UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Gormwood]

Or the select people that happen to be running the country could stay out of the bedroom.

Boris preaching monogamy would be especially amusing.

"Monogamy For Thee But Not For Mee." - Boris Johnson

[Andsed]

Sex education classes need to teach that all premarital (unless in a relationship leading to marriage) and extramarital sex is wrong.

Or the select people that happen to be running the country could stay out of the bedroom.

Pretty much. People who have an issue with two consenting adults agreeing to partake in sexual intercourse just because their not married or gay need to get that stick out of their arse.

[Gormwood]

Or the select people that happen to be running the country could stay out of the bedroom.

Pretty much. People who have an issue with two consenting adults agreeing to partake in sexual intercourse just because their not married or gay need to get that stick out of their arse.

But how else can they achieve gratification?

[Andsed]

Pretty much. People who have an issue with two consenting adults agreeing to partake in sexual intercourse just because their not married or gay need to get that stick out of their arse.

But how else can they achieve gratification?

Well they have hands and the internet... So they can look up and watch videos of cute animals.

[Souseiseki]

it probably makes more sense when you see self-proclaimed libertarian capitalists accidentally creating workers controlled models on a regular basis while violently denying so much as the slightest hint of socialism

Yes, again, because libertarians/capitalists see a big difference between voluntary acts and involuntary property transfers. Because it is a big difference. Do you seriously not think there's a big moral difference between a gift of US$500 and someone forcefully stealing the same amount? There's no contradiction in someone consesually creating a worker-controlled model, whilst objecting to the State or community forcing that model onto every capital owner against their will.

i accept there's a difference i'm just not sure why you seem to be insisting that consensually or unwittingly getting yourself into a socialist model of cooperation doesn't count as being effectively socialist

[Gormwood]

But how else can they achieve gratification?

Well they have hands and the internet... So they can look up and watch videos of cute animals.

What if they can't find something better than the stick?

[Purgatio]

Yes, again, because libertarians/capitalists see a big difference between voluntary acts and involuntary property transfers. Because it is a big difference. Do you seriously not think there's a big moral difference between a gift of US$500 and someone forcefully stealing the same amount? There's no contradiction in someone consesually creating a worker-controlled model, whilst objecting to the State or community forcing that model onto every capital owner against their will.

i accept there's a difference i'm just not sure why you seem to be insisting that consensually or unwittingly getting yourself into a socialist model of cooperation doesn't count as being effectively socialist

.....because it isn't "effectively socialist". At all. A father or mother wanting to give their wealth to their children after they die because they love their children, is extremely different than the State using the coercive force of law to seize that estate after death and redistribute it to all the children of that community, regardless of the wishes of said father or mother. They are extremely different. One is a voluntary model of association (a family) based on the free wishes and desires of the people involved, the other is coercive and involuntary.

I'm insisting on the difference because a gift and a robbery are not the same thing. They are extremely different. The better question is why you keep insisting the two are similar or comparable.

[Fartsniffage]

Well they have hands and the internet... So they can look up and watch videos of cute animals.

What if they can't find something better than the stick?

Then they need to be very careful of splinters. Because just ewww.

[Gormwood]

What if they can't find something better than the stick?

Then they need to be very careful of splinters. Because just ewww.

Maybe they're cat furries.

[Souseiseki]

i accept there's a difference i'm just not sure why you seem to be insisting that consensually or unwittingly getting yourself into a socialist model of cooperation doesn't count as being effectively socialist

.....because it isn't "effectively socialist". At all. A father or mother wanting to give their wealth to their children after they die because they love their children, is extremely different than the State using the coercive force of law to seize that estate after death and redistribute it to all the children of that community, regardless of the wishes of said father or mother. They are extremely different. One is a voluntary model of association (a family) based on the free wishes and desires of the people involved, the other is coercive and involuntary.

I'm insisting on the difference because a gift and a robbery are not the same thing. They are extremely different. The better question is why you keep insisting the two are similar or comparable.

if a model is socialist then it's socialist and if it isn't then it isn't. the same goes for models with similarities to socialism, whatever they may be. at this point i think you're being obtuse because you were never told about forms of socialism that aren't the soviet union or are deliberately refusing to acknowledge they exist for political reasons.

like holy fucking shit we aren't even talking about the state. you can go create your own little co-op that would be socialist by any other name right now with zero coercion from the state if you want. you have even admitted this in previous posts. what is the sticking point here?

e: also like i said, i don't really care whether or not the family is socialist. my point is that localized socialism can exist within a non-socialist system and in a bigger sense that your idea it\s not socialism because it doesn't involve lenin stealing your toaster is wrong.

[Souseiseki]

if boris johnson wins over the north, calms scotland and gets leavers to accept EEA i will admit that i was wrong and he is in fact a political genius

he's already got a 50/50 record on this so i suppose we will have to wait and see

[Salandriagado]

Sex education classes need to teach that all premarital (unless in a relationship leading to marriage) and extramarital sex is wrong.

Yeah, no. Go push your opinions yourself, rather than trying to use the state to force them on others. This goes doubly so when ramming your particular beliefs into a particular lesson demonstrably makes that lesson less effective.

[Salandriagado]

It's about time ya limies left the EU.

Now join us in creating the glorious Atlantic Union. It'll be just like the EU, except more Anglo.

Nah. We want no part of America's bullshit.

[Salandriagado]

There is no reason to leave the EU. Not a single Brexitier can give one that is logical.

The United Kingdom left the European Union because the British people voted for it in a legally-binding referendum

This is a lie.

There is no reason to remain in the the European Union. Not a single Remainer can give one that is logical.

So is this.

[Salandriagado]

The Queen was lied to by the PM, which is unconstitutional.

The Supreme court was made independent of political situations, so no.

The Supreme Court indeed was made independent of political situations, so I understand, which means that the ruling entirely was outside of their jurisdiction, let alone the fact that again judicial review has no legal basis in the United Kingdom.

That's three lies in one sentence. The supreme court decision wasn't "made independent of political situations", even if it were, that wouldn't make the ruling outside of their jurisdiction, and judicial review has a perfectly solid legal basis in the United Kingdom.

[Salandriagado]

Also, you are not a supreme court constitutional judge, so your comments mean very little.

Argumentum ab auctoritate

Which is only a logical fallacy if the authority in question does not actually have authority over the issue in question. That is transparently not the case.

[Salandriagado]

You know, all I really intended was to wish a happy day to fellow supporters of Brexit, not get dragged into a long debate about British law. So, I repeat:

Happy Brexit Day!

Cheerio!

No, what you intended to do was turn up, spout lies, then run away on being challenged. We can tell, because that's what you did.

[Salandriagado]

And all because you got upset that not everyone is as hyped about this as you are.

Nay, you may have your own opinions. I just do not appreciate having mine denigrated.

Stop lying then.

[Salandriagado]

I mean, he is technically a socialist in the family aspect, as he accept money off his parents they earned.

....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State.

No it doesn't, as you well know. Stop lying.

I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

Someone who believes in equality of opportunity.

[Purgatio]

.....because it isn't "effectively socialist". At all. A father or mother wanting to give their wealth to their children after they die because they love their children, is extremely different than the State using the coercive force of law to seize that estate after death and redistribute it to all the children of that community, regardless of the wishes of said father or mother. They are extremely different. One is a voluntary model of association (a family) based on the free wishes and desires of the people involved, the other is coercive and involuntary.

I'm insisting on the difference because a gift and a robbery are not the same thing. They are extremely different. The better question is why you keep insisting the two are similar or comparable.

if a model is socialist then it's socialist and if it isn't then it isn't. the same goes for models with similarities to socialism, whatever they may be. at this point i think you're being obtuse because you were never told about forms of socialism that aren't the soviet union or are deliberately refusing to acknowledge they exist for political reasons.

like holy fucking shit we aren't even talking about the state. you can go create your own little co-op that would be socialist by any other name right now with zero coercion from the state if you want. you have even admitted this in previous posts. what is the sticking point here?

e: also like i said, i don't really care whether or not the family is socialist. my point is that localized socialism can exist within a non-socialist system and in a bigger sense that your idea it\s not socialism because it doesn't involve lenin stealing your toaster is wrong.

Do you not care whether the private family unit is socialistic because if you accept that your overbroad definition of "socialism" inevitably requires you to accept that even the family is a socialist institution (by your definition), that it will reveal your definition of "socialism" as self-evidently absurd? Again, your conception of socialism is de-linked from any idea of socialism being a political philosophy or a means for societal governance. Instead, literally any voluntary sharing or gift-giving between individuals in a society is "socialist" by your characterisation. It would be hilarious and laughable if you weren't being inexplicably serious with this so-called 'definition'. Family members taking care of each other is not socialistic. Treating your friend to dinner is not socialistic. Voluntarily paying for your date's coffee is not socialistic. Giving your best friend a gift for her birthday is not socialistic. Those are all exercises of a property owner's autonomous power and control over his own property - a fundamental tenet of capitalism, not socialism. If you insist on treating every free and voluntary act of giving someone else a gift "socialism"....then I'm at a loss for words at this absurd 'definition'. Jesus, and I thought it was the political right that gets accused of having ridiculously-overbroad definitions of "socialism".

[Vassenor]

Meanwhile Andrew Neil is losing his mind over the fact the BBC dared to point out to kids that things we think of as stereotypically British are actually imports.

Like apparently it's "anti-British" to do that or something.

[Ostroeuropa]

Meanwhile Andrew Neil is losing his mind over the fact the BBC dared to point out to kids that things we think of as stereotypically British are actually imports.

Like apparently it's "anti-British" to do that or something.

Yes, it is anti-british to portray a narrative where everything worthwhile about Britain is foreign. Artificially selecting a list to drive home that point is anti-british for the same reason deciding to make a song about black people and then only selecting criminals to talk about would be racist. "But i'm just listing facts" is not a defense, because you have decided which facts are important enough to highlight, and the ones you have decided are most important are the ones that devalue the UK and its contributions. Much like the constant negativity those types of people have for british history and the empire, it's revealing of their subjective evaluation and how it is anti-british, or more accurately, how they hate britain and then go out searching for examples to spam people with to justify their hatred and to demean the country.

It's part of a pretty consistent anti-british attitude the progressives and liberals have advanced for, well, hundreds of years now actually in the case of liberals.

Your feigned ignorance of how this is racist and anti-british would vanish if I were to up and decide we need to talk about Islam and then listed nothing but atrocities and negative things while remaining silent on examples that don't drive a narrative of Islam = violent/dangerous.

In this example, and in plenty of others and the overarching remoaner narrative, Britain is useless and has produced nothing of value and would be lost without the EU, everything good about us is foreign and the only locally produced thing is superstitious ignorance, stupidity, and ingratitude to our benefactors without whom we would have nothing. This may remind you of the sneering attitudes people had to colonies and how we "Brought them civilization" and "Without us you would be in mud huts", because it's the same attitude, and the same expression of contempt, merely directed against the native populace.

Sing a song about how a bunch of things in colonies are legacies of the UK and British institutions and they have no worthwhile culture of their own, see how it goes.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Where were you in 2009 when this was first broadcast?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Meanwhile Andrew Neil is losing his mind over the fact the BBC dared to point out to kids that things we think of as stereotypically British are actually imports.

Like apparently it's "anti-British" to do that or something.

Yes, it is anti-british to portray a narrative where everything worthwhile about Britain is foreign. Artificially selecting a list to drive home that point is anti-british for the same reason deciding to make a song about black people and then only selecting criminals to talk about would be racist. "But i'm just listing facts" is not a defense, because you have decided which facts are important enough to highlight, and the ones you have decided are most important are the ones that devalue the UK and its contributions. Much like the constant negativity those types of people have for british history and the empire, it's revealing of their subjective evaluation and how it is anti-british, or more accurately, how they hate britain and then go out searching for examples to spam people with to justify their hatred and to demean the country.

It's part of a pretty consistent anti-british attitude the progressives and liberals have advanced for, well, hundreds of years now actually in the case of liberals.

Your feigned ignorance of how this is racist and anti-british would vanish if I were to up and decide we need to talk about Islam and then listed nothing but atrocities and negative things while remaining silent on examples that don't drive a narrative of Islam = violent/dangerous.

In this example, and in plenty of others and the overarching remoaner narrative, Britain is useless and has produced nothing of value and would be lost without the EU, everything good about us is foreign and the only locally produced thing is superstitious ignorance, stupidity, and ingratitude to our benefactors without whom we would have nothing. This may remind you of the sneering attitudes people had to colonies and how we "Brought them civilization" and "Without us you would be in mud huts", because it's the same attitude, and the same expression of contempt, merely directed against the native populace.

Sing a song about how a bunch of things in colonies are legacies of the UK and British institutions and they have no worthwhile culture of their own, see how it goes.

Good post. The individual video isn't the problem (I find it quite amusing), and without the wider context the reaction maybe just looks like people being triggered by satire. They certainly didn't conduct themselves in a way that makes you take them credibly. But the reupload of this sketch doesn't sit alone, it's obviously been done at a particular time, and we need to consider the wider narrative where the BBC's current and recent body of work has a prevailing attitude of cynicism and negativity towards Britain, non-minority cultures, and British history. Which is naturally going to alienate a fair number of people. Paying a mandatory fee towards people who label themselves as the "British Broadcasting Corporation" but appear to some degree to be institutionally hostile to Britishness, well that's going to be something of a jimmy-rustler, particularly in the current "culture-war" inflected times.

[Vassenor]

Meanwhile Andrew Neil is losing his mind over the fact the BBC dared to point out to kids that things we think of as stereotypically British are actually imports.

Like apparently it's "anti-British" to do that or something.

Yes, it is anti-british to portray a narrative where everything worthwhile about Britain is foreign. Artificially selecting a list to drive home that point is anti-british for the same reason deciding to make a song about black people and then only selecting criminals to talk about would be racist. "But i'm just listing facts" is not a defense, because you have decided which facts are important enough to highlight, and the ones you have decided are most important are the ones that devalue the UK and its contributions. Much like the constant negativity those types of people have for british history and the empire, it's revealing of their subjective evaluation and how it is anti-british, or more accurately, how they hate britain and then go out searching for examples to spam people with to justify their hatred and to demean the country.

It's part of a pretty consistent anti-british attitude the progressives and liberals have advanced for, well, hundreds of years now actually in the case of liberals.

Your feigned ignorance of how this is racist and anti-british would vanish if I were to up and decide we need to talk about Islam and then listed nothing but atrocities and negative things while remaining silent on examples that don't drive a narrative of Islam = violent/dangerous.

In this example, and in plenty of others and the overarching remoaner narrative, Britain is useless and has produced nothing of value and would be lost without the EU, everything good about us is foreign and the only locally produced thing is superstitious ignorance, stupidity, and ingratitude to our benefactors without whom we would have nothing. This may remind you of the sneering attitudes people had to colonies and how we "Brought them civilization" and "Without us you would be in mud huts", because it's the same attitude, and the same expression of contempt, merely directed against the native populace.

Sing a song about how a bunch of things in colonies are legacies of the UK and British institutions and they have no worthwhile culture of their own, see how it goes.

But I thought teaching people about the history of the British Empire was what the Leavers wanted.