Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by bestinase, Jul 21, 2020.
I wonder if Laura even feels any embarrassment or shame for the things she takes part in?
I can hear this tweet. Icons!
Labour is an absolute disgrace in so many ways right now! Bring back Corbyn and put an end to this nonsense.
I can't stop thinking about this which @swim posted a few pages back.
Only that 'ratchet effect' is historically inaccurate whichever way you choose to slice it, in pretty much any Western country you want to look at, and Corbyn delivered the Tories a majority of 80 the last time he was around. The only thing he'd put an end to is the prospect of a Labour government.
I'm sick and tired of our political system. Politicians shouldn't be accepting donations of ANY kind.
Fuck gambling tycoons and the ghouls who enable them. All money in politics is naff but taking money from an industry that specifically sets out to fuck poor people, and turn not-poor-people into poor people... no.
I was using it more in the context of what’s happening in the U.K. and to some extent other countries right now. But I’d be interested to hear examples of how it’s historically inaccurate too.
I would argue that it was actually the popularity of Boris Johnson, the rightwing media, leavers and the elderly which delivered such a big majority in that snap winter election. I’m not saying that Corbyn was popular but what chance did he have against the powerful slander machine? I completely lost hope after seeing how everyone was manipulated into thinking he was the devil reincarnated when we’ve seen what extreme damage the Tories have done since then. How could anyone argue that things would’ve been worse under him?
Getting your desired electoral outcomes by creating a political party that calls itself left-wing yet fosters a culture where trans people are considered better off dead than having any single right to be who they are.
Keir Starmer’s Brexit positioning contributed a lot to that.
Sorry @elektricblue, I will respond to this tomorrow.
I mean, the transphobia permeating the UK's public and political discourse on pretty much every level is undeniable, but... that's more than a bit of a hyperbole.
Not sure if it's good if the "trans people must be removed from existence" people share your stance of "thank god the new guy understands that winning elections is the important bit"!.
I'm not too sure what this is supposed to prove:
A noted transphobe*, not to my knowledge associated with Labour in any way, with a clear agenda to promote, wrote a character study on a party leader and used a lot of conjecture (and a painfully awkward interview to mumsnet**) to divine what his policies may be should he get to form a government.
Yeah, at this point I (not even a Labour supporter, btw) wouldn't risk another 5 years of Kemi Badenoch as Equalities Minister just because someone awful read the tea leaves on a substack, soz.
* I'd never heard of Helen Joyce before, sort of wish I'd kept it that way. That said, I watched the interview that those excerpts are from and, while she is without a doubt not a good person, I think it takes a markedly bad-faith interpretation to hear what she said as advocating for eugenics, genocide or preferring trans people be dead over receiving support. Which is kind of my point - the debate around trans rights is absolutely toxic and I can only imagine what awful feelings any trans person must be internalising listening to it. No one needs hyperbole/statements out of context, reality is pretty damn bad as it is.
** Starmer's answers to the Mumsnet questions were clumsy as hell and so vague, he could've just said nothing to roughly the same effect. But Mumsnet is a hugely influential community of millions of voters with concerns that far exceed the gender debate. I don't think there's anything sinister about a politician seeking election taking questions from them.
Finally, and I can't believe I'm using that cliche, but politics *is* about winning elections. That bit in the Helen Joyce interview where she says their ultimate goal is not to persuade people, but to reach decision-makers? That right there is what we need 'the lesser of two evils' for. Because Starmer might not be what lefties want, but I'd definitely rather have him than Jacob Rees-Mogg in the pilot's chair when the TERFs come knocking.
Absolutely did, though I'm doubtful the policy was just Keir's ideas given free reign. Nothing I've read about how the party operated under Corbyn suggests that would've been the case. And regardless, YouGov's published results were pretty damning eitherway: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...3/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour
Not me, and I remember having exactly that conversation with anyone who'd listen back in 2019 - Corbyn was far from my preferred person to run the country, but given the choice between him and Johnson (or, as much as she's dear to my heart, Jo Swinson), I'd have voted for him every time. But people didn't and, ultimately, that's all that matters, because we got a Johnson government instead. What you say about the media, Leavers and the elderly may be true, but he was not a PM candidate in Narnia, he was hoping to get elected here and now (well, in 2019, but you know what I mean). It doesn't matter if you're a decent person, not an anti-semite or the second coming of Christ - if you can't lead the party in the context it is in, all you end up being is the one who delivered your opponent their victory.
The real harm to trans people in the UK is "hyperbole" because it is "hyperbole" to say "we need laws to minimize how many trans people we allow to exist" is a eugenicist declaration, because the type of voters Labour courts like Helen Joyce don't *actually* (?) want to murder trans people, but make life not possible to live?
Your theory is that politics can only work in "meeting people where they are at". I think it's fair to say that's the crux of your argument because that's your defense of Starmer's anti-trans statements, no? He's meeting "millions of potential voters" where they're at.
And if you believe that and wanna vote, I think that's fine. But to frame one's self a politico and suggest political realities are untrue because *vague golden mean fallacy* is a bit silly, no? The defense you put forward is inherently a defense of things moving to the right. A defense of the ratchet effect in action!
You are defending the idea that a right-wing position is the status quo, and the embrace of that position for votes. You've already accepted that transphobia is the inevitable outcome and thus now part of the acceptable purview of politics to make electoral politics work.
I usually keep my nose in my own corner of the world. I just think it's a bit dishonest to gaslight people that society is somehow naturally right-wing and it's not the product of right-wing parties funded by billionaires collaborating. Odd how all those Scottish people who supported the GRA are not "millions of potential voters"!
I really don't think Kier Starmer is anti-trans in any way. He's trying to get elected and appeal to a broad audience some of whom are probably bigoted or know little to nothing about LGBTQ+ lives and probably don't care.
I do wish people would focus their energy on criticising the Tories and not bashing the Labour Party who have done well to recover from the disaster of the last election. They are far from perfect but no political party is.
Surely open and fair criticism of all major political parties by the voters should be encouraged?
I don't quite understand why the left of Labour come after Starmer for not doing enough on Brexit. Wasn't Corbyn also a Eurosceptic??
Spoiler: fuck the police
Met Safer Schools officer pleads guilty to child sex offences
PC Hussain Chehab, 22, was serving as a Safer Schools officer in London when concerns were raised.
Separate names with a comma.