Page 3 of 500

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:44 am
by Ostroeuropa
Vassenor wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
There's already evidence that teachers discriminate against boys, and the yougov polling on the most hated demographic shows that young white males are the most disliked demographic in the nation. Moreover there is no effort to encourage white males to aspire as they are portrayed as already in control and powerful, a fact that causes the progressive narrative to be a part of this systemic oppression of white males when you account for their lower levels of aspiration. Further, there's been efforts to fix low results in other demographics and they were clearly successful, failing to do so for white males for years because it made people upset their narrative was wrong is oppression. If it was another race or gender, they would have been helped out already.

Yes, and yes, that is an example of it in some cases. Guess what, we're trying to fix that and have been since it was pointed out.


So what is your evidence that the white working class male demographic was passed over for narrative reasons? And that said narrative is responsible for said lower levels of aspiration?


You literally just personally tried to argue that it was bad for the government to do this and focus on improving their levels of attainment for a while based on your belief in that narrative and implied it was racist/sexist of them to do so, and you're not the only progressive in existence, that's exactly the attitude that made this take so long. Is there a reason for that kind of duplicity? I notice you're ignoring me pointing out these things about your argument and rhetoric, so is there any reason I should take your request seriously rather than it merely being another instance of you gaslighting people?

If you routinely ignore when I point out the ways your statements/beliefs are racist and sexist and give you evidence for that, why should I think you'll behave any differently regarding evidence on a systemic level?

It's broadly the same type of evidence, you just refuse to engage with it.

How about the fact that the media isn't constantly crowing about the plight of working class white males in education? That's an example of institutional discrimination based in the narrative, and it has consequences for political and institutional pressure to fix the problem. The absence of discussion and awareness and the suppression of attempts to create it and vilification of those trying (like you tried just now) are part of the oppression.

Tell you what Vass, are you just implying that white males are stupider than everyone else and that explains it? Or is it more likely that the most hated demographic might be being discriminated against, and progressive narratives that they don't need help and are privileged (In spite of evidence to the contrary) has prevented assistance when and where they need it?

How many white or male groups are allowed to exist, operate, and lobby without constant demonization from the progressives? Groups that could have built up pressure on these kind of issues?

The evidence is there and i've pointed it out at length to you, but it doesn't matter, because as is clearly evident from your constant double standards, you aren't engaging seriously and are merely trying to downplay and erase the discrimination involved. There is no reason to believe you will be serious on the topic given that, and any evidence provided will never be enough for you because you're fully prepared to rationalize it away and not provide an alternate explanation for the facts, even though the only alternatives are explicit racism and sexism. You've routinely tried to argue that sexism and racism should remain in place, and routinely argued against recognizing it, even when the manner in which you do is inconsistent with your values elsewhere.

Basically, I don't see why I should bother taking this request of yours seriously. I've already given you evidence and you're deciding to ignore it.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:53 am
by Eastfield Lodge
Just putting this out there Osteo, but I think logical arguments won't work against Vass, why don't you try actual figures?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:54 am
by Vassenor
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
So what is your evidence that the white working class male demographic was passed over for narrative reasons? And that said narrative is responsible for said lower levels of aspiration?


You literally just personally tried to argue that it was bad for the government to do this and focus on improving their levels of attainment for a while based on your belief in that narrative and implied it was racist/sexist of them to do so, and you're not the only progressive in existence, that's exactly the attitude that made this take so long. Is there a reason for that kind of duplicity? I notice you're ignoring me pointing out these things about your argument and rhetoric, so is there any reason I should take your request seriously rather than it merely being another instance of you gaslighting people?

If you routinely ignore when I point out the ways your statements/beliefs are racist and sexist and give you evidence for that, why should I think you'll behave any differently regarding evidence on a systemic level?

It's broadly the same type of evidence, you just refuse to engage with it.

How about the fact that the media isn't constantly crowing about the plight of working class white males in education? That's an example of institutional discrimination based in the narrative, and it has consequences for political and institutional pressure to fix the problem. The absence of discussion and awareness and the suppression of attempts to create it and vilification of those trying (like you tried just now) are part of the oppression.

Tell you what Vass, are you just implying that white males are stupider than everyone else and that explains it? Or is it more likely that the most hated demographic might be being discriminated against, and progressive narratives that they don't need help and are privileged (In spite of evidence to the contrary) has prevented assistance when and where they need it?

How many white or male groups are allowed to exist, operate, and lobby without constant demonization from the progressives? Groups that could have built up pressure on these kind of issues?

The evidence is there and i've pointed it out at length to you, but it doesn't matter, because as is clearly evident from your constant double standards, you aren't engaging seriously and are merely trying to downplay and erase the discrimination involved. There is no reason to believe you will be serious on the topic given that, and any evidence provided will never be enough for you because you're fully prepared to rationalize it away and not provide an alternate explanation for the facts, even though the only alternatives are explicit racism and sexism. You've routinely tried to argue that sexism and racism should remain in place, and routinely argued against recognizing it, even when the manner in which you do is inconsistent with your values elsewhere.

Basically, I don't see why I should bother taking this request of yours seriously. I've already given you evidence and you're deciding to ignore it.


So your response for a request for data in support of your claims and not just "this happens" is to attack me?

Or perhaps you can explain how "economic dislocation" is progressive oppression. In fact the person who made the comments you are citing (Amanda Spielman, head of OFSTED) was outright in saying that there wasn't any evidence of bias against WWC area schools. Or maybe there's Sir Michael Wilshaw's comments about the issues being with a lack of parent engagement in their kids' education.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:58 am
by Ostroeuropa
Eastfield Lodge wrote:Just putting this out there Osteo, but I think logical arguments won't work against Vass, why don't you try actual figures?


Fewer than a third of white boys on free school meals (FSMs) attained an A* to C in English and maths.

This compared with 44 per cent of black boys on FSMs, 51 per cent of Asian boys, and 76 per cent of Chinese boys. Boys lagged well behind girls in all ethnic groups.

Of those who start working life in entry-level jobs, only 15 per cent will rise above that level of work for the rest of their lives.

Not only is it an injustice harming the outcomes of those children affected, it represents an economic and social strain on the whole of society, which creates and perpetuates cycles of disadvantage. (You know, oppression.)

Half of the 85,000 people currently incarcerated have a reading age of 11 or lower, with a fifth falling well short of that.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:58 am
by Ostroeuropa
Vassenor wrote:
So your response for a request for data in support of your claims and not just "this happens" is to attack me?


I'm pointing out evidence of discriminatory attitudes is not something you have a good track record accepting. I've already told you the relevant data.

Vassenor wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
You literally just personally tried to argue that it was bad for the government to do this and focus on improving their levels of attainment for a while based on your belief in that narrative and implied it was racist/sexist of them to do so, and you're not the only progressive in existence, that's exactly the attitude that made this take so long. Is there a reason for that kind of duplicity? I notice you're ignoring me pointing out these things about your argument and rhetoric, so is there any reason I should take your request seriously rather than it merely being another instance of you gaslighting people?

If you routinely ignore when I point out the ways your statements/beliefs are racist and sexist and give you evidence for that, why should I think you'll behave any differently regarding evidence on a systemic level?

It's broadly the same type of evidence, you just refuse to engage with it.

How about the fact that the media isn't constantly crowing about the plight of working class white males in education? That's an example of institutional discrimination based in the narrative, and it has consequences for political and institutional pressure to fix the problem. The absence of discussion and awareness and the suppression of attempts to create it and vilification of those trying (like you tried just now) are part of the oppression.

Tell you what Vass, are you just implying that white males are stupider than everyone else and that explains it? Or is it more likely that the most hated demographic might be being discriminated against, and progressive narratives that they don't need help and are privileged (In spite of evidence to the contrary) has prevented assistance when and where they need it?

How many white or male groups are allowed to exist, operate, and lobby without constant demonization from the progressives? Groups that could have built up pressure on these kind of issues?

The evidence is there and i've pointed it out at length to you, but it doesn't matter, because as is clearly evident from your constant double standards, you aren't engaging seriously and are merely trying to downplay and erase the discrimination involved. There is no reason to believe you will be serious on the topic given that, and any evidence provided will never be enough for you because you're fully prepared to rationalize it away and not provide an alternate explanation for the facts, even though the only alternatives are explicit racism and sexism. You've routinely tried to argue that sexism and racism should remain in place, and routinely argued against recognizing it, even when the manner in which you do is inconsistent with your values elsewhere.

Basically, I don't see why I should bother taking this request of yours seriously. I've already given you evidence and you're deciding to ignore it.


So your response for a request for data in support of your claims and not just "this happens" is to attack me?

Or perhaps you can explain how "economic dislocation" is progressive oppression. In fact the person who made the comments you are citing (Amanda Spielman, head of OFSTED) was outright in saying that there wasn't any evidence of bias against WWC area schools. Or maybe there's Sir Michael Wilshaw's comments about the issues being with a lack of parent engagement in their kids' education.


Why does it only effect white boys and not girls then? It's the same families and communities.
Unless you're conceding that boys are discriminated against while being raised. (I.E, there is a cultural sickness and our society is highly misandrous and this effects the way parents teach their children, itself stemming from feminism and its routine gynocentrism.)


These are merely examples of people trying to ignore the evidence and explain it away. Spielmans statements that there is no evidence of discrimination against the most hated demographic in the country are laughable, especially within a context where we already know and have evidence that teachers are systemically very poor at keeping their bigotry out of their treatment of students. (See the evidence in favor of systemic misandry.) and her statements rest in the same progressive attitude and refusal to confront racism/sexism of particular types, there's no evidence for them and quite a bit against.

It could easily be both.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:49 am
by Ostroeuropa
In other pro-tory news, a tory think tank has decided that tax breaks for landlords who buy to let should be ended and has put forward advise to the government on that basis, and a Tory MP has concluded his report to the government on home ownership by finding that buy-to-let landlords prevent 2.2 million extra people becoming home owners and should be curbed in order to realize the vision of a property owning democracy.

Both the think tank and this MP are advising the Tories take on falling home ownership and make it their key platform for the next election.

It's possible that overseas foreigners buying property will be discussed, as foreign property purchases drive up prices in an area significantly more than locals buying it, and this nationalist stance will appeal to a particular type of Tory, allowing them to unite with "Home owning democracy" tories for this issue. The fact this discussion is coinciding with Brexit also provides opportunities for a practical and PR victory to the Tories, by arguing that the EU has prevented measures to prevent foreigners buying property and renting it out, and that Brexit will allow more home owners.

If that is the case, it's entirely reasonable to think that the extra spending power provided by much less rent-seeking behavior in the economy will offset the downsides of brexit, or at least mitigate the extent of them, however it is reliant on active measures to increase home ownership. (That the Tories are now considering rolling back incentives for people to become landlords and make it less profitable is a huge step, but it doesn't go far enough imo.)

Corbyn should take this opportunity, imo, to start pushing for land reform measures and other measures to drive up home ownership. If he joins the Tories in taking on this issue, we can have it be a major part of the next election and something both parties escalate over.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:21 am
by Alvecia
Whatever makes it even marginally possible for me to get my own place would be great

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:30 am
by Trumptonium1
Alvecia wrote:Whatever makes it even marginally possible for me to get my own place would be great


help to buy?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:35 am
by Ostroeuropa
Trumptonium1 wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Whatever makes it even marginally possible for me to get my own place would be great


help to buy?


What kind of measures do you think would be good for that?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:39 am
by Alvecia
Trumptonium1 wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Whatever makes it even marginally possible for me to get my own place would be great


help to buy?

I'm overstating my difficulty for dramatic effect. It's certainly helped, but I still won't be moving out for a little while yet.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:14 am
by Trumptonium1
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Trumptonium1 wrote:
help to buy?


What kind of measures do you think would be good for that?


the current measures are pretty sufficient - it is more of a saving crisis above all else. mortgages themselves aren't unaffordable - after all they're below rents. Either something to boost savings, interest, or the government simply providing loans for deposits. Borrow £10 000 for a deposit and pay all of it back along with your mortgage, adjusted for inflation. Far more effective than half-arsed QE to boost reserves that aren't being lent out anyway.

Apart from this I would like either looser planning regulations, or extra income taxes targeted at postcodes where the residents have vetoed new housing in order to pay for it elsewhere.

I suppose final last resort is a rehaul of the tax system along age and home ownership status. A "rent allowance" added to your personal allowance on which you pay no tax, a smaller "mortgage interest allowance" on which you pay no tax (not principal) and either same or higher taxes on those with freehold unmortgaged homes/only principle to pay off. Or personal allowances based on age, with perhaps even an extension of the "child benefit" into later years.

But I really wouldn't like to see the government engaging fiscally to build more housing, or give houses away for free, or give houses away in any other way. Entirely council housed neighbourhoods tend to be ghettoes.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:21 am
by Ostroeuropa
Trumptonium1 wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
What kind of measures do you think would be good for that?


the current measures are pretty sufficient - it is more of a saving crisis above all else. mortgages themselves aren't unaffordable - after all they're below rents. Either something to boost savings, interest, or the government simply providing loans for deposits. Borrow £10 000 for a deposit and pay all of it back along with your mortgage, adjusted for inflation. Far more effective than half-arsed QE to boost reserves that aren't being lent out anyway.

Apart from this I would like either looser planning regulations, or extra income taxes targeted at postcodes where the residents have vetoed new housing in order to pay for it elsewhere.


Sounds like a start, but i'd also go for increased taxation on people who own more than a certain number of properties and shift more of the tax burden to a land value tax, possibly away from property taxes, which would encourage vertical development as well as discourage landlording. Planning regulations could be lessened specifically around vertical development. Shifting away from property tax to land value tax also encourages development in general and discourages holding land with nothing on it.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:35 am
by Trumptonium1
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Trumptonium1 wrote:
the current measures are pretty sufficient - it is more of a saving crisis above all else. mortgages themselves aren't unaffordable - after all they're below rents. Either something to boost savings, interest, or the government simply providing loans for deposits. Borrow £10 000 for a deposit and pay all of it back along with your mortgage, adjusted for inflation. Far more effective than half-arsed QE to boost reserves that aren't being lent out anyway.

Apart from this I would like either looser planning regulations, or extra income taxes targeted at postcodes where the residents have vetoed new housing in order to pay for it elsewhere.


Sounds like a start, but i'd also go for increased taxation on people who own more than a certain number of properties and shift more of the tax burden to a land value tax, possibly away from property taxes, which would encourage vertical development as well as discourage landlording. Planning regulations could be lessened specifically around vertical development. Shifting away from property tax to land value tax also encourages development in general and discourages holding land with nothing on it.


The problem with this is that the Landlords Association is correct in one logical consequence of a crackdown on landlords: there will be fewer properties to rent out because there's less of an incentive to invest capital to refurbish homes to a liveable standard. Unless these measures are combined with something to actually help people get on the housing ladder, then merely disincentivising landlords has no positive effect and can have a negative one as more people are chasing fewer homes - a boom in rent costs. That makes it even less possible to gather a deposit, and house prices will rise as fewer homes are in a liveable condition day one. A hostage situation of sorts.

Banks are also responsible here - they give far more favourable mortgages to BTL than anyone else. This is to be expected because of the inherent security with BTL, but if these same banks are stopping anyone else from having interest-only mortgages then they are causing the problem. Having more young people in good careers on interest-only mortgages is a very good thing - they require lower deposits and have very very low monthly payments, permitting the gathering of a proper deposit and leaving with some equity growth. If you're on a good grad scheme with a clear upward career route then you should be able to go on an interest-only mortgage the same year you graduate, rather than spending years living in a house share splurging excessive money on rent.

To be fair though, wind back the clock 70 years and throughout post-war history there were good options to put your money on to enrich yourself and/or to save up a pension. Normally that was bank interest or treasury bonds. With time that died by the 80s as the returns became horrible, and stock markets and pension plans came in. But they are both inherently risky, and both keep offering diminishing returns compared to decades ago. That's why since the 90s housing has suffered an unforeseen boom - it's safe and it's almost guaranteed to offer good yearly investment return, unlike every other option. It's fine to solve these problems now, but how will people save for their own pensions?

Also, I edited my other post with a bit more 'final resort' options.. I don't think the tory age-based income tax is a half-bad idea. It certainly didn't receive too much outrage when it was first dropped in the public sphere intentionally to gauge public opinion.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:48 am
by Salandriagado
Trumptonium1 wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Whatever makes it even marginally possible for me to get my own place would be great


help to buy?


The maximum bonus is a bit low to be useful in a lot of places, but otherwise good.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:15 am
by Ostroeuropa
Trumptonium1 wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Sounds like a start, but i'd also go for increased taxation on people who own more than a certain number of properties and shift more of the tax burden to a land value tax, possibly away from property taxes, which would encourage vertical development as well as discourage landlording. Planning regulations could be lessened specifically around vertical development. Shifting away from property tax to land value tax also encourages development in general and discourages holding land with nothing on it.


The problem with this is that the Landlords Association is correct in one logical consequence of a crackdown on landlords: there will be fewer properties to rent out because there's less of an incentive to invest capital to refurbish homes to a liveable standard. Unless these measures are combined with something to actually help people get on the housing ladder, then merely disincentivising landlords has no positive effect and can have a negative one as more people are chasing fewer homes - a boom in rent costs. That makes it even less possible to gather a deposit, and house prices will rise as fewer homes are in a liveable condition day one. A hostage situation of sorts.

Banks are also responsible here - they give far more favourable mortgages to BTL than anyone else. This is to be expected because of the inherent security with BTL, but if these same banks are stopping anyone else from having interest-only mortgages then they are causing the problem. Having more young people in good careers on interest-only mortgages is a very good thing - they require lower deposits and have very very low monthly payments, permitting the gathering of a proper deposit and leaving with some equity growth. If you're on a good grad scheme with a clear upward career route then you should be able to go on an interest-only mortgage the same year you graduate, rather than spending years living in a house share splurging excessive money on rent.

To be fair though, wind back the clock 70 years and throughout post-war history there were good options to put your money on to enrich yourself and/or to save up a pension. Normally that was bank interest or treasury bonds. With time that died by the 80s as the returns became horrible, and stock markets and pension plans came in. But they are both inherently risky, and both keep offering diminishing returns compared to decades ago. That's why since the 90s housing has suffered an unforeseen boom - it's safe and it's almost guaranteed to offer good yearly investment return, unlike every other option. It's fine to solve these problems now, but how will people save for their own pensions?

Also, I edited my other post with a bit more 'final resort' options.. I don't think the tory age-based income tax is a half-bad idea. It certainly didn't receive too much outrage when it was first dropped in the public sphere intentionally to gauge public opinion.


Do you think shifting tax burden from property tax to land value would have an impact, or would it sufficiently disincentivize landlord associations to offset the benefits?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:39 pm
by Shamhnan Insir
Heathrow debate heating up. Grayling accused of taking the piss.
Not sure where this one will go...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:16 pm
by The Huskar Social Union
After 20 years, David Ford (former Alliance part leader and former minister of policing) is stepping down as an MLA.

Shame, i always liked him.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:21 pm
by Shamhnan Insir
Heathrow vote passes comfortably. Shame really as other projects would have been much better but at least there is a tiny amount of traction in development of infrastructure.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:33 pm
by Eastfield Lodge
Shamhnan Insir wrote:Heathrow vote passes comfortably. Shame really as other projects would have been much better but at least there is a tiny amount of traction in development of infrastructure.

Plus we can drag Boris Johnson out in front of the bulldozers just like he promised.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:36 pm
by Vassenor
Eastfield Lodge wrote:
Shamhnan Insir wrote:Heathrow vote passes comfortably. Shame really as other projects would have been much better but at least there is a tiny amount of traction in development of infrastructure.

Plus we can drag Boris Johnson out in front of the bulldozers just like he promised.


Isn't he hiding in a cave in Afghanistan right now?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:47 pm
by Neu Leonstein
On the issue of property ownership in the UK, once can't go past the meticulous research of the folks who run https://whoownsengland.org/2018/06/22/m ... dated-map/

So easy to forget sometimes that this country has never had a decent revolution, and there are huge swathes of the country owned by the descendants of feudal landlords. The degree of toleration British society seems to afford their lordships never ceases to amaze me, to be honest.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:49 pm
by Vassenor
Neu Leonstein wrote:On the issue of property ownership in the UK, once can't go past the meticulous research of the folks who run https://whoownsengland.org/2018/06/22/m ... dated-map/

So easy to forget sometimes that this country has never had a decent revolution, and there are huge swathes of the country owned by the descendants of feudal landlords. The degree of toleration British society seems to afford their lordships never ceases to amaze me, to be honest.


Clearly you didn't see the front pages of the pro-Brexit papers after the Lords started standing up for Parliamentary Sovereignty.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:49 pm
by Fartsniffage
Neu Leonstein wrote:On the issue of property ownership in the UK, once can't go past the meticulous research of the folks who run https://whoownsengland.org/2018/06/22/m ... dated-map/

So easy to forget sometimes that this country has never had a decent revolution, and there are huge swathes of the country owned by the descendants of feudal landlords. The degree of toleration British society seems to afford their lordships never ceases to amaze me, to be honest.


I own the land my house is on. I demand to be a part of that website.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:50 pm
by Platypus Bureaucracy
Eastfield Lodge wrote:
Shamhnan Insir wrote:Heathrow vote passes comfortably. Shame really as other projects would have been much better but at least there is a tiny amount of traction in development of infrastructure.

Plus we can drag Boris Johnson out in front of the bulldozers just like he promised.

Bad idea. Everyone knows that mere hours after the bumbling idiot lies down in front of the bulldozers, the Earth is demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:58 pm
by Ifreann
Fartsniffage wrote:
Neu Leonstein wrote:On the issue of property ownership in the UK, once can't go past the meticulous research of the folks who run https://whoownsengland.org/2018/06/22/m ... dated-map/

So easy to forget sometimes that this country has never had a decent revolution, and there are huge swathes of the country owned by the descendants of feudal landlords. The degree of toleration British society seems to afford their lordships never ceases to amaze me, to be honest.


I own the land my house is on. I demand to be a part of that website.

Earl of Sniffage.