Politics Thread 6

[Squinty]

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.

[Moggy]

So "Tommy Robinson" is now a refugee.

[Tomous]

So "Tommy Robinson" is now a refugee.

An immigrant with a criminal record

[Moggy]

So "Tommy Robinson" is now a refugee.

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!

[Squinty]

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

[Moggy]

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.

[BID0]

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.

[Lex-Man]

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?

[Moggy]

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.

[That]

If only!

[Oblomov Boblomov]

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.)

[Eighthours]

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.

[Eighthours]

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.

[Hexx]

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)

[Squinty]

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

[OrangeRKN]

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.

[Lex-Man]

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.

[That]

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.)

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...!)

[Oblomov Boblomov]

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.)

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.

[Lex-Man]

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