UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[The Huskar Social Union]

So when are we expecting the IRA to go loud again?

You will have some group of muppets go "We are the Real IRA so we are like mate. My Uncle Ger-- Tommy told me so so he did like down at the fellons" Probably have a few bombs disabled and dealt with like we do every thursday, and that will be it.


Or maybe the fucking spastics will fire an automatic gun right next to a fucking petrol station like they did a few months back.

[Imperializt Russia]

The former.

Really? By the way almost nobody is an actual biblical literalist - you can easily see this by the fact that almost no Christians adhere to all the customs required in the bible - so it's not really coherent to talk of a singular group of 'biblical literalists', different fundamentalists in different countries have radically different beliefs from each other, and aren't all connected.

Though the latter isn't exactly an invalid argument.
While I did mean to state it, I am including indirect routes for people "killed". For example, LGBT suicides, anti-LGBT violence, death during gay conversion therapy/camps etc, as well as deaths of expectant mothers unable to seek abortions due to biblical literalism. If anything "thousands globally" is a hilarious undersell.

But this is a uselessly loose standard. There is a huge amount of beliefs that cause excess deaths in the world caused by people having "incorrect" beliefs, you cannot judge the fanaticism of a belief by the fact that large numbers of people sharing it can cause inadequate maximization of human welfare.

We're talking about the death and killing of people. Hydes.

And yes, religious fundamentalists are merely using their "biblical literalism" to justify their shitty opinions and give a veneer of legitimacy. Doesn't change the fact that it's what they're doing.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Oh.

Is that what that Frazers account was in reference to?

Probably.

[Hydesland]

We're talking about the death and killing of people. Hydes.

And yes, religious fundamentalists are merely using their "biblical literalism" to justify their shitty opinions and give a veneer of legitimacy. Doesn't change the fact that it's what they're doing.

I think we're straying off topic here, the point you made was that them being YEC's was proof they were fanatics - by my definition of fanaticism being a YEC doesn't make you one (especially when you've probably been born and raised with this belief to begin with) - and you can't use the example of, say, Anti-balaka - to prove YEC = fanaticism just because they also happen to be YEC's - it's not their being YEC's that makes them shoot Muslims.

[Imperializt Russia]

We're talking about the death and killing of people. Hydes.

And yes, religious fundamentalists are merely using their "biblical literalism" to justify their shitty opinions and give a veneer of legitimacy. Doesn't change the fact that it's what they're doing.

I think we're straying off topic here, the point you made was that them being YEC's was proof they were fanatics - by my definition of fanaticism being a YEC doesn't make you one (especially when you've probably been born and raised with this belief to begin with) - and you can't use the example of, say, Anti-balaka - to prove YEC = fanaticism just because they also happen to be YEC's - it's not their being YEC's that makes them shoot Muslims.

Good thing I didn't do that then?

[Hydesland]

I think we're straying off topic here, the point you made was that them being YEC's was proof they were fanatics - by my definition of fanaticism being a YEC doesn't make you one (especially when you've probably been born and raised with this belief to begin with) - and you can't use the example of, say, Anti-balaka - to prove YEC = fanaticism just because they also happen to be YEC's - it's not their being YEC's that makes them shoot Muslims.

Good thing I didn't do that then?

You conflated YEC with biblical literalism, then implied that because there are "biblical literalists" (who probably aren't actually biblical literalist) actively killing people, that proves YEC is fanatical.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-40406252

This article is weird as hell. "Rightly ignoring my insolence"? Has the SNP voted itself the power to have reporters knee capped or something?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

There is a huge amount of beliefs that cause excess deaths in the world caused by people having "incorrect" beliefs

Socialism for instance.

[Calladan]

So quite frankly, I don't care whether they are mainstream in their own little corner of the world, because their little corner of the world is their corner, not the whole country. And the idea that 10 people and their witch-burning, dark age beliefs could influence government policy for the next five years is frankly terrifying.

I haven't seen any evidence they'll seek to (or even could) impose their views on the rest of the UK outside of NI.

I did say "could", and do you really think that as May gets more desperate to cling on to power, the DUP are not going to exploit that? I mean - I don't want to speak ill of a bunch of homophobic twats (because that would be intolerant - pretty much like the DUP are about everything that happened after the end of Genesis) - but that is essentially my primary fear. That as time goes on, and more and more votes go against May (which could happen since she is incredibly unpopular and quite a few people want her to get the fuck out of Number 10) she will start giving in to more and more demands to keep The DUP onside during her term as PM.

I am not saying it will happen, but would you agree it's not beyond the realm of possibility, or even probability?

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't know why you're rigidly separating "literalism" from "fundamentalism", when I mean them as the same thing.
I am merely trying to emphasise the point that religious fundamentalism is taking a literal reading of holy scripture, and rejecting a notion that it is either meant to be - or in light of better knowledge - should be considered to be metaphorical.

YEC is a literalist/fundamentalist position, because the Chronology of the Bible (ie, the study of the events in the bible and divining their timeline), the bible's events suggest about 6000 years between Genesis and the 17th century (or whenever the Chronology of the Bible was done).
It is a literal reading of the bible.

You are similarly using a very rigid definition of "fanatical", where you use the term "militant" as constituent and seem to be further using a rigid definition of that term as "applying actual military violence".
"Militant atheists" by and large haven't founded a paramilitary yet, they're mostly assholes on the internet.

And of course, the DUP were militant and therefore fanatical in the Troubles. But you've again taken a very rigid interpretation of "even ignoring the Troubles" to mean "if we literally ignore the Troubles" rather than the logical expression, of "even without the Troubles, they're cunts".

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Progressivism is far crazier and less tolerant bollocks than very mildly traditional Christianity. If you think the DUP is utterly unacceptable you think the entire Western world of 1980 or so is utterly unacceptable which makes you nuts.

[Hydesland]

I did say "could", and do you really think that as May gets more desperate to cling on to power, the DUP are not going to exploit that? I mean - I don't want to speak ill of a bunch of homophobic twats (because that would be intolerant - pretty much like the DUP are about everything that happened after the end of Genesis) - but that is essentially my primary fear. That as time goes on, and more and more votes go against May (which could happen since she is incredibly unpopular and quite a few people want her to get the fuck out of Number 10) she will start giving in to more and more demands to keep The DUP onside during her term as PM.

I am not saying it will happen, but would you agree it's not beyond the realm of possibility, or even probability?

But I'm not sure they care about the social laws in the UK outside of Northern Ireland.

[Calladan]

Apparently Corbyn is set to become a really popular name for babies.

What kind of awful parents would name their baby Corbyn?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000929/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0088298/?ref_=nv_sr_3
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4094023/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_4
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0021607/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_5
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0863570/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_6
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6566291/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_10
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5316126/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_12
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3902361/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_16

So - there's that.

[Imperializt Russia]

Progressivism is far crazier and less tolerant bollocks than very mildly traditional Christianity. If you think the DUP is utterly unacceptable you think the entire Western world of 1980 or so is utterly unacceptable which makes you nuts.

It was forty years ago, isn't now, and we've moved past it.
Progress.

The DUP hasn't.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Progressivism is far crazier and less tolerant bollocks than very mildly traditional Christianity. If you think the DUP is utterly unacceptable you think the entire Western world of 1980 or so is utterly unacceptable which makes you nuts.

It was forty years ago, isn't now, and we've moved past it.
Progress.

The DUP hasn't.

You might regard the changes since 1980 as good or bad but if you regard UK 1980 as an intolerable place to live, somewhere that if it were to exist today should be embargoed or invaded for its hideous inhumanity etc., then you are nuts.

If you take a more reasonable position that 1980 UK was a basically fine place with somewhat - but not very - different intellectual fashions to today (and a bit less technology) then the hysteria about DUP makes no sense.

[Calladan]

Progressivism is far crazier and less tolerant bollocks than very mildly traditional Christianity. If you think the DUP is utterly unacceptable you think the entire Western world of 1980 or so is utterly unacceptable which makes you nuts.

It was forty years ago, isn't now, and we've moved past it.
Progress.

The DUP hasn't.

And, quite honestly, most of the social attitudes of the UK in and around 1980 WERE unacceptable, but the voices saying that were so few and the voices contradicting them were so many that generally the voices saying it were shouted down and ignored.

[Hydesland]

I don't know why you're rigidly separating "literalism" from "fundamentalism", when I mean them as the same thing.
I am merely trying to emphasise the point that religious fundamentalism is taking a literal reading of holy scripture, and rejecting a notion that it is either meant to be - or in light of better knowledge - should be considered to be metaphorical.

Yes but even then even most fundamentalists only take a few parts of the Bible as literal, while discarding other parts. You can't group all fundamentalists together into a coherent group with shared beliefs.

YEC is a literalist/fundamentalist position, because the Chronology of the Bible (ie, the study of the events in the bible and divining their timeline), the bible's events suggest about 6000 years between Genesis and the 17th century (or whenever the Chronology of the Bible was done).
It is a literal reading of the bible.

Yes, it's a literalist position, but that doesn't mean that YEC's now suddenly become part of a group called "biblical literalists" that all share similar beliefs around the world, and are now associated with the actions of ostensibly 'biblical literalists' around the world. It doesn't work like that - just because they might agree with the young earth creationist part doesn't mean they agree with the stoning adulterers part - and vice versa can also be true.

You are similarly using a very rigid definition of "fanatical", where you use the term "militant" as constituent and seem to be further using a rigid definition of that term as "applying actual military violence".

I think today "militant" means more 'seeking conflict' or being excessively confrontational, rather than being literally violent. The definition I use is this:

But you've again taken a very rigid interpretation of "even ignoring the Troubles"

It wasn't me who started down that train of thought. Someone literally said (paraphrasing) "even ignoring the Troubles, they're fanatics", I was challenging that.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

In any case conflating DUP's religious stance with loyalist paramilitary actions in The Troubles is ridiculous. Neither the Ulster Scots nor the Irish were motivated by religion; it was a race war and religion was only one of the incidental markers of the two races.

[Calladan]

I don't know why you're rigidly separating "literalism" from "fundamentalism", when I mean them as the same thing.
I am merely trying to emphasise the point that religious fundamentalism is taking a literal reading of holy scripture, and rejecting a notion that it is either meant to be - or in light of better knowledge - should be considered to be metaphorical.

Yes but even then even most fundamentalists only take a few parts of the Bible as literal, while discarding other parts. You can't group all fundamentalists together into a coherent group with shared beliefs.

YEC is a literalist/fundamentalist position, because the Chronology of the Bible (ie, the study of the events in the bible and divining their timeline), the bible's events suggest about 6000 years between Genesis and the 17th century (or whenever the Chronology of the Bible was done).
It is a literal reading of the bible.

Yes, it's a literalist position, but that doesn't mean that YEC's now suddenly become part of a group called "biblical literalists" that all share similar beliefs around the world, and are now associated with the actions of ostensibly 'biblical literalists' around the world. It doesn't work like that - just because they might agree with the young earth creationist part doesn't mean they agree with the stoning adulterers part - and vice versa can also be true.

You are similarly using a very rigid definition of "fanatical", where you use the term "militant" as constituent and seem to be further using a rigid definition of that term as "applying actual military violence".

I think today "militant" means more 'seeking conflict' or being excessively confrontational, rather than being literally violent. The definition I use is this:

But you've again taken a very rigid interpretation of "even ignoring the Troubles"

It wasn't me who started down that train of thought. Someone literally said (paraphrasing) "even ignoring the Troubles, they're fanatics", I was challenging that.

That would be me. I was just trying to point out that if you ignore all the "DUP are friends with terrorists" stuff and the "Corbyn sucked Gerry Adams cock" stuff and just deal with the right here, right now stuff, the DUP are a bunch of fanatical religious lunatics who I believe have no place in British politics and who certainly have no place holding Theresa May's nuts in a vice.

[Imperializt Russia]

In any case conflating DUP's religious stance with loyalist paramilitary actions in The Troubles is ridiculous. Neither the Ulster Scots nor the Irish were motivated by religion; it was a race war and religion was only one of the incidental markers of the two races.

And was used as a proxy because it was so difficult to tell, DUP-aligned militias killed their own protestant members on suspicion of being Catholic.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I've never said The Troubles make sense.

[Hydesland]

In any case conflating DUP's religious stance with loyalist paramilitary actions in The Troubles is ridiculous. Neither the Ulster Scots nor the Irish were motivated by religion; it was a race war and religion was only one of the incidental markers of the two races.

So you claim that i.e. Unionists just wanted to be rid of people with Irish ancestral heritage, and vice versa? I've never seen any evidence of this.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

In any case conflating DUP's religious stance with loyalist paramilitary actions in The Troubles is ridiculous. Neither the Ulster Scots nor the Irish were motivated by religion; it was a race war and religion was only one of the incidental markers of the two races.

So you claim that i.e. Unionists just wanted to be rid of people with Irish ancestral heritage, and vice versa? I've never seen any evidence of this.

The Ulster Scots wanted their own country (Unionism as such was always a bit of a scam - they just needed Great Britain as a powerful patron to protect them from the Republic). The Irish wanted to reconquer the land they had lost to the Ulster Scots. If there had never been a reformation this conflict would have happened anyway.

[Imperializt Russia]

I've never said The Troubles make sense.

I wasn't making that assertion, you just said that "religion wasn't really a factor, it was just a proxy for race".

But this led to religion being the de facto metric by which to target your actions.
So religion was a significant factor.

I don't know to what extent the Troubles may have actually been "ethnic" over other factors, I'm simply running through your logic train.

[The Huskar Social Union]

So you claim that i.e. Unionists just wanted to be rid of people with Irish ancestral heritage, and vice versa? I've never seen any evidence of this.

The Ulster Scots wanted their own country (Unionism as such was always a bit of a scam - they just needed Great Britain as a powerful patron to protect them from the Republic). The Irish wanted to reconquer the land they had lost to the Ulster Scots. If there had never been a reformation this conflict would have happened anyway.

Not being treated like shit and having equal rights was also a pretty big thing Irish people in NI wanted.