UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Souseiseki]

Just because the left asserts it's a neo-Nazi thing to avoid engaging with the idea doesn't mean the right has to treat that assertion as valid.

Cultural Marxism is a shorthand description of intersectional identity politics that doubles up with comparing it to the Marxist class struggle and oppressor-oppressed dynamic, and an implication of this being divisive, negative, and so on. That's how plenty of people use it, and they're not Nazis.

You may as well claim globalism is by definition anti-Semitic as a term because Nazis mean Jews when they say it.

As far as i'm concerned this is a TERF issue. If cultural Marxists don't like the term, they should supply their own one to describe themselves rather than pretending they don't exist as a distinct group separate from others they pretend to be the same as.

the problem is that TERF is a real thing. they are trans-exclusive and they are radical feminists. putting aside all the people that aren't actually feminist but jumped on the bandwagon to have a socially acceptable excuse to shit on transpeople they just claim to be mad about it because it sounds bad. cultural marxism, on the other hand, has never been an ideology in the way that these people use it. all the stuff you've just said is "people who don't understand marxism". you shouldn't be doing anything except saying "no that's not how marxism works" and be done with it.

e: and consequently there are no cultural marxists to not like the term, because they do not exist.

e2: and yes having members of your government chatting shit about a conspiracy theory invented by nazis that does not exist is worrying!

[Druing]

earlier, you supported the clear implication that because these people with these beliefs support this thing, this thing is then associated with those beliefs:

TIL I'm Cerinda.

a bit of a strawman there since that's not what i was getting at, i should have made that clearer; but as it turns out, i was wrong in what i said anyway, since it's evident you didn't support that earlier in the conversation contrary to what i said. sorry:

This is also comes with the fact that Boris Johnson's government has the support of far-right nationalists like Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins, along with Britain First who are actual fascists.

...guilt by association?

Pointing out that the party is actively courting the support of the far right is guilt by association?

it isn't but that's not what was being 'pointed out' nor is that the case. it's literally a case of them being like "i support this" and them (the tory party) not having a response to it

So it's just a massive coincidence that the party has the support of notable far right groups and MPs spouting anti-semitic conspiracies.

yes.

yes.

It stops being a coincidence when you give them a job and invite them to cabinet meetings.

not being bothered who does and doesn't support you doesn't automatically lead to that.

I never said it did. I said that Johnson did do that.

i'm under the impression that the original accusation was not that it was antisemitic, but rather more an accusation of jrm courting a conspiracy theory, in particular, the very fictional illuminati and that he accused his fellows of being members of them, in which i believe we resolved earlier that it was an accusation of conspiracy using the name as part of an expression.

An antisemitic conspiracy theory.

am i understanding the accusation wrong then, and that instead the case is, jrm is antisemitic for reason being; he opposed people's actions as MPs and the nature of the antisemitism is that the specific people being opposed in this instance practice judaism?

or am i wrong here as well?

We're accusing him of being antisemitic because he's propagating an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is not rocket science.

it definitely seems like it right now, because i am very lost.

[Hirota]

Thornberry is out of the race.

Probably for the best, she might have done a decent job in opposition, but people will remember her the same as Gordon Brown; sneering at the working class. She wouldn't have got Labours core voters back.

[Salandriagado]

TIL I'm Cerinda.

a bit of a strawman there since that's not what i was getting at, i should have made that clearer;

You claimed that I said a thing, and your evidence to support this was Cerinda saying that thing. Pointing out that I'm not Cerinda in such a situation is not even remotely a strawman.

but as it turns out, i was wrong in what i said anyway, since it's evident you didn't support that earlier in the conversation contrary to what i said. sorry:

...guilt by association?

it isn't but that's not what was being 'pointed out' nor is that the case. it's literally a case of them being like "i support this" and them (the tory party) not having a response to it

yes.

It stops being a coincidence when you give them a job and invite them to cabinet meetings.

I never said it did. I said that Johnson did do that.

An antisemitic conspiracy theory.



We're accusing him of being antisemitic because he's propagating an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is not rocket science.

it definitely seems like it right now, because i am very lost.

He spouted a "jews secretly control the world" conspiracy theory. That's antisemitic. What's not to get?

[Druing]

a bit of a strawman there since that's not what i was getting at, i should have made that clearer;

You claimed that I said a thing, and your evidence to support this was Cerinda saying that thing. Pointing out that I'm not Cerinda in such a situation is not even remotely a strawman.

...no. that's not what i was doing. i was trying to call back to your earlier participation in the discussion by using the initial quote that we were responding to.

it definitely seems like it right now, because i am very lost.

He spouted a "jews secretly control the world" conspiracy theory. That's antisemitic. What's not to get?

when?

[Purgatio]

Thornberry is out of the race.

Probably for the best, she might have done a decent job in opposition, but people will remember her the same as Gordon Brown; sneering at the working class. She wouldn't have got Labours core voters back.

If many prominent British politicians keep sneering at the British working-class, its because the British working-class keeps doing and saying and engaging in behaviour that attracts such sneering in the first place. A truly dignified bunch of people wouldn't even attract the sneering contempt of those in power in the first place.

[The Free Joy State]

Thornberry is out of the race.

Probably for the best, she might have done a decent job in opposition, but people will remember her the same as Gordon Brown; sneering at the working class. She wouldn't have got Labours core voters back.

If many prominent British politicians keep sneering at the British working-class, its because the British working-class keeps doing and saying and engaging in behaviour that attracts such sneering in the first place. A truly dignified bunch of people wouldn't even attract the sneering contempt of those in power in the first place.

Oh, yes. All those commons, daring to be poor, daring to have poor educations from those dreadful "sink schools", schools in working class areas that have been underfunded for generations. All those horrid people deserve sneering at (*sigh*) -- so horribly poor and with such frightfully low aspirations, after being so repulsive as to graduate from said underfunded schools with few, if any, qualifications.

How dare they grow up housed -- well, warehoused, really -- in used office blocks and not be dignified enough to be grateful, perky Cockney types from 1940s movies.

Poverty breeds antisocial behaviour.

But that's not the fault of governments that have not built housing, preferring to cram families into converted containers. Oh no. It's nothing to do with the governments that have underfunded education. No-no. It's nothing to do with governments that have let child poverty grow to above 50% in 10 UK constituencies, with more than 4 in 10 children being below the poverty line in a further 27 local councils. Couldn't be.

It's just that those poors are so... undignified.

[Albrenia]

Thornberry is out of the race.

Probably for the best, she might have done a decent job in opposition, but people will remember her the same as Gordon Brown; sneering at the working class. She wouldn't have got Labours core voters back.

If many prominent British politicians keep sneering at the British working-class, its because the British working-class keeps doing and saying and engaging in behaviour that attracts such sneering in the first place. A truly dignified bunch of people wouldn't even attract the sneering contempt of those in power in the first place.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm.

[Purgatio]

If many prominent British politicians keep sneering at the British working-class, its because the British working-class keeps doing and saying and engaging in behaviour that attracts such sneering in the first place. A truly dignified bunch of people wouldn't even attract the sneering contempt of those in power in the first place.

Oh, yes. All those commons, daring to be poor, daring to have poor educations from those dreadful "sink schools", schools in working class areas that have been underfunded for generations. All those horrid people deserve sneering at (*sigh*) -- so horribly poor and with such frightfully low aspirations, after being so repulsive as to graduate from said underfunded schools with few, if any, qualifications.

How dare they grow up housed -- well, warehoused, really -- in used office blocks and not be dignified enough to be grateful, perky Cockney types from 1940s movies.

Poverty breeds antisocial behaviour.

But that's not the fault of governments that have not built housing, preferring to cram families into converted containers. Oh no. It's nothing to do with the governments that have underfunded education. No-no. It's nothing to do with governments that have let child poverty grow to above 50% in 10 UK constituencies, with more than 4 in 10 children being below the poverty line in a further 27 local councils. Couldn't be.

It's just that those poors are so... undignified.

How is that any of that society's problem, hmm?

[Purgatio]

If many prominent British politicians keep sneering at the British working-class, its because the British working-class keeps doing and saying and engaging in behaviour that attracts such sneering in the first place. A truly dignified bunch of people wouldn't even attract the sneering contempt of those in power in the first place.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm.

Why would it be? Do you see British politicians getting accused of hating the rich and upper class, or insulting the upper-middle class, or sneering at the middle-class?

No, its always endless whining about how this politician hates the working-class or that politician has contempt for the working-class. Bah, whatever. I'm so tired of this talking point. Maybe if so many politicians dislike the working-class, ever wonder if maybe the politicians aren't the problem? That its the working-class thats behaving in ways that attract such contempt in the first place?

[Albrenia]

I'm hoping this is sarcasm.

Why would it be? Do you see British politicians getting accused of hating the rich and upper class, or insulting the upper-middle class, or sneering at the middle-class?

No, its always endless whining about how this politician hates the working-class or that politician has contempt for the working-class. Bah, whatever. I'm so tired of this talking point. Maybe if so many politicians dislike the working-class, ever wonder if maybe the politicians aren't the problem? That its the working-class thats behaving in ways that attract such contempt in the first place?

Oh boy.

Yes, obviously when people arbitrarily decide that millions of people are collectively scum due to their income level, it is the millions of people who are at fault and not the person making the over-generalisation.

By the way, that was sarcasm.

[The Free Joy State]

Oh, yes. All those commons, daring to be poor, daring to have poor educations from those dreadful "sink schools", schools in working class areas that have been underfunded for generations. All those horrid people deserve sneering at (*sigh*) -- so horribly poor and with such frightfully low aspirations, after being so repulsive as to graduate from said underfunded schools with few, if any, qualifications.

How dare they grow up housed -- well, warehoused, really -- in used office blocks and not be dignified enough to be grateful, perky Cockney types from 1940s movies.

Poverty breeds antisocial behaviour.

But that's not the fault of governments that have not built housing, preferring to cram families into converted containers. Oh no. It's nothing to do with the governments that have underfunded education. No-no. It's nothing to do with governments that have let child poverty grow to above 50% in 10 UK constituencies, with more than 4 in 10 children being below the poverty line in a further 27 local councils. Couldn't be.

It's just that those poors are so... undignified.

How is that any of that society's problem, hmm?

Times like this, I would love the facepalm smiley.

Poverty breeds antisocial behaviour. Uneducated people are four times more likely to be unemployed. Ignoring the moral social imperative of caring for the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable, it is in society's best interest to prevent poverty -- which will prevent antisocial behaviour and crime; and in society's best interest to provide a good education for all, which will reduce unemployment.

[Gormwood]

If many prominent British politicians keep sneering at the British working-class, its because the British working-class keeps doing and saying and engaging in behaviour that attracts such sneering in the first place. A truly dignified bunch of people wouldn't even attract the sneering contempt of those in power in the first place.

Oh, yes. All those commons, daring to be poor, daring to have poor educations from those dreadful "sink schools", schools in working class areas that have been underfunded for generations. All those horrid people deserve sneering at (*sigh*) -- so horribly poor and with such frightfully low aspirations, after being so repulsive as to graduate from said underfunded schools with few, if any, qualifications.

How dare they grow up housed -- well, warehoused, really -- in used office blocks and not be dignified enough to be grateful, perky Cockney types from 1940s movies.

Poverty breeds antisocial behaviour.

But that's not the fault of governments that have not built housing, preferring to cram families into converted containers. Oh no. It's nothing to do with the governments that have underfunded education. No-no. It's nothing to do with governments that have let child poverty grow to above 50% in 10 UK constituencies, with more than 4 in 10 children being below the poverty line in a further 27 local councils. Couldn't be.

It's just that those poors are so... undignified.

You're talking to someone who fancies himself a Dickens character turning up his nose at the scruffy underclass and street urchins.

[Philjia]

Actual misogynist white supremacist and eugenics advocate Andrew Sabisky hired as advisor for No 10. https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1 ... 42369?s=19

[Hydesland]

Actual misogynist white supremacist and eugenics advocate Andrew Sabisky hired as advisor for No 10. https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1 ... 42369?s=19

How long until he's sacked? I think it depends; if the controversy and outrage continues for another day or two he'll probably be gone by Tuesday. Alternatively the whole thing could blow over due to (social) media amnesia or some new controversy and he stays on permanently.

[True Refuge]

Oh, yes. All those commons, daring to be poor, daring to have poor educations from those dreadful "sink schools", schools in working class areas that have been underfunded for generations. All those horrid people deserve sneering at (*sigh*) -- so horribly poor and with such frightfully low aspirations, after being so repulsive as to graduate from said underfunded schools with few, if any, qualifications.

How dare they grow up housed -- well, warehoused, really -- in used office blocks and not be dignified enough to be grateful, perky Cockney types from 1940s movies.

Poverty breeds antisocial behaviour.

But that's not the fault of governments that have not built housing, preferring to cram families into converted containers. Oh no. It's nothing to do with the governments that have underfunded education. No-no. It's nothing to do with governments that have let child poverty grow to above 50% in 10 UK constituencies, with more than 4 in 10 children being below the poverty line in a further 27 local councils. Couldn't be.

It's just that those poors are so... undignified.

How is that any of that society's problem, hmm?

The rich can't siphon off surplus value if the squalor stops the unwashed poors from making value.

[Philjia]

Actual misogynist white supremacist and eugenics advocate Andrew Sabisky hired as advisor for No 10. https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1 ... 42369?s=19

How long until he's sacked? I think it depends; if the controversy and outrage continues for another day or two he'll probably be gone by Tuesday. Alternatively the whole thing could blow over due to (social) media amnesia or some new controversy and he stays on permanently.

I think the latter is more likely.

[Vassenor]

Actual misogynist white supremacist and eugenics advocate Andrew Sabisky hired as advisor for No 10. https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1 ... 42369?s=19

And now Richard Dawkins is shilling for eugenics as well.

[Ostroeuropa]

Actual misogynist white supremacist and eugenics advocate Andrew Sabisky hired as advisor for No 10. https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1 ... 42369?s=19

Nothing about that quote in particular is egregious or inaccurate. That is indeed the definition of Eugenics and the parts about intelligence are also true. I'd need to see more before concluding he's actually in favor of Eugenics. The selection of positive traits by Eugenics as a goal can be acknowledged before being criticized.

"Intelligence is largely inherited" is the bit that is troublesome. The study of heritability of intelligence would back him up, suggesting most of your intelligence is heritable. However, the way heritable is used in the field of genetics is not how we would use it in common parlance, because environments are also heritable. When they mean genetic, they say genetic. Heritable simply means you can trace it down family lines for one reason or another.

There's a few possibilities as to what he meant and why he said it.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Just because the left asserts it's a neo-Nazi thing to avoid engaging with the idea doesn't mean the right has to treat that assertion as valid.

Cultural Marxism is a shorthand description of intersectional identity politics that doubles up with comparing it to the Marxist class struggle and oppressor-oppressed dynamic, and an implication of this being divisive, negative, and so on. That's how plenty of people use it, and they're not Nazis.

You may as well claim globalism is by definition anti-Semitic as a term because Nazis mean Jews when they say it.

As far as i'm concerned this is a TERF issue. If cultural Marxists don't like the term, they should supply their own one to describe themselves rather than pretending they don't exist as a distinct group separate from others they pretend to be the same as.

the problem is that TERF is a real thing. they are trans-exclusive and they are radical feminists. putting aside all the people that aren't actually feminist but jumped on the bandwagon to have a socially acceptable excuse to shit on transpeople they just claim to be mad about it because it sounds bad. cultural marxism, on the other hand, has never been an ideology in the way that these people use it. all the stuff you've just said is "people who don't understand marxism". you shouldn't be doing anything except saying "no that's not how marxism works" and be done with it.

e: and consequently there are no cultural marxists to not like the term, because they do not exist.

e2: and yes having members of your government chatting shit about a conspiracy theory invented by nazis that does not exist is worrying!

They do exist. I'm a supporter of the theory myself. Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, it's the belief that capitalism controls culture, and that all national identities will eventually become subsumed in consumerism or become consumerism itself, like the United States has today.

It's just that Neo-Nazis somehow think we're all Orwellian Jews sucking off some non-existent ultra-tankie Jewish Stalin.

[Hydesland]

Actual misogynist white supremacist and eugenics advocate Andrew Sabisky hired as advisor for No 10. https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1 ... 42369?s=19

Nothing about that quote in particular is egregious or inaccurate. That is indeed the definition of Eugenics and the parts about intelligence are also true. I'd need to see more before concluding he's actually in favor of Eugenics. The selection of positive traits by Eugenics as a goal can be acknowledged before being criticized.

It's not just that one quote though, people have managed to dig up dozens of worse statements, there's some in that thread.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nothing about that quote in particular is egregious or inaccurate. That is indeed the definition of Eugenics and the parts about intelligence are also true. I'd need to see more before concluding he's actually in favor of Eugenics. The selection of positive traits by Eugenics as a goal can be acknowledged before being criticized.

It's not just that one quote though, people have managed to dig up dozens of worse statements, there's some in that thread.

His other statements incline me toward thinking he's not a eugenicist, just a bit of a heartless min-maxer. His support for transhumanesque drug regimes for children to boost their intelligence and minimize their need for sleep at the cost of some of them dying strikes me less in terms of classical genetics style eugenicism and more in terms of a kind of sociological eugenics, where he's prepared to impose a policy to improve the species performance overall at the cost of some deaths. That is not all that different from political policy in general when you get right down to it.

It's feasibly something I could support if there were cost-benefit analysis put into it and projections of how much the drug regime would benefit us in terms of economy and so on and whether those outweigh the costs of the deaths. (Much like we accept higher speed limits despite knowing they cause deaths.).

He's also noted some sociological factors in poor outcomes for children, especially poorer children, noting that expanding hours in the classroom could greatly benefit the most vulnerable as well as improve our overall intelligence as a nation. That strongly suggests he does not view things as rigidly determined by genetics and so on.

Which statements specifically are you opposed to?

[The New California Republic]

How is that any of that society's problem, hmm?

Times like this, I would love the facepalm smiley.

Poverty breeds antisocial behaviour. Uneducated people are four times more likely to be unemployed. Ignoring the moral social imperative of caring for the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable, it is in society's best interest to prevent poverty -- which will prevent antisocial behaviour and crime; and in society's best interest to provide a good education for all, which will reduce unemployment.

Shall I lobby for it to be reinstated?

[Eastfield Lodge]

It's not just that one quote though, people have managed to dig up dozens of worse statements, there's some in that thread.

His other statements incline me toward thinking he's not a eugenicist, just a bit of a heartless min-maxer. His support for transhumanesque drug regimes for children to boost their intelligence and minimize their need for sleep at the cost of some of them dying strikes me less in terms of classical genetics style eugenicism and more in terms of a kind of sociological eugenics, where he's prepared to impose a policy to improve the species performance overall at the cost of some deaths. That is not all that different from political policy in general when you get right down to it.

It's feasibly something I could support if there were cost-benefit analysis put into it and projections of how much the drug regime would benefit us in terms of economy and so on and whether those outweigh the costs of the deaths. (Much like we accept higher speed limits despite knowing they cause deaths.).

He's also noted some sociological factors in poor outcomes for children, especially poorer children, noting that expanding hours in the classroom could greatly benefit the most vulnerable as well as improve our overall intelligence as a nation. That strongly suggests he does not view things as rigidly determined by genetics and so on.

Which statements specifically are you opposed to?

How about his comments that long-term contraception should be mandatory at puberty in order to stop unplanned pregnancies creating an underclass population?

[Hydesland]

Which statements specifically are you opposed to?

Do you think it's politically sustainable for the government to employ an advisor who publicly writes about how a 'far greater percentage of blacks' have 'mild mental retardation'? Or who publicly ponders about whether women should be forced to take the pill to prevent working class women from breeding too much? Regardless of whether you agree with those positions, how is Downing Street going to explain what they need his advice on exactly?