[RESOLVED] Trolling/Baiting in UK Politics thread

[The Huskar Social Union]

(Image)

The lack of energy is as a result of conservative policy over the last 40 years. I'm bored of them socializing losses and privatizing profits. The consequences of their actions should befall them, not the rest of us. I think any whining about how that wouldn't be fair misses the bigger picture.

You should care about the wellbeing of a conservative voter as much as they care about yours, and you should allow them to set the tone, that being; if thrusting them into poverty and misery can make the rest of us a single pound richer, we should use the state to do so. Turnabout is fair play.

I want to be clear about this, the extent to which Conservatism has led to a decline of the western world in the pursuit of personal profit is a crime against their countrymen, their nation, and common decency. That we have ever treated it as a normal political ideology to hold rather than a criminal abberation is the root of our problems.

When someone uses rhetoric to imply that they need to cut disability benefits because "We're being cheated", and those cuts lead to the deaths of 100,000 people and so on, that's fairly ordinary tory behavior. They are social murderers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder

I struggle to see how someone can go on stage and announce a genocidal plan of action, and for it to be beyond the pale to suggest that when they do that, people should view them as in need of punishment. Not just "Well we won't vote for them" but actually punishing them for it.

I also put it to you that as things get worse, this will become a more normal viewpoint. (And you may note, the conclusion that Conservatives are simply a bunch of murderers who kill people to steal their money is now a fairly academic conclusion and growing more popular).

York University professor Dennis Raphael used it to describe Conservative public policy in Ontario, Canada.[5] In 2007, Canadian economists Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson of the University of Manitoba used the term to refer to conservative economics in their book Social Murder: And Other Shortcomings of Conservative Economics. In a 2018 article published in Critical Social Policy, sociologist Chris Grover of Lancaster University writes that social security austerity in Great Britain, which imposes hardships on the mental and physical well being of working class people, has resulted in "social murder" with increases in suicides, deaths from malnutrition and people dying on the streets.[6][7] In 2021, the BMJ executive editor Kamran Abbasi used the term to describe governmental policy which had failed to control the COVID-19 pandemic.[8]

+

What is taking place is not neglect. It is not ineptitude. It is not policy failure. It is murder. It is murder because it is premeditated. It is murder because a conscious choice was made

We're about to enter a period of serious fuel poverty because the Conservative party has decided to enact another massacre. They could have invested in making sure that didn't happen over the last decade, or they could give their rich friends another tax cut. They chose the latter, knowing full well it would put people at risk, because they are social murderers, not a genuine political party. The longer we pretend otherwise the worse things will get. The Conservative party fully intended to murder a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, of the poorest in society who would freeze to death over the next few years as a result of the lack of investment which they could pocket. They planted that bomb in a stadium for money, knowing the consequences. It's just the stadium was more full than they intended when they planted the bomb in the stadium and took the job and now it risks drawing attention to their behavior.

There is no realistic way to avoid the problem they have caused. But we can, and should, ensure justice by punishing them for it.

They decided to kill people for money. It needs to be emphasized and said more often. People who enacted that plan need to be punished, and people who voted for that plan need to be re-educated.

Do you know anyone who has had to die because of hospital wait times Huskar? I do. I also know some people who are going to be up shit creek as a result of the energy crisis.

Hello Mr Prime Minister, what are you solutions to how fucked we are when winter hits?

I mean if you were to put me in charge at the moment?

Enforce blackouts in Conservative voting constituencies and open re-education camps to throw them into when they kicked off about it. I wouldn't mind cultural revolution style struggle sessioning them into being functional members of society by this point.

Pretty sure saying people need to have essential services cut off to them or sent to re-education facilities because of their political beliefs or voting habits in an election is against the rules of this forum, im not sure of its trolling, baiting or advocating illegal activities etc so i just went with a combo of the first two for the title. I would also question his comment about Cultural Revolution inspired punishments to be given to conservatives given the irl cultural revolution in china killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

[The Huskar Social Union]

No thankfully i dont know anyone directly who has died due to hospital waiting times, but my mother who has a vast array of health issues ranging from epilepsy, heart attacks, arthritis, recently a hole in her intestines, blood pressure, diabetes has been repeatedly fucked over for the last 10 years with waiting times for appointments, treatments and other things with many of them constantly being shelved for months after there original date or sending her off to different hospitals out of the blue.

And yeah i know people who are gona struggle with the energy crisis too, considering i live in one of the most deprived constituencies in the entirety of the UK that is dirt fucking poor, lacking services and our energy prices are all going up quite heavily. Namely my own fucking family can suffer from it as we are a poor family, better off than a lot of others here, but still poor. But see when you start your typical 17 edit rants about how we need to shut off essential services to constituencies because of how they vote or throw people in re-education camps i am going to say fucking no. Every single time.

I dont care how you doll it up, what you say to argue it or what you will say in response to this. It is fucking absurd and deranged to even suggest anything of the sort. In the past you even talked about how we should stop them from fucking voting simply because they are conservative, effectively creating a one party state.

Jog on.

You call it utterly deranged to support counterstrike policies on Conservative voters despite their entire ideology necessitating murder of the vulnerable and so you wouldn't support it. And, presumably, the repulsive nature of Conservatism means you don't support that either. You might think you're being consistent, but;

There is no such thing as pacifism, only anti-fascism or pro-fascism, Huskar. To be a pacifist is to be pro-fascist. It's a fairly straightforward ethos. When, as a result of prior Conservative governments, there is not enough food, forcefully requisition the food from Conservatives. When there is not enough energy, forcefully requisition the energy for Conservatives. When there is not enough doctors, place them at the back of the line.

There is no barbarism in picking up a hand grenade someone has thrown at you, and tossing it back at them. It's simple and straightforward self-defense, which they have lost the right to object to by initiating violent assaults on others through the state.

Force them to be afraid of the UK becoming a failed state rather than being tempted by the profit forcing it to fail may cause, and they will become functional members of society again. It is made all the more acceptable to me since the Conservative party chiefly revolves around assaults on non-Tory constituents in much the same manner.

Mainly this underlined section here. Arguing because of the actions of conservative governments we should withold medical support to conservative voters, take their food and deny them power. Then implies im pro-fascist because im being "pacifist" by not agreeing with his insane ideas that would cause misery for hundreds of thousands of people, including people who are not conservative voters but happen to live in a constituency that voted for a conservative MP.

[Ostroeuropa]

As I've pointed out, the fundamental premise of the argument is that there isn't enough of these things to go around and no time to fix that issue, something the country in general is beginning to accept is true. Some mechanism for deciding who will go without these things has to be decided upon. My mechanism is "They caused the mess, they should face the consequences.". I think in order to say i'm trolling you should need to propose an alternative mechanism and have it be "Less immoral." or "Less absurd". If it's money, as we are currently deciding, then functionally speaking Conservative voters have caused a problem, the poor will be without essential services because of it, and the Conservatives will profit.

Highlighting this, and pointing out that as outrageous you find my proposal, it is still only outrageous when you don't consider the alternative (Conservative capitalism). It has to be read in contrast to what we are currently going to do. Which is basically to kill the poor who had no part in creating this situation.

Furthermore, I pointed out that a basic premise of morality is self-defense, where if someone throws a hand grenade at you unprovoked, there is no moral blame in picking it up and throwing it back at them before it explodes. Thus, the "Grenade" of resource shortages, which the Conservative movement has created in order to line their own pockets by not investing into public utilities, slashing welfare and so on, can safely be thrown back at them with no moral blame. That many of them would die in that explosion is of no consequence to that argument, and is merely indicative of the extent by which they have sought to harm others. There is no numerical limit to self-defense, for example, Warfare in self-defense

Finally, as regard the constituencies point, I said if there's a better way to target the policy, I'm all ears. I would genuinely like to hear a way by which only conservative voters would face the consequences of conservative governance. I would question the moderation team on whether any discussion of capitalism is also to be banned on the forums, since it is also a means of discussing who should be left out in resource shortages. This is an argument which is based around ethical principles with a lot to say for itself. That it offends some peoples sensibilities does not necessarily make it trolling IMO. It is a coherent way of viewing the world and seriously put forward, with the ethical basis for it outlined in a number of ways.

Simply put; "People who have voted to cause a resource shortage, should be first on the chopping block when the resources run out" is only objectionable in isolation, which my arguments go to great lengths not to do. It stands in contrast to the current position which is regarded as "Normal". "People who are poor should be first on the chopping block when the resources run out.". I consider the latter far more objectionable and am arguing with that in mind. I do not think it is trolling.

As for struggle sessions, I am refering to the criticism sessions, not the denouncement sessions, both of which were called struggle sessions. This could have been clarified if asked, but I wasn't so much aware of the distinction. In my defense, nor is western media. I'd refer you to Jan Wong on this.

""It wasn't a 批判大会 pipan dahui [a denunciation rally]. It was a 批评会 piping hui [a criticism session]", drawing a crucial Maoist distinction." Then, "Fu the Enforcer and Cadre Huang had frequently subjected Erica and me to criticism sessions. It was like being summoned to the principal's office in high school—not pleasant, but not devastating either. A denunciation rally, on the other hand, was brutal and vicious. I was relieved to hear that it had been merely a criticism session."

[Esternial]

While a controversial opinion, this does not seem to be made with the express purpose of angering people so I am going to rule this as non-actionable. The way forward here would be to argue against Ostro's opinions there and express to him why they are wrong.

I know from experience the debates on NSG can get pretty dicey at times so I would like to ask of you to refrain from becoming aggressive and take the necessary steps to avoid that if you feel it is becoming difficult. Take some time away if you need it. Put Ostro on ignore if that doesn't help.

[The Huskar Social Union]

While a controversial opinion, this does not seem to be made with the express purpose of angering people so I am going to rule this as non-actionable. The way forward here would be to argue against Ostro's opinions there and express to him why they are wrong.

I know from experience the debates on NSG can get pretty dicey at times so I would like to ask of you to refrain from becoming aggressive and take the necessary steps to avoid that if you feel it is becoming difficult. Take some time away if you need it. Put Ostro on ignore if that doesn't help.

No worries, thank you for your time.