UK Politics Thread XIII: The Brexit Ship Departs

[Vassenor]

And that people explaining that trans people are people will only be permitted on if a vocal TERF is booked to come on and shout them down.

I don't think that any significant number of people, including "TERFs," would deny that trans people are indeed people. Some may deny that trans people are the gender they consider themselves to be, but that is quite different from dehumanising them.

So why should we be denied the same rights as everyone else?

[SD_Film Artists]

I don't think that any significant number of people, including "TERFs," would deny that trans people are indeed people. Some may deny that trans people are the gender they consider themselves to be, but that is quite different from dehumanising them.

So why should we be denied the same rights as everyone else?

That sounds like a leading question. I highly doubt anyone is arguing that, just as no one unironically identifies as a "TERF". That would be political nicknaming if it weren't for the fact that there's no single group of feminists who the term is aimed at.

[Philjia]

So why should we be denied the same rights as everyone else?

That sounds like a leading question. I highly doubt anyone is arguing that, just as no one unironically identifies as a "TERF". That would be political nicknaming if it weren't for the fact that there's no single group of feminists who the term is aimed at.

Actually TERF is what they used to call themselves, now they claim it's a slur and demand to be called Gender Critical instead.

[SD_Film Artists]

That sounds like a leading question. I highly doubt anyone is arguing that, just as no one unironically identifies as a "TERF". That would be political nicknaming if it weren't for the fact that there's no single group of feminists who the term is aimed at.

Actually TERF is what they used to call themselves, now they claim it's a slur and demand to be called Gender Critical instead.

It seems to be applied to anyone who's vaguely feminist but not following the party line of some trans feminists. It appears to be constructed to imply that the feminist wakes up each day with thoughts of excluding trans people, yet actually they may not consider the issue at all and it's only their lack of complete unquestioned fealty to the trans cause which brands them as a TERF. Or in other words, trans feminists are projecting their inclusion as a feminist issue while some feminists may not have even heard of trans issues but are thus TERFs by default. Having said that, I don't deny what you said.

[Hurdergaryp]

Are High Tories called that because they're constantly under the influence of cannabis?

I think it works like elves; there are High Tories, Wood Tories and Dark Tories, though apparently the latter isn't "inclusive" anymore. Political correctness gone mad!!

Based upon what I have been reading in this thread and its predecessors, the Dark Tories are the majority these days.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Actually TERF is what they used to call themselves, now they claim it's a slur and demand to be called Gender Critical instead.

It seems to be applied to anyone who's vaguely feminist but not following the party line of some trans feminists. It appears to be constructed to imply that the feminist wakes up each day with thoughts of excluding trans people, yet actually they may not consider the issue at all and it's only their lack of complete unquestioned fealty to the trans cause which brands them as a TERF. Or in other words, trans feminists are projecting their inclusion as a feminist issue while some feminists may not have even heard of trans issues but are thus TERFs by default. Having said that, I don't deny what you said.

You've got it about right, though people who aren't even feminists often get called TERFs by trans activists because opponents work best when you turn them into some homogenous grey blob whose motivations you can assume.

[Old Tyrannia]

Are High Tories called that because they're constantly under the influence of cannabis?

I think it works like elves; there are High Tories, Wood Tories and Dark Tories, though apparently the latter isn't "inclusive" anymore. Political correctness gone mad!!

It works like this. The "High" Tories are those among the Tories who answered the call of the Valar to journey to the Undying Lands (also known as the "playing fields of Eton"), and thus beheld the light of the two trees (this is, of course, why Tories hold the sign of the tree as sacred to their kind). The "Dark" or "Low" Tories are those who refused this call, or failed to complete the journey, and so remained in Middle Britain; the Wood Tories are a subgroup of these who answered the call but failed to complete the journey. They are said to be less wise and more dangerous than their cousins among the High Tories. Among the High Tories are three clans. Firstly, there are the Fair Tories who remained in the Undying Lands. Then there are the Deep Tories. They returned to Middle Britain under their king, Powéll, to reclaim the stolen jewels of British Sovereignty that had been stolen by the Dark Lord Morgoth Juncker and his henchman, Barníer the Cruel, the Lord of Were-europeans (British people who suddenly start craving brie and singing "Ode to Joy" when there's a full moon). They were known as the proudest amongst the Tories, and the cleverest in all crafts; but their pride proved to be the cause of their downfall- High King Powéll fell before his oath to reclaim sovereignty was fulfilled, and all of his heirs are doomed to follow him in his doom. The final clan of the High Tories are, of course, the Sea Tories, who are the ones who won't shut up about fishing rights.

[Ifreann]

In a conflict between people who want equal rights and fair treatment in society and people who want to deny equal rights and fair treatment, the BBC has decided that it's very important not to take a side. You'd swear the new Director General was a Tory or something.

Tbh if I worked at the BBC I'd still go to Pride. And if I was dragged into the head honcho's office and they showed me a photo of me taking part in it then I'd dare them to make an issue out of it, to see what the public and the rest of the media thinks about it.

Ah, but they've already thought of that. Going to Pride is allowed if it's celebratory, but staff close to news reporting can't be seen to be taking sides in a contentious issue. So one of the big, corporate sponsored parades would be fine, because they'd be carefully PR managed to not seem too pro-trans(heaven forfend). But if you went to a Pride parade that was explicitly an LGBT event, now you're showing bias.

---

And that people explaining that trans people are people will only be permitted on if a vocal TERF is booked to come on and shout them down.

I don't think that any significant number of people, including "TERFs," would deny that trans people are indeed people. Some may deny that trans people are the gender they consider themselves to be, but that is quite different from dehumanising them.

I don't think it is terribly different at all, not unless we want to be so literal as to say that it is only dehumanising if one is saying that trans people are a different species. I would say that we are not being remotely respectful of a person's humanity if we are telling them that their own account of their lived experience is worthless, but we will tell them what their gender is if they'll just submit to a medical examination.

[The Nihilistic view]

Honestly see about the BBC and pride thing, it seems like its open to sooo much potential abuse and people can be victim to later arbitrary decisions about whether or not they was being "Political" and can then face action by their boss.


had to edit a few times because i cant type

In a conflict between people who want equal rights and fair treatment in society and people who want to deny equal rights and fair treatment, the BBC has decided that it's very important not to take a side. You'd swear the new Director General was a Tory or something.

It's only in the last 10 to 15 years they have allowed news and current affairs to take a side. And yes the BBC news and current affairs should be impartial and stick to the facts as should be reported. That's not the same thing as giving frindge nutters the same platform as the government or the opposition. Those old school BBC presenters that attack the interviewees ruthlessly without a hint of political bent but allow the viewer to make up their own mind are basically all gone now Andrew Neil has left. At the end of the programme you should have no hint what the BBC presenter or news reader actually thinks on the issue.

[The Archregimancy]

I think it works like elves; there are High Tories, Wood Tories and Dark Tories, though apparently the latter isn't "inclusive" anymore. Political correctness gone mad!!

It works like this. The "High" Tories are those among the Tories who answered the call of the Valar to journey to the Undying Lands (also known as the "playing fields of Eton"), and thus beheld the light of the two trees (this is, of course, why Tories hold the sign of the tree as sacred to their kind). The "Dark" or "Low" Tories are those who refused this call, or failed to complete the journey, and so remained in Middle Britain; the Wood Tories are a subgroup of these who answered the call but failed to complete the journey. They are said to be less wise and more dangerous than their cousins among the High Tories. Among the High Tories are three clans. Firstly, there are the Fair Tories who remained in the Undying Lands. Then there are the Deep Tories. They returned to Middle Britain under their king, Powéll, to reclaim the stolen jewels of British Sovereignty that had been stolen by the Dark Lord Morgoth Juncker and his henchman, Barníer the Cruel, the Lord of Were-europeans (British people who suddenly start craving brie and singing "Ode to Joy" when there's a full moon). They were known as the proudest amongst the Tories, and the cleverest in all crafts; but their pride proved to be the cause of their downfall- High King Powéll fell before his oath to reclaim sovereignty was fulfilled, and all of his heirs are doomed to follow him in his doom. The final clan of the High Tories are, of course, the Sea Tories, who are the ones who won't shut up about fishing rights.

But alas, a curse was upon the jewels, most prized of all the wonders crafted by the elves, and coveted by many. Though Rees-Mogglor and the other sons of Powéll attempted to grasp them, they burned their hands, in refusal of their rights of possession, as they had burned in Morgoth Juncker's hands many years before. In agony, Rees-Mogglor threw himself and the jewels into the fiery pit of the Tower of West-Minster, dooming those that would follow in his path.

Thus were the heirs of Powéll deceived.

[The Nihilistic view]

Come here you old high tory you!

I'm still inwardly debating whether I can justifiably call myself a High Tory whilst supporting same-sex marriage. I like to think so. Even Sir Peregrine Worsthorne came around to supporting it in the end, and Sir Perry was about as high as 20th century Tories got.

Nobody can 100% fit comfortably into their views 100% of the time. That's part of being human we do sometimes contradict ourselves and sometimes with difficult moral questions one can have conflicting beliefs affecting one's conscience. Somehow we have to try and reconcile those thoughts and feelings and come up with an exception to our main beliefs.

My biggest faux pas as a thatcherite would be that I don't fully believe in privatisation for everything under the sun. Royal mail? That should be owned by the state as a public corperation owned by the crown. We all have our little weaknesses.

[The Blaatschapen]

It works like this. The "High" Tories are those among the Tories who answered the call of the Valar to journey to the Undying Lands (also known as the "playing fields of Eton"), and thus beheld the light of the two trees (this is, of course, why Tories hold the sign of the tree as sacred to their kind). The "Dark" or "Low" Tories are those who refused this call, or failed to complete the journey, and so remained in Middle Britain; the Wood Tories are a subgroup of these who answered the call but failed to complete the journey. They are said to be less wise and more dangerous than their cousins among the High Tories. Among the High Tories are three clans. Firstly, there are the Fair Tories who remained in the Undying Lands. Then there are the Deep Tories. They returned to Middle Britain under their king, Powéll, to reclaim the stolen jewels of British Sovereignty that had been stolen by the Dark Lord Morgoth Juncker and his henchman, Barníer the Cruel, the Lord of Were-europeans (British people who suddenly start craving brie and singing "Ode to Joy" when there's a full moon). They were known as the proudest amongst the Tories, and the cleverest in all crafts; but their pride proved to be the cause of their downfall- High King Powéll fell before his oath to reclaim sovereignty was fulfilled, and all of his heirs are doomed to follow him in his doom. The final clan of the High Tories are, of course, the Sea Tories, who are the ones who won't shut up about fishing rights.

But alas, a curse was upon the jewels, most prized of all the wonders crafted by the elves, and coveted by many. Though Rees-Mogglor and the other sons of Powéll attempted to grasp them, they burned their hands, in refusal of their rights of possession, as they had burned in Morgoth Juncker's hands many years before. In agony, Rees-Mogglor threw himself and the jewels into the fiery pit of the Tower of West-Minster, dooming those that would follow in his path.

Thus were the heirs of Powéll deceived.

...

So which shire is the Shire in this story?

[The Nihilistic view]

I think it works like elves; there are High Tories, Wood Tories and Dark Tories, though apparently the latter isn't "inclusive" anymore. Political correctness gone mad!!

It works like this. The "High" Tories are those among the Tories who answered the call of the Valar to journey to the Undying Lands (also known as the "playing fields of Eton"), and thus beheld the light of the two trees (this is, of course, why Tories hold the sign of the tree as sacred to their kind). The "Dark" or "Low" Tories are those who refused this call, or failed to complete the journey, and so remained in Middle Britain; the Wood Tories are a subgroup of these who answered the call but failed to complete the journey. They are said to be less wise and more dangerous than their cousins among the High Tories. Among the High Tories are three clans. Firstly, there are the Fair Tories who remained in the Undying Lands. Then there are the Deep Tories. They returned to Middle Britain under their king, Powéll, to reclaim the stolen jewels of British Sovereignty that had been stolen by the Dark Lord Morgoth Juncker and his henchman, Barníer the Cruel, the Lord of Were-europeans (British people who suddenly start craving brie and singing "Ode to Joy" when there's a full moon). They were known as the proudest amongst the Tories, and the cleverest in all crafts; but their pride proved to be the cause of their downfall- High King Powéll fell before his oath to reclaim sovereignty was fulfilled, and all of his heirs are doomed to follow him in his doom. The final clan of the High Tories are, of course, the Sea Tories, who are the ones who won't shut up about fishing rights.

Amazing.

[The New California Republic]

Tbh if I worked at the BBC I'd still go to Pride. And if I was dragged into the head honcho's office and they showed me a photo of me taking part in it then I'd dare them to make an issue out of it, to see what the public and the rest of the media thinks about it.

Ah, but they've already thought of that. Going to Pride is allowed if it's celebratory, but staff close to news reporting can't be seen to be taking sides in a contentious issue.

So, for instance, if I was spotted showing partiality by being on the Bear float I'd get smacked for it?

[Major-Tom]

Ah, but they've already thought of that. Going to Pride is allowed if it's celebratory, but staff close to news reporting can't be seen to be taking sides in a contentious issue.

So, for instance, if I was spotted showing partiality by being on the Bear float I'd get smacked for it?

Is the issue of LGBTQ Rights still a contentious issue for you guys, though?

[SD_Film Artists]

I think it works like elves; there are High Tories, Wood Tories and Dark Tories, though apparently the latter isn't "inclusive" anymore. Political correctness gone mad!!

It works like this. The "High" Tories are those among the Tories who answered the call of the Valar to journey to the Undying Lands (also known as the "playing fields of Eton"), and thus beheld the light of the two trees (this is, of course, why Tories hold the sign of the tree as sacred to their kind). The "Dark" or "Low" Tories are those who refused this call, or failed to complete the journey, and so remained in Middle Britain; the Wood Tories are a subgroup of these who answered the call but failed to complete the journey. They are said to be less wise and more dangerous than their cousins among the High Tories. Among the High Tories are three clans. Firstly, there are the Fair Tories who remained in the Undying Lands. Then there are the Deep Tories. They returned to Middle Britain under their king, Powéll, to reclaim the stolen jewels of British Sovereignty that had been stolen by the Dark Lord Morgoth Juncker and his henchman, Barníer the Cruel, the Lord of Were-europeans (British people who suddenly start craving brie and singing "Ode to Joy" when there's a full moon). They were known as the proudest amongst the Tories, and the cleverest in all crafts; but their pride proved to be the cause of their downfall- High King Powéll fell before his oath to reclaim sovereignty was fulfilled, and all of his heirs are doomed to follow him in his doom. The final clan of the High Tories are, of course, the Sea Tories, who are the ones who won't shut up about fishing rights.

I preferred the Underdark Tories of the 80's canon; still the antagonists but notible for their matriarchal structure. Their wars against the Dwarfs were particularly successful with the closure of their mines; once great halls of working men's clubs, now abandoned.

[The New California Republic]

So, for instance, if I was spotted showing partiality by being on the Bear float I'd get smacked for it?

Is the issue of LGBTQ Rights still a contentious issue for you guys, though?

As Ifreann said, Trans rights have been contentious as of late.

[Major-Tom]

Is the issue of LGBTQ Rights still a contentious issue for you guys, though?

As Ifreann said, Trans rights have been contentious as of late.

I missed that post, then.

[Fartsniffage]

Covid spreading faster in England than 'worst-case scenario', documents show

Covid is spreading "significantly" faster through England than even the government's predicted "worst-case" scenario, documents reveal.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) says there are around four times as many people catching Covid than anticipated.

A "reasonable worst-case scenario" is used by officials and the NHS to plan for the months ahead.

It had estimated 85,000 deaths from Covid over the course of winter.

But an official Sage document, dated 14 October and published today, reveals we are in a worse position than expected.

Scientists crunching the numbers estimated that, by mid-October, there were between 43,000 and 74,000 people being infected with coronavirus every day in England.

Their report said: "This is significantly above the profile of the reasonable worst-case scenario, where the number of daily infections in England remained between 12,000-13,000 throughout October."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54750775

We might be completely fucked.

[The Nihilistic view]

Sometimes justifiably and sometimes unjustifiably trans rights activits have been seen to muscle in on women's rights. They seem to be having a bit of a barny whilst the patriarchy sits on the sidelines of this media scrum lobbing in the odd grenade to deflect from the bigger subject of their privilege. Thus for the time being the patriarchy are able to once again enjoy their privilege in an almost unfettered manner.

That in a nutshell is a brief synopsis of the current TERF wars among gender groups.

[SD_Film Artists]

Is the issue of LGBTQ Rights still a contentious issue for you guys, though?

As Ifreann said, Trans rights have been contentious as of late.

I think it's the far-leftism surrounding it rather than the average trans person being objectionable.

[The New California Republic]

As Ifreann said, Trans rights have been contentious as of late.

I think it's the far-leftism surrounding it rather than the average trans person being objectionable.

Such as...?

[SD_Film Artists]

I think it's the far-leftism surrounding it rather than the average trans person being objectionable.

Such as...?

Autistic groups becoming 'hate the cis white man' groups rather than simply including trans autistic people.

[Ifreann]

In a conflict between people who want equal rights and fair treatment in society and people who want to deny equal rights and fair treatment, the BBC has decided that it's very important not to take a side. You'd swear the new Director General was a Tory or something.

It's only in the last 10 to 15 years they have allowed news and current affairs to take a side. And yes the BBC news and current affairs should be impartial and stick to the facts as should be reported. That's not the same thing as giving frindge nutters the same platform as the government or the opposition. Those old school BBC presenters that attack the interviewees ruthlessly without a hint of political bent but allow the viewer to make up their own mind are basically all gone now Andrew Neil has left. At the end of the programme you should have no hint what the BBC presenter or news reader actually thinks on the issue.

Here's the thing, not taking a side is taking a side. If in one corner we have people who don't want to be oppressed and in the other we have people who want to oppress them, acting like this is a matter on which we can have a reasonable debate inherently favours the would-be oppressors.

---

Ah, but they've already thought of that. Going to Pride is allowed if it's celebratory, but staff close to news reporting can't be seen to be taking sides in a contentious issue.

So, for instance, if I was spotted showing partiality by being on the Bear float I'd get smacked for it?

2lewd4BBC

[The New California Republic]

Such as...?

Autistic groups becoming 'hate the cis white man' groups rather than simply including trans autistic people.

Where is this happening, and how would such an obscure reference make people have issues with Trans rights?