Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[TQR 14,475]

16 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Plenty of people have had a feckless mother that fed them shaving cream and Boneo for dinner.

That does not mean you have spend the rest of your life laying in the gutter, looking up at the stars.

Basically, she is a low rent gobshite that has not a grain of class or decorum

There are many ways you could have called Tories scum without using the word scum.

Politicians have been attacked, some murdered because people, like her, have ramped up the rhetoric making it seem ok and fair game to hate and abuse

Politicians of all sides and, consequently, giving the odd nut job or three 'permission' to try and eliminate those that they disagree with.

Whatever way you want to cut it, she was very, very wrong.

This in bold is an interesting point, but let’s look at the flip side: look how many people have been attacked/murdered in racially-aggravated, homophobic or misogynistic attacks? Is it more? I bet it’s more.

 

Scum shouldn’t be and isn’t an acceptable term to use in a political debate. But when you look at the horrendous things Gove, Johnson et al have spewed up in the past, to which Rayner referenced, there are very few more pertinent adjectives for them than “scum”.

 

The point of this isn’t to say “scum” should be used to describe your opponents. It’s that perhaps let’s get our priorities right when it comes to castigating people for the language they use to do so.

[En Passant 3,758]

11 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

look how many people have been attacked/murdered in racially-aggravated, homophobic or misogynistic attacks? Is it more? I bet it’s more.

 

More than politicians?

There are what, 650 mp's total? Even allowing more from 'the other place'  it's just not a big enough sample even in percentage terms to draw a meaningful comparison here. Never mind one on straight numbers.

 

Unless your point was something else, in which case I'm missing it.

[TQR 14,475]

10 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

More than politicians?

There are what, 650 mp's total? Even allowing more from 'the other place'  it's just not a big enough sample even in percentage terms to draw a meaningful comparison here. Never mind one on straight numbers.

 

Unless your point was something else, in which case I'm missing it.

Point: What is the more urgent and widely damaging issue here? Let’s deal with that. Priorities.

[En Passant 3,758]

5 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Point: What is the more urgent and widely damaging issue here? Let’s deal with that. Priorities.

 

Deal with whatever you like. But don't use spurious statistics to try and back it up. It defeats your argument.

[TQR 14,475]

12 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Deal with whatever you like. But don't use spurious statistics to try and back it up. It defeats your argument.

 

I’m confused by your interpretation, particularly when, using the electorate and the way they vote as a guide, around 35-40% of the population are Tories.

 

I’m also exasperated at the general (not singling anyone out) readiness to skip over the bit where Rayner points out the various forms of discriminatory language various Tories have launched out with, just because she used a strong term to describe said perpetrators.

 

Part. Of. The. Problem.

[Toast 16,244]

1 hour ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Plenty of people have had a feckless mother that fed them shaving cream and Boneo for dinner.

That does not mean you have spend the rest of your life laying in the gutter, looking up at the stars.

Basically, she is a low rent gobshite that has not a grain of class or decorum

There are many ways you could have called Tories scum without using the word scum.

Politicians have been attacked, some murdered because people, like her, have ramped up the rhetoric making it seem ok and fair game to hate and abuse Politicians of all sides and, consequently, giving the odd nut job or three 'permission' to try and eliminate those that they disagree with.

Whatever way you want to cut it, she was very, very wrong.

 

Would that include Jonathan Pie?

[En Passant 3,758]

4 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

I’m confused by your interpretation

 

I don't see why. And it's not 'my interpretation' it's what you stated.

 

You tried to directly compare the number of politicians murdered (or attacked) against the number of 'racially-aggravated, homophobic or misogynistic'  murders or attacks. And said the latter was more, or that you were prepared to bet that it was.

 

Of course it's more, It's just not a valid comparison.

In sheer number terms there are far far less politicians than the other group, thus even at the same rate in percentages (and I'm not done with this...) there would be far far less in absolute terms*. 

Even if you had expressed it as a percentage or per 100,000 of each group (as they do with Covid by region), there simply aren't enough politicians for a statistically valid conclusion. If you reduce it to the absurd (meh, I'm not quoting the Latin...) you can't argue a murder rate of tory voters (35-40% of the population using your figure) of x / 100,000 is remotely comparable to that of say clown-suited unicyclists.

 

*Off the top of my head, just Jo Cox in recent history.....struggle to think of another aside from Airey Neave back in the mists of time.

 

23 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

I’m also exasperated at the general (not singling anyone out) readiness to skip over the bit where Rayner points out the various forms of discriminatory language various Tories have launched out with, just because she used a strong term to describe said perpetrators.

 

Sure, I have no problem understanding that you are exasperated. I just don't think that throwing invalid arguments (along with what may well be perfectly valid ones, I'm not that invested in this fight to check) helps your cause any.

 

25 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Part. Of. The. Problem.

 

This sounds suspiciously like the false dichotomy 'if you're not with us, you're against us' which also doesn't help your cause whether it was aimed at me specifically or not. 

[TQR 14,475]

8 minutes ago, En Passant said:

Cut for ease of reading

You’ve latched on to that one small part of my post that was, I thought, quite clearly not the meat of my point. If I wanted to use stats, I’d have used stats.
 

To put the point as clear as I can manage; what’s worse? “Scum” or <insert various discriminations Tories are guilty of here>? What’s the real, more widespread issue in society? Come on.

 

And the dichotomy isn’t totally false. If everyone is silent about a problem, the problem will persist. 

[En Passant 3,758]

2 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

If I wanted to use stats, I’d have used stats.

 

You did use stats. Their application was incorrect.

The rest is opinion, not necessarily opinion I disagree with but that's not my/the point. I don't mind what opinion you, or anyone else has, I am free to agree or disagree. 

I emphatically do mind when anyone including you tries to use incorrect *facts* to make, or back up,  a point. Which is also why I  "latched on to that one small part of my post ".

 

Don't conflate 'false dichotomy' with 'all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing'. They are not the same thing.

 

 

 

[TQR 14,475]

14 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

You did use stats.

 

Where?

[En Passant 3,758]

1 minute ago, The Quim Reaper said:

Where?

 

Seriously?

The first thing I quoted ^^ up there, "how many people have been attacked/murdered in racially-aggravated, homophobic or misogynistic attacks? Is it more? I bet it’s more."

 

You are comparing quantities. Actual numbers, data, so yes, stats. 

 

And as for cherry picking what you respond to...pft.

 

I'm not going ad-hom, but you are hot under the collar about this. I agree with a great deal of what you post, just not this. 

[Toast 16,244]

1 hour ago, Toast said:

2 hours ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Plenty of people have had a feckless mother that fed them shaving cream and Boneo for dinner.

That does not mean you have spend the rest of your life laying in the gutter, looking up at the stars.

Basically, she is a low rent gobshite that has not a grain of class or decorum

There are many ways you could have called Tories scum without using the word scum.

Politicians have been attacked, some murdered because people, like her, have ramped up the rhetoric making it seem ok and fair game to hate and abuse Politicians of all sides and, consequently, giving the odd nut job or three 'permission' to try and eliminate those that they disagree with.

Whatever way you want to cut it, she was very, very wrong.

 

Would that include Jonathan Pie?

 

Oh look  ....

 

 

https://twitter.com/JonathanPieNews/status/1442488351425241097?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1442488351425241097|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2FJonathanPieNews2Fstatus2F1442488351425241097widget%3DTweet

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,226]

15 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

Oh look  ....

 

 

https://twitter.com/JonathanPieNews/status/1442488351425241097?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1442488351425241097|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2FJonathanPieNews2Fstatus2F1442488351425241097widget%3DTweet

Well, if she had said that instead of scum...

Mind you, Mr Pie overlooks the small fact that the Labour party is littered with public school educated, middle class types that are as far away from working class as Jacob Rees Mogg is to delving into bins for food and sleeping on the streets with other vagrants.

It's a strange old world.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,226]

2 hours ago, The Quim Reaper said:

This in bold is an interesting point, but let’s look at the flip side: look how many people have been attacked/murdered in racially-aggravated, homophobic or misogynistic attacks? Is it more? I bet it’s more.

 

Scum shouldn’t be and isn’t an acceptable term to use in a political debate. But when you look at the horrendous things Gove, Johnson et al have spewed up in the past, to which Rayner referenced, there are very few more pertinent adjectives for them than “scum”.

 

The point of this isn’t to say “scum” should be used to describe your opponents. It’s that perhaps let’s get our priorities right when it comes to castigating people for the language they use to do so.

The flip side is irrelevant,  two wrongs can never make a right.

People complain that Politics is in the sewer yet seem to be selective as to when it is acceptable to have people like Raynor flinging shite around.

Gove & Johnson are a complete pair of wankers but calling them scum doesn't dismantle them it just focuses attention on yet more gutter Politics.

She is no better than they are.

[TQR 14,475]

55 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Seriously?

The first thing I quoted ^^ up there, "how many people have been attacked/murdered in racially-aggravated, homophobic or misogynistic attacks? Is it more? I bet it’s more."

 

You are comparing quantities. Actual numbers, data, so yes, stats. 

 

And as for cherry picking what you respond to...pft.

 

I'm not going ad-hom, but you are hot under the collar about this. I agree with a great deal of what you post, just not this. 

I’m sorry, but if you think that speculative remark of mine, in the context of what I was talking about, is a ‘stat’ to take seriously, I really don’t know what to say, other than point that, yes, I am frustrated with: focus on the actual problems, rather than nitpicking the way the subject is broached.

 

Nothing personal to you, it’s a major issue that’s just so extraordinarily…clear. And yet not recognised. 

[TQR 14,475]

16 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

The flip side is irrelevant,  two wrongs can never make a right.

People complain that Politics is in the sewer yet seem to be selective as to when it is acceptable to have people like Raynor flinging shite around.

Gove & Johnson are a complete pair of wankers but calling them scum doesn't dismantle them it just focuses attention on yet more gutter Politics.

She is no better than they are.

I have to disagree, given the severity of what she rightly accused them of and how infuriating and upsetting it is that it can just be brushed under the carpet. She did attempt to dismantle Gove & Johnson. But the dismantling isn’t being focused on; the emotive language she used is.
 

If someone racially abused your mate and you said to them “Fuck off you racist cunt”, who’s gonna look at that situation and say “Well, 6 and 2x3’s innit, they were racist, but then you really shouldn’t have called them a cunt”.

 

It’s a shame politics is in such a state that people like Rayner feel they have to resort to calling the opposition “scum”, but an even bigger shame that she’s actually fucking right and can give several examples why.

[En Passant 3,758]

9 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

speculative

 

Ok, this statement.....

 

3 hours ago, The Quim Reaper said:

look how many people have been attacked/murdered in racially-aggravated, homophobic or misogynistic attacks? Is it more? I bet it’s more.

 

.....speculative or whatever else you want to call it. Does not support your argument because it's twaddle. You'd have been better off without it.

 

WRT the rest of your argument I'm afraid personally I tend more to LFN's view that two wrongs do not make a right. Whether she is right or wrong is completely undermined by her choice of language.

 

[TQR 14,475]

21 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

Ok, this statement.....

 

 

.....speculative or whatever else you want to call it. Does not support your argument because it's twaddle. You'd have been better off without it.

 

WRT the rest of your argument I'm afraid personally I tend more to LFN's view that two wrongs do not make a right. Whether she is right or wrong is completely undermined by her choice of language.

 

It’s…twaddle to point out how prevalent racist or homophobic attacks are? No. It’s ignorant not to. Let’s not discuss this bit further because an unfortunate mix of me not explaining properly and you not understanding properly is sending us round in circles here.

 

Feeling that two wrongs don’t make a right is absolutely a view that everyone’s free to have and, principally, I absolutely agree. What I’m saying is that actually, more of a light has been shone on Rayner’s choice of language than the filth from the people she was talking about, and we really need to get our priorities right.

[En Passant 3,758]

21 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

It’s…twaddle to point out how prevalent racist or homophobic attacks are? No

 

I didn't say that. You know I didn't. I said the comparison to the number of MP's killed was fallacious.

 

23 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

What I’m saying is that actually, more of a light has been shone on Rayner’s choice of language than

 

Oh I'd imagine she well knew that.

[Windsor 2,235]

On 27/09/2021 at 13:09, TQR said:

How exactly? Particularly in contrast to the greedy, lying scumbags to whom she refers who are busy dismantling democracy and pissing on our human rights?

 

Democracy is overrated and you generally only need human rights if you're trying to delay a period at the jail. 

 

Only scum need worry about the dismantling of democracy and the pissing on human rights. 

[Bibliogryphon 9,653]

Just thinking about Johnson's speech to the Tory Party conference this week and in some degree the same applied to Kier Starmer's last week.

 

The speech has to work for two different audiences - the one in the hall and the rest of the country. Unfortunately what is likely to go down well in the hall may not be palatable to the wider electorate.

 

In many ways both Labour and Conservative party activists should learn the lessons that the more rabid elements of the Doctor Who fandom need.

 

There is a much bigger audience out there who do not always share your views and that is the demographic that is most in need of attracting

[YoungWillz 21,251]

If you had said years ago that a banker with Goldman Sachs, responsible for the biggest financial crash, was now in charge of the country's purse strings, you would have laughed.

 

If you had said years ago that the spawn of a domestic abuser who has proved himself a drug snorting serial adulterer at the centre of cronyism and corruption was now Prime Minister, you would have laughed.

 

I mean there are so many lies about to be told at this conference, so enjoy the lies.

 

I think my biggest problem is they say there have been problems, they know about the problems, even before those problems were placed in writing and they have done nothing about it. Meantime, they say, we saved people especially the poorest, during the pandemic (which isn't over by the way). Now it's time to place the heaviest tax burden on the country since WWII, which progressively hits the worst off worst.

 

Boris does go on about high wage high skilled jobs of the future. Meantime, they are forgetting that there still need to be care workers, bus drivers, abbatoir workers, fruit pickers, etc etc etc. And you know those high skilled high wage jobs of the future? Those are precisely the jobs they are proposing to give out visas to those from abroad.

 

Ah well, by their deeds they shall be weighed in scales of history.

[Ulitzer95 12,909]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

If you had said years ago that a banker with Goldman Sachs, responsible for the biggest financial crash, was now in charge of the country's purse strings, you would have laughed.

 

If you had said years ago that the spawn of a domestic abuser who has proved himself a drug snorting serial adulterer at the centre of cronyism and corruption was now Prime Minister, you would have laughed.

OK. Can you put your hand on your heart and say you've never done a line, smoked a spliff or taken a pill in a nightclub?

I don't understand why some people still use moderated recreational drug use to condemn others, often coupled with other negatives, in order to make them sound even more unpalatable. Is this a generational thing? Because people in my own age bracket (25–35) don't tend to do that.

It's 2021 and we still have a drug prohibition policy in place in the UK. Every time I think about that I can't comprehend it. It didn't work 30 years ago. It hasn't ensured less drugs on the streets, or less deaths. It's just a waste of police time, a waste of public money and if anything it just stigmatises users. That and, oh, there is nothing wrong with moderate drug use if people wish to indulge in that. Alcohol and smoking kill more people than cocaine or weed. Deaths in recreational drug use are often from excessive repeated use, overdosing, or mixing multiple substances together.

So why are you weaponising it as a cardinal sin @YoungWillz?

[YoungWillz 21,251]

2 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

OK. Can you put your hand on your heart and say you've never done a line, smoked a spliff or taken a pill in a nightclub?

I don't understand why some people still use moderated recreational drug use to condemn others, often coupled with other negatives, in order to make them sound even more unpalatable. Is this a generational thing? Because people in my own age bracket (25–35) don't tend to do that.

It's 2021 and we still have a drug prohibition policy in place in the UK. Every time I think about that I can't comprehend it. It didn't work 30 years ago. It hasn't ensured less drugs on the streets, or less deaths. It's just a waste of police time, a waste of public money and if anything it just stigmatises users. That and, oh, there is nothing wrong with moderate drug use if people wish to indulge in that. Alcohol and smoking kill more people than cocaine or weed. Deaths in recreational drug use are often from excessive repeated use, overdosing, or mixing multiple substances together.

So why are you weaponising it as a cardinal sin @YoungWillz?

Not really, just adds to his list of crimes, ha!

 

Remember this is the man and the party that criticises Scotland for the number of drug deaths, while retaining all of the powers that would tackle the numbers - and refuses to anything about it.

 

Yeah, times have changed. Years ago folk would have welcomed the deaths of drug users, and many still do - get the scum off our streets they would have cried. Now, it's a legitimate health issue, now weaponised by the Tories - led by a drug snorting serial adulterer, yad yada yada.

 

But you miss the point. My point wasn't about that - it's a fact which folk would have jeered years ago. Any answers on the actual policies this bunch are following? Any praise in response to my actual point?

[msc 18,558]

12 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

OK. Can you put your hand on your heart and say you've never done a line, smoked a spliff or taken a pill in a nightclub?

I don't understand why some people still use moderated recreational drug use to condemn others, often coupled with other negatives, in order to make them sound even more unpalatable. Is this a generational thing? Because people in my own age bracket (25–35) don't tend to do that.

It's 2021 and we still have a drug prohibition policy in place in the UK. Every time I think about that I can't comprehend it. It didn't work 30 years ago. It hasn't ensured less drugs on the streets, or less deaths. It's just a waste of police time, a waste of public money and if anything it just stigmatises users. That and, oh, there is nothing wrong with moderate drug use if people wish to indulge in that. Alcohol and smoking kill more people than cocaine or weed. Deaths in recreational drug use are often from excessive repeated use, overdosing, or mixing multiple substances together.

So why are you weaponising it as a cardinal sin @YoungWillz?

 

Actually, I would say its a mark against him because its shows he's a hypocrite. Him, Gove, all those types. They enjoyed their time with substances, so they know its a useless policy as you note, yet they continue to enforce it on others, mostly poorer folk. 

 

Overdoing the booze and fags is far more dangerous to most people than several of the drugs banned. And the painkillers that are the real big killer are all legal! You could legalise weed for example, tax it heavily, and people would still get it cheaper and safer quality than they do at the moment. 

 

But at this point, this is a footnote to a footnote!