undermining the fight against perceived filthy traitors to the beloved leader is in anyway worse than the media would make losing this court case appear to the public.

This whole mess could have been avoid if previous leadership had responded quickly and properly to the allegations rather than angrily and viciously to the anyone who questions them (should have taken legal advice. You can easily make a counter point with leaving yourself exposed to defamation/libel.)

It does amuse me the Corbyn's learned nothing and is now at risk at being personally sued.

Sorry to bring this back up again (only just logged in online), but the cases have nothing to do with Corbyn. Did you not read about the Labour leaks/ongoing internal investigation/BBC Panorama episode? You don't seem to understand what happened with antisemitism and racism during the previous two shadow governments.


Corbyn is very much at risk (as the effort to set him up a legal fighting fund shows), due to his reaction to the end of the case. He doubled down in a really stupid manner, restating the tone of the allegations against the very Panoroma that saw the party in legal difficulties in the first place. Luckily for him, it's far from clear yet whether John Sweeney will actually sue him for this. The presenter may just want to move on and not labour (ha ha!) the point, although I think it would be karma for Corbyn to have to be on the witness stand defending his awful, awful actions. I'm sure he'd settle before then, though...

On the original case itself, Labour was very wise to settle.

User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Eighthours » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:29 am

Squinty wrote:Not sure if it is possible under Universal Credit, but for Jobseeker's Allowance it was perfectly possible to be sanctioned if you missed one appointment or a sign on. They basically did a decision on your reasons for missing those appointments. If they were perceived as not good enough, you would be sanctioned. I know this from experience of the system.

Although I do somewhat agree with your point on some of the cases being portrayed weirdly or incorrectly in the media. It's rare, but it does happen. I remember reading this article where the media outlet had basically amplified the claimants incorrect interpretation of benefit legislation (I know about this legislation and what it covers because of a past job I had which dealt with this type of stuff).


She was on the Universal Credit team, I don't know how it worked under JSA.

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Hexx » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:10 pm

BID0 wrote:
Hexx wrote:
BID0 wrote:
Hexx wrote:And if they lost you'd have the worst press of a legal strike against them for "antisemitism"

Well this outcome is even worse as it will undermine a number of currently ongoing investigations in to former, now suspended (how long for now that some have been awarded this money) labour staff who were accused of holding back historical antisemitic investigations thanks to the leaked Labour documents


Not sure I agree that undermining the fight against perceived filthy traitors to the beloved leader is in anyway worse than the media would make losing this court case appear to the public.

This whole mess could have been avoid if previous leadership had responded quickly and properly to the allegations rather than angrily and viciously to the anyone who questions them (should have taken legal advice. You can easily make a counter point with leaving yourself exposed to defamation/libel.)

It does amuse me the Corbyn's learned nothing and is now at risk at being personally sued.

Sorry to bring this back up again (only just logged in online), but the cases have nothing to do with Corbyn. Did you not read about the Labour leaks/ongoing internal investigation/BBC Panorama episode? You don't seem to understand what happened with antisemitism and racism during the previous two shadow governments.



The point was that in response to the ‘whistle blowers’ contribute to Panarama - rather than saying it plainly/factually when rebuking (e.g. We disagree with the picture out of context quotes) they went low. Eg (Hyperbolic for dramatic effect) - ‘They’re strawberry floating lying losers with axe to grind who’ve made up vindictive malicious claims‘ which led to them being sued for libel (which they’ve not settled)

A basic level of competence could have responded without leaving itself so obviously legally vulnerable. But a basic level of competence want exactly a hallmark of the last shadow government.

I mentioned Corbyn as in response to settlement of libel he basically said (keeping my hyperbolic example) ‘Why’ve we settled with those strawberry floating lying losers with axe to grind who’ve made up vindictive malicious claims‘ - leaving himself open to sane accusations of defamation (the crowd fund for him to fight these threatened but not yet, at least, claims is about quarter a million I believe)

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Squinty » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:15 pm

Moggy wrote:
Squinty wrote:Like strawberry float did he have an arson attack. He literally moved to Spain because it's sunny. Dat freedom of movement as well.


And probably because he has a court case coming up.


I wonder if this is the one for the swimming pool incident. Where he lamped the guy because (according to him) the guy was full on paedo-ing his daughter.

Edit - it's another case where he is being sued for libel. The strawberry floating clampet :lol:

Last edited by Squinty on Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
OrangeRKN
SONM & Cake Sec.
SONM & Cake Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by OrangeRKN » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:17 pm

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I have wondered about the evolution aspect before – is it not true that while we are social animals to an extent, once outside a fairly local social circle we are evolved to be very tribal and essentially racist towards people who are different?

Not that this has any bearing on how anyone should act in the modern world. We obviously need to challenge our unconscious biases and actively work to reverse tribal behaviours.

(Also I am an idiot and could be talking complete bollocks. I should have this disclaimer in my signature.)


Evolutionary we should look at the organisation and behaviour of tribal/band hunter-gatherer societies, as this was the dominant (and only) form of society for the vast majority (~9/10ths) of anatomically modern human history. I've only done some casual reading but my understanding is that these societies tended to operate on "gift economies" - interaction with other groups usually meant sharing of resources and mutual assistance. There are near-contemporary examples of this behaviour in some groups.

Image
Image
orkn.uk - SW-6533-2461-3235 - @OrangeRakoon - ACNH Howdyfern
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:25 pm

OrangeRKN wrote:
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I have wondered about the evolution aspect before – is it not true that while we are social animals to an extent, once outside a fairly local social circle we are evolved to be very tribal and essentially racist towards people who are different?

Not that this has any bearing on how anyone should act in the modern world. We obviously need to challenge our unconscious biases and actively work to reverse tribal behaviours.

(Also I am an idiot and could be talking complete bollocks. I should have this disclaimer in my signature.)


Evolutionary we should look at the organisation and behaviour of tribal/band hunter-gatherer societies, as this was the dominant (and only) form of society for the vast majority (~9/10ths) of anatomically modern human history. I've only done some casual reading but my understanding is that these societies tended to operate on "gift economies" - interaction with other groups usually meant sharing of resources and mutual assistance. There are near-contemporary examples of this behaviour in some groups.


I thought a lot of small village groups lived in a state of war with their neighbours. I remember watching stuff like Tribes and it seemed like quite often they talked about all the battles with the people in the next village over.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Karl_
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Karl_ » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:34 pm

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I have wondered about the evolution aspect before – is it not true that while we are social animals to an extent, once outside a fairly local social circle we are evolved to be very tribal and essentially racist towards people who are different?

It's an interesting question and it's very difficult to separate out "human nature" from "learned through culture".

My recollection (like ORKN, also quite casual, so take it with a pinch of salt!) of the current state of understanding is that hunter-gatherer tribes were actually relatively accepting of outsiders. There is not a lot of evidence at all for warfare between tribes before the invention of the agricultural settlement. And this was borne out when people met hunter-gatherer tribes in remote regions in the modern era - they were more often met with curiosity than hostility.

Of course there might have been individually hateful people back then too, like, "urrrggghh, Ug hate all the Grognak tribe, you know what they're like!!!" but it doesn't seem like it's the norm.

Alongside warfare, I've read that some anthropologists believe the patriarchy as we understand it was developed with settlements too. Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers seem to have had more social equality for women, rather than them culturally having lesser social status. (There was a division of labour between male and female hunter-gatherers but anthropologists believe it wasn't at the expense of women's autonomy - they wouldn't be "owned" by a man in the way they were in some later ancient societies.)

Lex-Man wrote:I thought a lot of small village groups lived in a state of war with their neighbours. I remember watching stuff like Tribes and it seemed like quite often they talked about all the battles with the people in the next village over.

Villages definitely did go to war, a lot! But villages came after hunter-gatherer societies. Hunter-gatherer societies were nomadic, and we developed settlements alongside agriculture. (In general. I'm sure there are exceptions as with everything in anthropology...!)

User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Oblomov Boblomov » Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:46 pm

Karl_ wrote:
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I have wondered about the evolution aspect before – is it not true that while we are social animals to an extent, once outside a fairly local social circle we are evolved to be very tribal and essentially racist towards people who are different?

It's an interesting question and it's very difficult to separate out "human nature" from "learned through culture".

My recollection (like ORKN, also quite casual, so take it with a pinch of salt!) of the current state of understanding is that hunter-gatherer tribes were actually relatively accepting of outsiders. There is not a lot of evidence at all for warfare between tribes before the invention of the agricultural settlement. And this was borne out when people met hunter-gatherer tribes in remote regions in the modern era - they were more often met with curiosity than hostility.

Of course there might have been individually hateful people back then too, like, "urrrggghh, Ug hate all the Grognak tribe, you know what they're like!!!" but it doesn't seem like it's the norm.

Alongside warfare, I've read that some anthropologists believe the patriarchy as we understand it was developed with settlements too. Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers seem to have had more social equality for women, rather than them culturally having lesser social status. (There was a division of labour between male and female hunter-gatherers but anthropologists believe it wasn't at the expense of women's autonomy - they wouldn't be "owned" by a man in the way they were in some later ancient societies.)

Lex-Man wrote:I thought a lot of small village groups lived in a state of war with their neighbours. I remember watching stuff like Tribes and it seemed like quite often they talked about all the battles with the people in the next village over.

Villages definitely did go to war, a lot! But villages came after hunter-gatherer societies. Hunter-gatherer societies were nomadic, and we developed settlements alongside agriculture. (In general. I'm sure there are exceptions as with everything in anthropology...!)

There's probably a huge amount of very interesting history relating to this that we might unfortunately never really be able to fully understand.

What I do obviously understand is that all Grognak Tribe scum must die.

Image
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:55 pm

Are Grognak really humans though. Clearly they must be wiped out.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.

Return to “Stuff”