UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Vassenor]

So how does acknowledging the darker side of our heritage destroy our heritage?

No one's 'acknowledging' anything. This isn't a committee dedicated to 'acknowledging' the darker sides of our heritage; we've had plenty of them and permanent groups continually do the same work. I'm all for historiographical nuance. This is a committee dedicated to the scrubbing of our heritage in service of a political ideology

And you base this accusation on what, exactly?

[South Reinkalistan]

Not really. I could care less about cultural heritage -- what I do care about is the systemic racism in our society and how to fix it.

Shocker

Couldn't care less*

[Loben The 2nd]

So how does acknowledging the darker side of our heritage destroy our heritage?

No one's 'acknowledging' anything. This isn't a committee dedicated to 'acknowledging' the darker sides of our heritage; we've had plenty of them and permanent groups continually do the same work. I'm all for historiographical nuance. This is a committee dedicated to the scrubbing of our heritage in service of a political ideology

What political ideology?

[Loben The 2nd]

Shocker

Couldn't care less*

Even bigger shocker

[Dumb Ideologies]

So how does acknowledging the darker side of our heritage destroy our heritage?

Because our cultural elite, early adopters of wokeness, have adopted a model where the entirety of our imperial heritage can be reduced to "anglo man bad", victory in the second war is problematic because Churchill wasn't a racial liberationist, and every era of precolonial history must be permeated with tutting at the lack of democracy and shoving feminist, queer agendas into every orifice to overthrow the "malestream" analysis.

The critics have become the orthodoxy and with that comes a sneering cynicism about our history and even the idea of white people being allowed to have one, while of course black history is this wonderful liberatory arc of egalitarianism in which people were only ever harmed by whites, and upon whose retelling everyone should spontaneously break into joyous song.

[South Reinkalistan]

So how does acknowledging the darker side of our heritage destroy our heritage?

Because our cultural elite, early adopters of wokeness, have adopted a model where the entirety of our imperial heritage can be reduced to "anglo man bad", victory in the second war is problematic because Churchill wasn't a racial liberationist, and every era of precolonial history must be permeated with tutting at the lack of democracy and shoving feminist, queer agendas into every orifice to overthrow the "malestream" analysis.

The critics have become the orthodoxy and with that comes a sneering cynicism about our history and even the idea of white people being allowed to have one.

This sounds like you're willing to take a blind eye to the atrocities of our history for the sake of something as abstract as "heritage". Anyone who claims to be against a generic agenda is usually pushing one themselves.

[Thanatttynia]

No one's 'acknowledging' anything. This isn't a committee dedicated to 'acknowledging' the darker sides of our heritage; we've had plenty of them and permanent groups continually do the same work. I'm all for historiographical nuance. This is a committee dedicated to the scrubbing of our heritage in service of a political ideology

And you base this accusation on what, exactly?

Consistent behaviour from such elites indicating their contempt for our heritage; Khan's admission that he wants there 'to be a proper process for the removal of any statues that do not reflect London’s values.' (where London's values is read as the elite class' luxury ideology.)

This is just the bureaucratisation of the base destructive impulse and hatred for community in neoliberalism. Global capital looks on in glee, I assure you

[Dumb Ideologies]

Because our cultural elite, early adopters of wokeness, have adopted a model where the entirety of our imperial heritage can be reduced to "anglo man bad", victory in the second war is problematic because Churchill wasn't a racial liberationist, and every era of precolonial history must be permeated with tutting at the lack of democracy and shoving feminist, queer agendas into every orifice to overthrow the "malestream" analysis.

The critics have become the orthodoxy and with that comes a sneering cynicism about our history and even the idea of white people being allowed to have one.

This sounds like you're willing to take a blind eye to the atrocities of our history for the sake of something as abstract as "heritage". Anyone who claims to be against a generic agenda is usually pushing one themselves.

It might sound like that once you've filtered it through liberal ideology where only the oppressed groups are allowed identities. But that's your affair.

[Loben The 2nd]

Because our cultural elite, early adopters of wokeness, have adopted a model where the entirety of our imperial heritage can be reduced to "anglo man bad", victory in the second war is problematic because Churchill wasn't a racial liberationist, and every era of precolonial history must be permeated with tutting at the lack of democracy and shoving feminist, queer agendas into every orifice to overthrow the "malestream" analysis.

The critics have become the orthodoxy and with that comes a sneering cynicism about our history and even the idea of white people being allowed to have one.

This sounds like you're willing to take a blind eye to the atrocities of our history for the sake of something as abstract as "heritage". Anyone who claims to be against a generic agenda is usually pushing one themselves.

Atrocities such as?

[Thanatttynia]

No one's 'acknowledging' anything. This isn't a committee dedicated to 'acknowledging' the darker sides of our heritage; we've had plenty of them and permanent groups continually do the same work. I'm all for historiographical nuance. This is a committee dedicated to the scrubbing of our heritage in service of a political ideology

What political ideology?

What is termed 'social justice'

[Loben The 2nd]

What political ideology?

What is termed 'social justice'

If I may be permitted to ask you what led to this conclusion and your previous positions if applicable?

[South Reinkalistan]

This sounds like you're willing to take a blind eye to the atrocities of our history for the sake of something as abstract as "heritage". Anyone who claims to be against a generic agenda is usually pushing one themselves.

It might sound like that once you've filtered it through liberal ideology where only the oppressed groups (not classes, never classes) are allowed identities. But that's your affair.

You appear to be under the presumption that I indeed support the identity politics driving this, which I don't. I think that prioritising a cultural/national identity for one group over another is wrong. But instead of taking this on board, you've used this to enable an agenda in which you impress upon yourself a victim mentality that makes you no better than the liberals you so vehemently oppose. I believe that there is a necessity for more recognition of black history, though I think it should be viewed through an objective, contextual lens. It seems to me that you're worked up here over sentimentality more than anything. We must move past things as abstract as culture and nations. I believe that these changes aid this more than harm it through taking an objective rather than anglocentric stance. The atrocities of our past cannot go understated, if we are to learn from them and move on.

Also, don't call me a liberal.

[Thanatttynia]

What is termed 'social justice'

If I may be permitted to ask you what led to this conclusion and your previous positions if applicable?

Honestly what pushed me over the edge was the volte-face the liberal elite performed over protests during the pandemic lol, but I've known for a long time there are a) serious problems with the ideology and b) questioning such problems or other acts of non-conformation are suppressed pretty mercilessly. As I said before it didn't really bother me so long as I thought the ideology confined to the internet and the academy... but now its exploded into the cultural mainstream; if I have a problem with it now seems a good time to accept that.

[Nolo gap]

while i'm not a great enthusiast of destroying anything, statues of anything human looking i can live without.

i don't really believe it honors anyone to name places after them either.

[Loben The 2nd]

If I may be permitted to ask you what led to this conclusion and your previous positions if applicable?

Honestly what pushed me over the edge was the volte-face the liberal elite performed over protests during the pandemic lol, but I've known for a long time there are a) serious problems with the ideology and b) questioning such problems or other acts of non-conformation are suppressed pretty mercilessly. As I said before it didn't really bother me so long as I thought the ideology confined to the internet and the academy... but now its exploded into the cultural mainstream; if I have a problem with it now seems a good time to accept that.

It happened here too and will likely spread throughout the anglosphere and the first world.

It’s a danger to civilized society.

[Vassenor]

And you base this accusation on what, exactly?

Consistent behaviour from such elites indicating their contempt for our heritage; Khan's admission that he wants there 'to be a proper process for the removal of any statues that do not reflect London’s values.' (where London's values is read as the elite class' luxury ideology.)

This is just the bureaucratisation of the base destructive impulse and hatred for community in neoliberalism. Global capital looks on in glee, I assure you

Where "Global Capital" means what, exactly?

Also I see we've abandoned the idea that the statue that got torn down should've been removed through the "proper" channels if we're just going to call trying to do that an equally heinous attack on our whitewashed idea of British Heritage.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It might sound like that once you've filtered it through liberal ideology where only the oppressed groups (not classes, never classes) are allowed identities. But that's your affair.

You appear to be under the presumption that I indeed support the identity politics driving this, which I don't. I think that prioritising a cultural/national identity for one group over another is wrong. But instead of taking this on board, you've used this to enable an agenda in which you impress upon yourself a victim mentality that makes you no better than the liberals you so vehemently oppose. I believe that there is a necessity for more recognition of black history, though I think it should be viewed through an objective, contextual lens. It seems to me that you're worked up here over sentimentality more than anything. We must move past things as abstract as culture and nations. I believe that these changes aid this more than harm it through taking an objective rather than anglocentric stance. The atrocities of our past cannot go understated, if we are to learn from them and move on.

Also, don't call me a liberal.

You are performing the technique of trying to smuggle liberal ideological content - in all the details here you plainly agree with the liberals and racial minorities - past the radar as if it is "objective, rational, concrete" , while other people's positions are "subjective, emotional, abstract" and therefore to be dismissed. You are attempting to transmute liberal orthodoxies into objective fact. There is little or no meat to your argument, it is almost purely a repeated example of this rhetorical move.

I am calling you a liberal not to bait you, but because you are doing liberal ideology. "You are not even permitted to name me", is the final move of the ideologue in which he reveals himself most clearly.

[Loben The 2nd]

Consistent behaviour from such elites indicating their contempt for our heritage; Khan's admission that he wants there 'to be a proper process for the removal of any statues that do not reflect London’s values.' (where London's values is read as the elite class' luxury ideology.)

This is just the bureaucratisation of the base destructive impulse and hatred for community in neoliberalism. Global capital looks on in glee, I assure you

Where "Global Capital" means what, exactly?

Also I see we've abandoned the idea that the statue that got torn down should've been removed through the "proper" channels if we're just going to call trying to do that an equally heinous attack on our whitewashed idea of British Heritage.

White washed? Oh were the britons that Rome civilized suddenly brown?

[The Blaatschapen]

Us Anglo nations have all the bad luck.

The black armband view of history is more prevalent here than anywhere else tbh.

I wouldn't call it '"bad luck". That would imply that it is by sheer force of randomness and totally not a consequence of historical actions.

Also, there is BLM and similar movements in Netherlands as well, but I guess that kind of news doesn't penetrate the anglo news networks.

[South Reinkalistan]

You appear to be under the presumption that I indeed support the identity politics driving this, which I don't. I think that prioritising a cultural/national identity for one group over another is wrong. But instead of taking this on board, you've used this to enable an agenda in which you impress upon yourself a victim mentality that makes you no better than the liberals you so vehemently oppose. I believe that there is a necessity for more recognition of black history, though I think it should be viewed through an objective, contextual lens. It seems to me that you're worked up here over sentimentality more than anything. We must move past things as abstract as culture and nations. I believe that these changes aid this more than harm it through taking an objective rather than anglocentric stance. The atrocities of our past cannot go understated, if we are to learn from them and move on.

Also, don't call me a liberal.

You are performing the ideological technique of trying to smuggle your ideological content - in which, plainly, you agree with the liberals and racial minorities - past the radar as if it is "objective, rational, concrete" , while other people's positions are "subjective, emotional, concrete" and therefore to be dismissed. You are attempting to transmute liberal orthodoxies into objective fact. There is little or no meat to your argument, it is almost purely a repeated example of this rhetorical move.

I am calling you a liberal not to bait you, but because you are doing liberal ideology. "You are not even permitted to name me", is the final move of the ideologue in which he reveals himself most clearly.

Since when were you the arbiter of what rhetoric is constituent of "doing liberal ideology"? I am merely stating what I see to be the case: your take is grounded in sentiment and irrationality. You consider your history to be more important to that of your contemporaries. Britain has committed atrocities -- our modern society leaves much to be desired. To recognise this objective fact at the expense of an abstract notion of heritage is no curse. This is not an inherently liberal outlook.

[Salandriagado]

Cambridge has updated their nowcast. Naturally, the papers have gone full-on numerology trying to pull data out of it, but here's my slightly less bulshitty stab at getting something out of it:

1. Just to address the thing that the papers have jumped on the most, all of the R_t 95% confidence intervals now intersect 1, with the North-West having the median at 1.01. The papers have jumped on this and said all manner of silly things, and sure, the general weakening of the lockdown (in terms of actual behaviour, rather than the formal changes - the 11th of May (the only one far enough back to show up in the data) didn't seem to change the trajectory very much) probably had some effect. However, a large chunk of this is due to a shift from community to institutional transmission: as the number of cases in the general population has fallen, the proportion of cases that are in care homes (which have generally higher rates of transmission) has increased. Neither of those is the largest factor, though. The largest factor is that they've brought in serological data to their inputs. This has given them a better idea of how high transmission has been in the past, and their R_t estimates have shifted up across the board as a result. In particular, their R₀ estimate is now closer to 3 than the just-under-2.5 that it was on the last run. That, in turn, has shifted their estimates for the current situation upwards. This has shifted them from being quite far on the "low R₀, high lethality" side of average to being somewhere nearer the middle. This is clearest in the London figures, where their case estimates per day have gone from ~20 to ~1,000 (the effect is naturally much stronger in areas with lower prior estimates), and their R_t estimate has gone from 0.4 to 0.95. If you look back at the date of the previous analysis, their R_t estimate for that date went from 0.4 up to 0.84, so this shift clearly isn't primarily due to the changes since then. The institutional shift also doesn't seem to be the primary factor: they're still predicting significantly more total infections in younger age groups, though their model isn't fine-grained enough to pick up on relatively small changes in that.
2. In line with that shift, they're estimating ~16,700 new infections/day (10-25k confidence interval), concentrated mostly in the North, and 5.6m infections in total. Notably, that's pretty well in line with the seroprevelance, so it looks like they aren't giving much credence to the hypothesis that IgA/T-cell-only responses might be a significant factor (or at least, don't want to try estimating it yet).
3. Their "deaths incidence" graphs by region give some good examples for why R slightly above 1 is so different to R slightly below 1. In particular, check the confidence intervals on the North West and South West graphs: it's the difference between "enormous second wave in July/August" and nigh-eradication.
4. Their IFR estimate, in line with the above, is down from just over 1% to 0.88%. Still on the high side of the average, but getting closer to it. The big question is whether the low-IFR models adjust upwards or not on their next passes. If they do, we can be fairly confident that we're getting close to the true IFR. If not, there's still too wide a range to pin down a hard estimate.

You know when you have to swallow your pride and admit you didn't get any of that?

Can I have this in not maths speak please

Sorry, it's been a slightly hectic few days. Basically, most of the changes are a result of them learning more, rather than of an actual real change. There is a general upward trend in R, though. IFR < 1% is looking more and more likely, which is good.

[Salandriagado]

Most of them end up covered in bird poop anyway.

A good public service. Without statues, bird poop would be everywhere.

If Bristol now turns into a giant ball of bird poop, we know the reason.

How would we notice, though?

[The Blaatschapen]

A good public service. Without statues, bird poop would be everywhere.

If Bristol now turns into a giant ball of bird poop, we know the reason.

How would we notice, though?

The Americans invading it for guano acquisition.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Sadiq Khan forms 'Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm' to 'ensure that the capital's history is commemorated in the most appropriate way' - 'it will be wide in scope'

London has formally surrendered. I do not have words sufficient to express my disgust with minority race-baiters and those white liberals who are complicit in the replacement of our culture and heritage for woke points.

Good.

[Dumb Ideologies]

You are performing the ideological technique of trying to smuggle your ideological content - in which, plainly, you agree with the liberals and racial minorities - past the radar as if it is "objective, rational, concrete" , while other people's positions are "subjective, emotional, concrete" and therefore to be dismissed. You are attempting to transmute liberal orthodoxies into objective fact. There is little or no meat to your argument, it is almost purely a repeated example of this rhetorical move.

I am calling you a liberal not to bait you, but because you are doing liberal ideology. "You are not even permitted to name me", is the final move of the ideologue in which he reveals himself most clearly.

Since when were you the arbiter of what rhetoric is constituent of "doing liberal ideology"? I am merely stating what I see to be the case: your take is grounded in sentiment and irrationality. You consider your history to be more important to that of your contemporaries. Britain has committed atrocities -- our modern society leaves much to be desired. To recognise this objective fact at the expense of an abstract notion of heritage is no curse. This is not an inherently liberal outlook.

Funny story is that those who disagree with you will believe your take to be sentimental and irrational, based on guilt and so on. You criticise that I am making myself some final arbiter but then you are continually pretending to speak from some universal position of rationality, a characteristically liberal move.

Your belief is that I am trying to silence black history, whereas I believe that minorities and their tame liberals are trying far more than to allow their ideas to be heard but instead to marginalise and not permit stories told from the point of view of whites. You are stating opinion very thinly masked with constant rhetorical claims that any other position is abstract, sentimental or irrational. Ironically this shares a lot of ground with which the black history lot criticised the formerly mainstream versions of history back when the liberal was supporting those ideas. The liberal tries to speak from the position of the universal because it allows him to permit other people to have their say but he then denigrates all other opinions for not meeting his enlightened "objective" standards, which of course would entail agreeing with what he has already decided since he has created the "objective" in his own image.