UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The result of the referendum was made binding in a subsequent vote. Again, to go back to elections, they can be declared invalid by the election commission, much as it would be perfectly legal (political suicide is legal) for the government to revoke article 50.

Your analogy is more similar to a national vote for one office, not to a vote for many offices, as exists in a parliamentary election. If Trump won he election, do Clinton supporters get the chance to re-run it?

By your standard Trump lost the election. Would you argue that remain should have won with fewer votes than leave?

If the referendum had been contested with a technicality in place that makes such ridiculous results as we see in America (I prefer republicans to democrats but electoral college is still dumb), sure. It wasn't though was it?

[Nimzonia]

-- Massive long rant --

I'm not going to reply to this nonsense point by point. Your interpretation of the article is completely misguided. It is questioning why people reject the label "feminist" when they hold clearly feminist beliefs (gender equality). The conclusion is that they don't want to be associated with the pervasive, misogynistic stereotype of the man-hating dyke.

The fact that your entire argument, and the basis of your misinterpretation, is founded on the assumption that the stereotype of the man-hating dyke is the actual truth of feminism makes this discussion pointless. Clearly no rational discourse is going to persuade you otherwise, so my initial response appears to have been the correct one.

[Shrillland]

snip

Please don't post like that, screen readers really don't like it.

Agreed. To be quite honest, I'm starting to think it should become a moddable offence, but that's just me.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The referendum was a national, not local vote. Also, local elections are binding, national referenda are not.

The result of the referendum was made binding in a subsequent vote. Again, to go back to elections, they can be declared invalid by the election commission, much as it would be perfectly legal (political suicide is legal) for the government to revoke article 50.

Your analogy is more similar to a national vote for one office, not to a vote for many offices, as exists in a parliamentary election. If Trump won he election, do Clinton supporters get the chance to re-run it?

Yes, after four years.

[Alyakia]

Please don't post like that, screen readers really don't like it.

ok jeez

DUP voted against everything - what do they want again?

They probably want Brexit.

In other words, not what was offered today.

the DUP want to do whatever best keeps northern ireland tethered to the UK, splits northern ireland the most from ireland and fucks ireland the hardest. they flip flop between "remain because hard border will fasten reunification" and "leave because we get a big sexy border to fuck off the taigs". they do not give a shit about your bexit fantasies, except in so far that it fuels their ulster fantasies, and they never have.

[Vassenor]

Sunday Times straw poll shows majority support for revoking Article 50.

#willofthepeople

[Greater vakolicci haven]

-- Massive long rant --

I'm not going to reply to this nonsense point by point. Your interpretation of the article is completely misguided. It is questioning why people reject the label "feminist" when they hold clearly feminist beliefs (gender equality). The conclusion is that they don't want to be associated with the pervasive, misogynistic stereotype of the man-hating dyke.

The fact that your entire argument, and the basis of your misinterpretation, is founded on the assumption that the stereotype of the man-hating dyke is the actual truth of feminism makes this argument pointless. Clearly no rational discourse is going to persuade you otherwise, so my initial response appears to have been the correct one.

The people who identify today as feminists, it seems, don't want equality between the classes though, they want higher protections for women than men in certain issues which are, I might add, the sort of things that lead to human rights act issues. By the old definition, I am a feminist; Ostro is a feminist...we both want gender equality. Feminism however doesn't preach that at the moment.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

Sunday Times straw poll shows majority support for revoking Article 50.

#willofthepeople

I did a straw poll around my house and found 100% support for no deal.

In other news, a straw poll of Socialist Worker readers shows majority support for abolishing private land ownership.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The result of the referendum was made binding in a subsequent vote. Again, to go back to elections, they can be declared invalid by the election commission, much as it would be perfectly legal (political suicide is legal) for the government to revoke article 50.

Your analogy is more similar to a national vote for one office, not to a vote for many offices, as exists in a parliamentary election. If Trump won he election, do Clinton supporters get the chance to re-run it?

Yes, after four years.

Sure, give us 4 years outside of the European Union, (I don't mean 4 years after the referendum, I mean actually outside the EU), and come back again once we've done that. I won't spite you your second go.

[Nimzonia]

Imagine if we voted to remain but parliament decided to leave.

I imagine 3 years later, parliament would be collapsing into chaos trying to decide what sort of Brexit it wanted.

[The Huskar Social Union]

DUP voted against everything - what do they want again?

They probably want Brexit.

In other words, not what was offered today.

That is exactly want. They will never admit it completely though. They want an isolated little statelet tied only to the UK

Unless its an issue they dont like, such as gay marriage in which case they are more than happy to be different

[Alyakia]

Yes, after four years.

Sure, give us 4 years outside of the European Union, (I don't mean 4 years after the referendum, I mean actually outside the EU), and come back again once we've done that. I won't spite you your second go.

the difference between 4 years of the status quo and 4 years of the largest constitutional change in modern british history should be so obvious that they should go unsaid

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I'm not going to reply to this nonsense point by point. Your interpretation of the article is completely misguided. It is questioning why people reject the label "feminist" when they hold clearly feminist beliefs (gender equality). The conclusion is that they don't want to be associated with the pervasive, misogynistic stereotype of the man-hating dyke.

The fact that your entire argument, and the basis of your misinterpretation, is founded on the assumption that the stereotype of the man-hating dyke is the actual truth of feminism makes this argument pointless. Clearly no rational discourse is going to persuade you otherwise, so my initial response appears to have been the correct one.

The people who identify today as feminists, it seems, don't want equality between the classes though, they want higher protections for women than men in certain issues which are, I might add, the sort of things that lead to human rights act issues. By the old definition, I am a feminist; Ostro is a feminist...we both want gender equality. Feminism however doesn't preach that at the moment.

Yes, you are a feminist. Ostro is a feminist. I am a feminist. People are being duped in believing that some fringe group (buy Ostro's own admission) speaks for the entire movement. Feminism isn't even a movement per se, it doesn't have leadership, it's just a way to describe common ideals. And some pundits like to point at the most extreme and pretend like the entire group is like that, but if you believe that, then you've basically fallen into a trap. It gives you a reason not to talk with real feminists, which I do a lot. All of them support men's paid family leave and fairer rulings in custody cases, as well as the draft for women (if there should be a draft at all). But if you don't talk to feminists, and only go by what memes tell you, then yeah, you will get a distorted idea of feminism.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Sure, give us 4 years outside of the European Union, (I don't mean 4 years after the referendum, I mean actually outside the EU), and come back again once we've done that. I won't spite you your second go.

the difference between 4 years of the status quo and 4 years of the largest constitutional change in modern british history should be so obvious that they should go unsaid

It's not the difference between those two things though. It's the difference between electing Donald Trump and leaving the EU.

[Vassenor]

Meanwhile almost every formal poll conducted since GE17 has returned a pro-Remain result.

#willofthepeople

[Ostroeuropa]

-- Massive long rant --

I'm not going to reply to this nonsense point by point. Your interpretation of the article is completely misguided. It is questioning why people reject the label "feminist" when they hold clearly feminist beliefs (gender equality). The conclusion is that they don't want to be associated with the pervasive, misogynistic stereotype of the man-hating dyke.

The fact that your entire argument, and the basis of your misinterpretation, is founded on the assumption that the stereotype of the man-hating dyke is the actual truth of feminism makes this argument pointless. Clearly no rational discourse is going to persuade you otherwise, so my initial response appears to have been the correct one.

I didn't make such an assumption, but pointed out my reasoning at length which you then refused to respond to. If you're going to refuse to engage with my argument, then don't then pretend i'm making assumptions. I am the one putting forth rational discourse here, you have refused to engage in any type of thought not prescribed to you by feminist dogmatisms to such an extent that you cannot perceive anything outside those dogmatisms as having any reason in it.

It is questioning why people reject the label "feminist" when they hold clearly feminist beliefs (gender equality). The conclusion is that they don't want to be associated with the pervasive, misogynistic stereotype of the man-hating dyke.

This view is the thing I have criticized. Are you admitting you are not capable of understanding an alternative interpretation of the article, and only one mode of thought is available to you? Why not actually defend your interpretation rather than merely assert it?

I can, and have at length previously, gone over precisely which actions by the feminist movement constitute man-hating, what apsects of the ideology give rise to those actions, and so on. But I think i'll leave others with this crucial part of my post and invite them to contrast it with your response here just so they understand why your response here doesn't actually engage with reality, but follows a script you internalized:

The majority said they did not want to call themselves feminist because they feared they would be associated with these traits. This was despite many stressing they were not homophobic and some identifying as lesbian or bisexual.
So, how could the image of feminism be improved?
Arguably, as a society we should do more to challenge narrowly defined expectations of how women should look and act.
Working harder to make this movement more inclusive could mean that feminism speaks to the experiences and concerns of diverse groups of women.



"You hate men. I do not want to be seen as hating men, so I do not want to associate with you". - 80% of The Public

"If I was nicer to women would that change your mind?"-BBC feminist journalist

This is a jarring disconnect from reality and demonstrates precisely why people have concluded feminists hate men. The ideology and worldview causes this feminist to interpret a dysfunctional response to reality here.
Why on earth woudl that change our minds? But this feminist literally cannot conceive of another solution specifically because they are a feminist and only have one mode of thought for how to deal with problems. If I were to tell you this person has had their capacity for considering "Treat men better" as an idea surgically removed from their brain, that would make this response make sense.
But this is a purely cognitive problem here that produced that reaction. Feminist ideology did that to this person. And when people interact with someone like that, they go; "Wow, no thanks.".


Note here as well which supports my point in my original post:

In recent years, feminist movements have attracted significant attention in Europe and North America. So why do so many young women still say they do not identify with the term?
Fewer than one in five young women would call themselves a feminist, polling in the UK and US suggests.
That might come as a surprise as feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes - has been in the spotlight lately.


The feminist writing the article is insular and disconnected from reality. They literally cannot conceive why people who have heard their fox news style economics would reject it and think it's a bunch of stupid bullshit, because everyone in their economic class and all their co-workers agree with it, so why doesn't everyone else?

Despite wall to wall positive coverage of feminism from feminists in the media, people aren't buying it. Does the feminist conclude; "Maybe I should examine my views"? No, they just become baffled.

"Hey man no thanks I heard the Klan hated black people so I don't wanna join."

"What if we donated a couple of thousand to local white children, that sweeten the deal for ya?"

Except done with literally zero self-awareness.

"Your entire argument is based on assumptions" you say, as I provide one concrete example of what i'm talking about. You yourself have just basically done the same thing.
If you don't see how this is man-hating response by the journalist, that is because you have a man-hating worldview. The problem is, you refuse to consider that possibility and just insist it's a stereotype, precisely the attitude I criticized in the post.


You would think you would have a better response to a criticism 80% of the public have about you than "I'm not engaging with that.". Why don't you explain how my interpretation is misguided?


I know why. It's because you got your worldview from people who don't normally have to respond to actual criticism of it and so haven't received your marching orders for what to do in this situation beyond spout thought terminating clichés and disengage.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The people who identify today as feminists, it seems, don't want equality between the classes though, they want higher protections for women than men in certain issues which are, I might add, the sort of things that lead to human rights act issues. By the old definition, I am a feminist; Ostro is a feminist...we both want gender equality. Feminism however doesn't preach that at the moment.

Yes, you are a feminist. Ostro is a feminist. I am a feminist. People are being duped in believing that some fringe group (buy Ostro's own admission) speaks for the entire movement. Feminism isn't even a movement per se, it doesn't have leadership, it's just a way to describe common ideals. And some pundits like to point at the most extreme and pretend like the entire group is like that, but if you believe that, then you've basically fallen into a trap. It gives you a reason not to talk with real feminists, which I do a lot. All of them support men's paid family leave and fairer rulings in custody cases, as well as the draft for women (if there should be a draft at all). But if you don't talk to feminists, and only go by what memes tell you, then yeah, you will get a distorted idea of feminism.

The problem is though that those fringe groups are extremely noisy. I'm not saying feminists are wrong, I'm saying that the people who have highjacked the word are wrong.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yes, after four years.

Sure, give us 4 years outside of the European Union, (I don't mean 4 years after the referendum, I mean actually outside the EU), and come back again once we've done that. I won't spite you your second go.

That would make almost seven years after the initial vote. The thing is, while normal elections have drawn-out consequences over the years that are reviewed by a legislature (which, in the US, is elected every two years), Brexit has a very definite point. A point of no return, because the UK can reapply for Union membership, but that will be vastly more difficult than remaining, with enormous consequences and vast amounts of time and resources lost. Non-union membership is not something you can try out for four years. If the UK exits, it will be at least ten years before they re-enter. It is far more expedient to ask the population what they think now. If they majority still supports Brexit, then I say, go ahead. Pull the trigger. That's how it works. But right now, the whole machine of state is geared on instructions given three years ago, while radical new information has been provided. There is plenty of reason to hold a new referendum at least.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yes, you are a feminist. Ostro is a feminist. I am a feminist. People are being duped in believing that some fringe group (buy Ostro's own admission) speaks for the entire movement. Feminism isn't even a movement per se, it doesn't have leadership, it's just a way to describe common ideals. And some pundits like to point at the most extreme and pretend like the entire group is like that, but if you believe that, then you've basically fallen into a trap. It gives you a reason not to talk with real feminists, which I do a lot. All of them support men's paid family leave and fairer rulings in custody cases, as well as the draft for women (if there should be a draft at all). But if you don't talk to feminists, and only go by what memes tell you, then yeah, you will get a distorted idea of feminism.

The problem is though that those fringe groups are extremely noisy. I'm not saying feminists are wrong, I'm saying that the people who have highjacked the word are wrong.

Yeah, of course. But that is no argument against feminism. It goes for all groups. Feminists frequently denounce and debate the most radical elements of the feminist movement. Feminism is far from a monolith, just like any political group. Imagine painting all Brexiteers in the light of the English Defence League. That would be unfair.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sure, give us 4 years outside of the European Union, (I don't mean 4 years after the referendum, I mean actually outside the EU), and come back again once we've done that. I won't spite you your second go.

That would make almost seven years after the initial vote. The thing is, while normal elections have drawn-out consequences over the years that are reviewed by a legislature (which, in the US, is elected every two years), Brexit has a very definite point. A point of no return, because the UK can reapply for Union membership, but that will be vastly more difficult than remaining, with enormous consequences and vast amounts of time and resources lost. Non-union membership is not something you can try out for four years. If the UK exits, it will be at least ten years before they re-enter. It is far more expedient to ask the population what they think now. If they majority still supports Brexit, then I say, go ahead. Pull the trigger. That's how it works. But right now, the whole machine of state is geared on instructions given three years ago, while radical new information has been provided. There is plenty of reason to hold a new referendum at least.

If we leave, we should not bother returning unless we are in extremely dire straits. It will just reproduce the same mess again as our economy gets what trade deals we do manage to negotiate trashed in the process. It's like banning coal, then our economy crashes and fixes itself over time to rely on fishing, then we unban coal and ban fishing.

[Nimzonia]

I know why. It's because you got your worldview from people who don't normally have to respond to actual criticism of it and so haven't received your marching orders for what to do in this situation beyond spout thought terminating clichés and disengage.

Yes, that must be the reason.

[Vassenor]

I know why. It's because you got your worldview from people who don't normally have to respond to actual criticism of it and so haven't received your marching orders for what to do in this situation beyond spout thought terminating clichés and disengage.

Yes, that must be the reason.

Apparently "thought terminating cliches" is short hand for "you made an argument I can't counter" now.

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vusL19GhrTM

I find this quite interesting.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, that must be the reason.

Apparently "thought terminating cliches" is short hand for "you made an argument I can't counter" now.

He didn't make an argument vass. He made assertions.

I know why. It's because you got your worldview from people who don't normally have to respond to actual criticism of it and so haven't received your marching orders for what to do in this situation beyond spout thought terminating clichés and disengage.

Yes, that must be the reason.

Advocating womens rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes is not the same thing as gender equality.
I can advocate genocide on the grounds of national security, but it doesn't mean what i'm advocating has any connection to the other thing.


^

From my post. Because this is a rebuttal you are not familiar with and have not been exposed to by feminist media, you have no clue on how to respond, and instead pulled this silly shit instead:

I'm not going to reply to this nonsense point by point. Your interpretation of the article is completely misguided. It is questioning why people reject the label "feminist" when they hold clearly feminist beliefs (gender equality). The conclusion is that they don't want to be associated with the pervasive, misogynistic stereotype of the man-hating dyke.

The fact that your entire argument, and the basis of your misinterpretation, is founded on the assumption that the stereotype of the man-hating dyke is the actual truth of feminism makes this argument pointless. Clearly no rational discourse is going to persuade you otherwise, so my initial response appears to have been the correct one.

You are demonstrating you cannot deviate from script. That is my conclusion. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but if you simply refuse to engage with ideas critical of yours and insist on just repeating your assertions while acting like disputing those assertions is unreasonable and doesn't need to be argued, then I'm pretty comfortable leaving it here too.

It's not the only point I made either. Every single thing about your rebuttal has already been dealt with ahead of time because I know the script you are working from, I've debated feminists long enough to know it.


Underlined dealt with here, Italic in the post above. (Both quoting relevant sections of the post you decided to ignore.).

[Selissu]

Moving back to, you know, actual politics relevant to today's events....

What an interesting change (not really, obviously). Does anyone think the further indicative votes will see any movement sufficient to tip one of the proposals over to 'yes' -- and beyond that, make it binding on the government in some way? I saw some mention of Cox saying how Parliament could bind the government to the votes in some form. Anyone with more knowledge of the law around to speak on that?