UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[Ostroeuropa]

I sympathize. Pornography is unfairly demonized, in large part, I think you'll find, because of sex-negative feminists and their unholy alliance with theocrats.
Theocracy is out of style. What's in style now, you think?

We're fighting the same enemy.

Unless Queen Victoria was the first "sex-negative feminist", no.

Sexual repression is a very longstanding, largely Conservative in nature, who knew, British "tradition", one of the many trash ones.
It's nothing to do with "feminism" - especially since the kind of sex-negative feminist who legit hates pornography and wants it all torn down is hated by most of feminism.

Do you have a source on it being a majority of feminists who are sex-positive?

[Ostroeuropa]

Val asked why everywhere here seems obsessed with Cancer and it took me a moment, but then I realized that, oh yeh, we're in the middle of a campaign to crush it with the might of our medical science and explained to her that together, we're trying to beat cancer.

She said it's like propoganda levels of stuff and I said I didn't really notice it, but since she pointed it out, yeh, there's posters fucking everywhere.
I guess we're really going for it, huh.

Oh well. Parkinsons, you're next buddy.

[Souseiseki]

it's really hard to find a way to respond to this post that isn't dancing around saying "i'm mad, mad over bad porn/sex laws" so i'm just going to say that



am i the only person really confused over how he initially said reducing

I sympathize. Pornography is unfairly demonized, in large part, I think you'll find, because of sex-negative feminists and their unholy alliance with theocrats.
Theocracy is out of style. What's in style now, you think?

We're fighting the same enemy.

it is true that sex-negative feminists are a pain in the arse, but it is also true that sex-positive feminists are my allies in this case. it is also true that moralizers have adopted the rhetoric of feminism to do what they always intended to do. we do have a decent area of shared enemies, both in terms of the ill areas of feminism and the people that don't give certain men's issues their deserved weight. i kinda like you because you seem you have derived your beliefs from a set of fundamentally good basic principles and have a willingness to adapt to circumstance, which places you in the "can work with" section of politics. i like to imagine you view me in a similar fashion.

what's in style now is brexit is brexit, a creeping authoritarianism and a return to an imagined past where britain was super great. it's very unlikely we'll see any progress on things like pornography or drugs in a climate like that. as i said back when i got a bullshit warning from an overzealous mod i really don't think you're going to like the new world where progressiveism is dead. for all its faults it was probably the best shot we had.

I'd be more willing to extol the virtues of the NHS if I didn't keep thinking of the looming funding gap...

I mean, sure, it will survive via a mix of efficiency increases, privatisation, and maybe some belated extra govt' borrowing, but that's not ideal at all. The service is already creaking.

it's not looking good but these funding gaps are exacerbated in large part by tory cuts. slashing funding then getting a funding gap is a fairly expected result. it's like starve the beast but we're not entirely sure if it's intentional or not.

Val asked why everywhere here seems obsessed with Cancer and it took me a moment, but then I realized that, oh yeh, we're in the middle of a campaign to crush it with the might of our medical science and explained to her that together, we're trying to beat cancer.

She said it's like propoganda levels of stuff and I said I didn't really notice it, but since she pointed it out, yeh, there's posters fucking everywhere.
I guess we're really going for it, huh.

Oh well. Parkinsons, you're next buddy.

i'm just surprised we don't have an official war on cancer

comedy option: sensationalist media + prone to panic populace

[Imperializt Russia]

Unless Queen Victoria was the first "sex-negative feminist", no.

Sexual repression is a very longstanding, largely Conservative in nature, who knew, British "tradition", one of the many trash ones.
It's nothing to do with "feminism" - especially since the kind of sex-negative feminist who legit hates pornography and wants it all torn down is hated by most of feminism.

Do you have a source on it being a majority of feminists who are sex-positive?

As I keep saying, I'm no theorist nor activist, I can only give my experience.

And my experience is, I only know one SWERF (public figures aside) and that's Chess, who I'm pretty sure exists to just be the straw-feminist everyone loves to complain about.
Of the feminists, non-feminists and whathaveyou that I personally know, no-one is against the porn industry, and the feminists I am aware of are all fairly exasperated at - at the vest least - the brand of SWERFing that wants porn banned.

[Imperializt Russia]

i'm just surprised we don't have an official war on cancer

comedy option: sensationalist media + prone to panic populace

We do, it's called Cancer Research UK and their increasingly elaborate TV spots for Race for Life or Macmillan.

[Frank Zipper]

Val asked why everywhere here seems obsessed with Cancer ...

A side effect of reading the Daily Mail.

[The Blaatschapen]

i'm just surprised we don't have an official war on cancer

Because the war on drugs did not stop drugs. The war on terrorism did not stop terrorism. So a war on cancer....

[Dooom35796821595]

i'm just surprised we don't have an official war on cancer

Because the war on drugs did not stop drugs. The war on terrorism did not stop terrorism. So a war on cancer....

I think Nixon declared a war on cancer...and since we always tend to follow American adventurism....

[The Blaatschapen]

Because the war on drugs did not stop drugs. The war on terrorism did not stop terrorism. So a war on cancer....

I think Nixon declared a war on cancer...and since we always tend to follow American adventurism....

Follow? Brexit happened before Trump. You're leading the adventurism here

[Dooom35796821595]

I think Nixon declared a war on cancer...and since we always tend to follow American adventurism....

Follow? Brexit happened before Trump. You're leading the adventurism here

The referendum was advisory, it dosen't become official until article 50, so maybe in March. Trump is sworn into office in January...sooo.....Trump caused Brexit!

[The Blaatschapen]

Follow? Brexit happened before Trump. You're leading the adventurism here

The referendum was advisory, it dosen't become official until article 50, so maybe in March. Trump is sworn into office in January...sooo.....Trump caused Brexit!

Well, maybe

[Dooom35796821595]

The referendum was advisory, it dosen't become official until article 50, so maybe in March. Trump is sworn into office in January...sooo.....Trump caused Brexit!

Well, maybe

I've also realised why May wants Brexit in March...

The March of May!

[Even Less of Mackonia]

If China and the United States both stop living up to the commitments on climate change, and Britain does - I would like some proof as to how that's the 'optimal solution to the problem'.

I can't be bothered to write up a full proof, but in general, in any prisoner's dilemma situation, the net overall outcome for everybody is improved by any party choosing to act selflessly. Such changes also reduce the cost of acting selflessly for others, while increasing the benefits.
.

Ah, so it is just Social-Humanist fidelity-signalling of the utmost stupidity.

[Great Nepal]

Finally for some good news from the government, UK has ratified Paris Agreement with no objections from any of the MPs even though one latter complained about how he didn't because he didn't notice it; still counts.

[Eastfield Lodge]

I can't be bothered to write up a full proof, but in general, in any prisoner's dilemma situation, the net overall outcome for everybody is improved by any party choosing to act selflessly. Such changes also reduce the cost of acting selflessly for others, while increasing the benefits.
.

Ah, so it is just Social-Humanist fidelity-signalling of the utmost stupidity.

You haven't yet answered the fundamental physics questions about interstellar travel yet, so it's not like your suggestion is any less stupid.

[Ostroeuropa]

it is true that sex-negative feminists are a pain in the arse, but it is also true that sex-positive feminists are my allies in this case. it is also true that moralizers have adopted the rhetoric of feminism to do what they always intended to do. we do have a decent area of shared enemies, both in terms of the ill areas of feminism and the people that don't give certain men's issues their deserved weight. i kinda like you because you seem you have derived your beliefs from a set of fundamentally good basic principles and have a willingness to adapt to circumstance, which places you in the "can work with" section of politics. i like to imagine you view me in a similar fashion.

what's in style now is brexit is brexit, a creeping authoritarianism and a return to an imagined past where britain was super great. it's very unlikely we'll see any progress on things like pornography or drugs in a climate like that. as i said back when i got a bullshit warning from an overzealous mod i really don't think you're going to like the new world where progressiveism is dead. for all its faults it was probably the best shot we had.

Pretty much true, but I disagree about progressivism.

[Hurdergaryp]

Finally for some good news from the government, UK has ratified Paris Agreement with no objections from any of the MPs even though one latter complained about how he didn't because he didn't notice it; still counts.

Trump ain't going to like that at all.

[South Park Labourite]

Oh god, it's almost International Men's Day and though I haven't looked back at the previous pages I'll assume Ostro has made some comments, so I'll just pre-empt some things I think he'll say.

What I don't get is why we can't take a feminist perspective in advocating for men's issues - Jess Phillips has addressed men's issues in the past and in her writings. She herself said “the most painful misrepresentation of me, is that I don’t care about male suicide rates. It’s frankly remarkable that I find myself in the position that I have to do this but let me be clear, I really, really do care.” and supports government funding being used to create a specialist men’s suicide prevention service. Really the MRM is hypocritical and should stop demonising a woman who has actively done more for men than the MRMers.

Also I find it ridiculous that in a male-dominated parliament they need their own day to raise their issues. The whole point of an IWD debate is to raise issues that would not otherwise be raised due to other issues deemed by men in parliament to be of more importance. I don't really find the need of an IMD debate to be necessary, at least until there is full parity, in which case it might make sense to have an IMD debate. Issues relating to gender equality in general, whether female or men, do tend to get pushed to the back of the queue, though the men in parliament have far more opportunities to raise them at this point in time.

There is a high suicide rate, caused by the pressures men face in a patriarchal society for instance. Or issues concerning parental leave - for the most part, a man gets a shorter time than a woman, which isn't beneficial for either gender if the woman would rather work and if the man would rather stay home to look after the kids. Or violence against men including male rape, which isn't taken seriously due to toxic masculinity that dictates that men who face it are weak. They should be discussed, though once again there are plenty of times to raise this.

The problem is MRM is essentially like a white rights movement arguing on behalf of the white working class - it's making whiteness to defining issue, not what is really an economic problem linked to issues like immigration, the decline of manufacturing and unbalanced trade deals. I think if we're going to have an IMD, it can't be a tool of the MRM.

celebrating positive role models, about highlighting the good men among us, about promoting better health for men and boys and about promoting gender equality so we live longer, better, happier lives. It’s about celebrating the best of us and working out how to help the worst, about celebrating what we do well and finding ways to fix what we don’t.

What I bolded is things that I don't think shouldn't be in IMD. We have plenty of times of be proud and have a feel-good feeling for ourselves - we live in a patriarchal society where we're already advantaged. We should be focusing on the issues that patriarchy causes or issues that exists in spite of our advantaged status.

[Frank Zipper]

Courts stick the knife into the government again over Brexit. The Supreme Court gives the Scottish and Welsh governments the chance to put their arguments forward in the case of whether MPs get to debate triggering of Article 50.

[Hurdergaryp]

Courts stick the knife into the government again over Brexit.

Twist the knife, slowly.

[South Park Labourite]

Courts stick the knife into the government again over Brexit.

Twist the knife, slowly.

STRAIGHT BETWEEN THE GIZZARDS!

[Vassenor]

Courts stick the knife into the government again over Brexit.

What did they say this time?

[Frank Zipper]

Courts stick the knife into the government again over Brexit.

What did they say this time?

I've added some stuff to my original post, but my BT internet is playing up again so I am struggling with the BBC website.

This should be the link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38027230

[Philjia]

Oh god, it's International Men's Day and though I haven't looked back at the previous pages I'll assume Ostro has made some comments, so I'll just pre-empt some things I think he'll say.

What I don't get is why we can't take a feminist perspective in advocating for men's issues - Jess Phillips has addressed men's issues in the past and in her writings. She herself said “the most painful misrepresentation of me, is that I don’t care about male suicide rates. It’s frankly remarkable that I find myself in the position that I have to do this but let me be clear, I really, really do care.” and supports government funding being used to create a specialist men’s suicide prevention service. Really the MRM is hypocritical and should stop demonising a woman who has actively done more for men than the MRMers.

Also I find it ridiculous that in a male-dominated parliament they need their own day to raise their issues. The whole point of an IWD debate is to raise issues that would not otherwise be raised due to other issues deemed by men in parliament to be of more importance. I don't really find the need of an IMD debate to be necessary, at least until there is full parity, in which case it might make sense to have an IMD debate. Issues relating to gender equality in general, whether female or men, do tend to get pushed to the back of the queue, though the men in parliament have far more opportunities to raise them at this point in time.

There is a high suicide rate, caused by the pressures men face in a patriarchal society for instance. They should be discussed, though once again there are plenty of times to raise this. The problem is MRM is essentially like a white rights movement arguing on behalf of the white working class - it's making whiteness to defining issue, not what is really an economic problem linked to issues like immigration, the decline of manufacturing and unbalanced trade deals. I think if we're going to have an IMD, it can't be a tool of the MRM.

celebrating positive role models, about highlighting the good men among us, about promoting better health for men and boys and about promoting gender equality so we live longer, better, happier lives. It’s about celebrating the best of us and working out how to help the worst, about celebrating what we do well and finding ways to fix what we don’t.

What I bolded is things that I don't think shouldn't be in IMD. We have plenty of times of be proud and have a feel-good feeling for ourselves - we live in a patriarchal society where we're already advantaged. We should be focusing on the issues that patriarchy causes or issues that exists in spite of our advantaged status.

An intersectional approach to issues is essentially inevitable, and not inherently a bad thing. After all, different groups have different needs. The issue which ensnares well meaning and malevolent people alike is that when you focus on solving problems for a specific groups it can start to look like favouritism. The trick is being able to juggle the many balls of policy in such a way that nobody feels like they're being shortchanged. Should you fail, the balls you drop tend to be picked up by people exclusively in those balls, and with a fairly negative attitude towards the other balls; your UKIPs, your BNPs, your Islamic States, and so on.

[Hurdergaryp]

What did they say this time?

I've added some stuff to my original post, but my BT internet is playing up again so I am struggling with the BBC website.

This should be the link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38027230

That is amazingly fresh news. Let's see how this plays out.