|
|
Post by Aunt Alison on Nov 28, 2021 12:10:50 GMT
“I don’t believe it happened,” she said in an interview with the Daily Mail. “It never happened to me. Perhaps there is something wrong with me.”
Jesus
|
|
gray
New Member
Posts: 438
|
Post by gray on Nov 28, 2021 12:17:10 GMT
I believe the answer appears to be a resounding "yes".
|
|
Rich
Junior Member
Posts: 1,993 
|
Post by Rich on Nov 28, 2021 12:24:42 GMT
Stop being so misogynist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Nov 28, 2021 12:40:12 GMT
The only surprise in there was the quote from Jess Phillips:
"I've got to say I expected better from Nadine."
Seriously?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aunt Alison on Nov 28, 2021 12:44:02 GMT
I don't believe anything unless it has personally happened to me
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 28, 2021 12:49:18 GMT
The pathetic thing is that she'd be shouting about it if it was the father of the leader of the opposition being accused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Nov 28, 2021 12:57:41 GMT
“It never happened to me. Perhaps there is something wrong with me.” Oh Nadine, you're so very nearly there. |
|
|
|
Post by Bill in the rain on Nov 28, 2021 13:17:06 GMT
the old cliche that the right seeks converts while the left seeks traitors. Not heard that one before, but I like it. There's also the old: A man who is not a Liberal at sixteen has no heart; a man who is not a Conservative at sixty has no head. (thought here are a billion variations on the actual ages depending on the source). |
|
|
|
Post by Techno Hippy on Nov 28, 2021 13:34:45 GMT
Diving into What If? series - I've not seen much of the animated Marvel stuff.
|
|
lexw
New Member
Posts: 858
|
Post by lexw on Nov 28, 2021 14:08:55 GMT
the old cliche that the right seeks converts while the left seeks traitors. Not heard that one before, but I like it. There's also the old: A man who is not a Liberal at sixteen has no heart; a man who is not a Conservative at sixty has no head. (thought here are a billion variations on the actual ages depending on the source). Both sayings are intellectually bankrupt trash with little basis in reality, though. Ironically they're both the product of people living in echo chambers or very staid societies, and assuming that's how it is. If you don't think the right seeks traitors you're frankly an absolute moron. Like literally a dumbarse with the memory of a goldfish. Literally the entire Brexit debate was framed as being about traitors to Britain - particularly Tory MPs who weren't for it. It was the whole platform of UKIP. The entire terrorism discussion has been framed that way. Corbyn was constantly cast as a traitor. The right doesn't seek converts any more than the left. BoJos early term was basically a 24-7 search for traitors and still is. The right in the US is particularly keen on ideological traitors. Remember what happened to literally everyone who didn't support Trump? Fucks sake. In particular idiot thinking like that is the product of student politics where it can assumed everyone is basically left so naturally there the right has to convert people, and the left is wary of people who aren't actually left-wingers (who are pretty common). But the idea that there so steady change has been rejected by literally all research in the subject and should obviously be wrong to anyone not 100% historically illiterate. Seriously. Pay some basic attention. Sorry if this is upsetting but I absolutely loathe that kind of fatuous twaddle, especially when literally thinking about it for 30 seconds shows it's wrong. (Plenty of people on the left are reactionary, note, but that's a separate issue.) |
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,682
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Nov 28, 2021 14:50:14 GMT
I think, from your post, that you disagree with me user lexw? You're tone's a bit ambiguous though. Brexit was not a left/right thing. Officially, both parties' leaders opposed Bexit before the referendum, and supported it after. There were the ERG nutters on the right who supported it, but there were plenty of "working class" voices on the left that also felt that brexit would be good for poorly paid workers, the people who were left behind. It was a debate that transcended the left/right dichotomy and the constituency for each vote cut more along age and geography. The truth is that any party in the UK needs to have a broad church in order to secure enough of a base to get in to power. The Tory party is happy to re-invent itself to get power, and Johnson especially is someone who is an obligate populist and knows how to get a crowd to like him. The purge of the remainer/centrist MPs from the Tory party by Johnson was nothing to do with ideology, it was pure pragmatism to get power. They got in the way of "Get Brexit Done": an incredibly powerful slogan. Remember when Johnson was mayor or everybody was calling him a liberal? Corbyn is and was an inflexible ideologue. If he and Momentum were not converting voters, it was because it was that the voters were wrong. Purity of ideology was more important than securing influence and power. And yes these people exist: we had them posting pretty much exactly that on the EG forum of old. (Before walking off in a huff because their team didn't win the election). Is what I posted a simplification? Sure, but any such glib comment is going to lack nuance. Hell, I'd go as far that left and right are meaningless distinctions in today's politics in the UK.
tbh, you're post kinda proves my point. I'm a progressive kind of guy: I'd support a well funded state to provide security through higher taxation and think the powerful have a moral obligation to protect minority voices. Yet I'm the bad guy here.
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,682
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Nov 28, 2021 14:51:31 GMT
Also, why even mention Corbyn now? The man's a busted flush. Yesterday's news. Move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 15:55:26 GMT
Anyone that uses literally that many times should be banned from calling anyone else a dumbarse.
|
|
Lukus
Junior Member
Posts: 2,710
|
Post by Lukus on Nov 28, 2021 16:21:40 GMT
I suspect taking everything literally might be part of the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Nov 28, 2021 16:22:52 GMT
If you don't think the right seeks traitors you're frankly an absolute moron. Like literally a dumbarse with the memory of a goldfish. I'm so glad you made it over here.  |
|
lexw
New Member
Posts: 858
|
Post by lexw on Nov 28, 2021 16:26:15 GMT
I think, from your post, that you disagree with me user lexw? You're tone's a bit ambiguous though. Brexit was not a left/right thing. Officially, both parties' leaders opposed Bexit before the referendum, and supported it after. There were the ERG nutters on the right who supported it, but there were plenty of "working class" voices on the left that also felt that brexit would be good for poorly paid workers, the people who were left behind. It was a debate that transcended the left/right dichotomy and the constituency for each vote cut more along age and geography. The truth is that any party in the UK needs to have a broad church in order to secure enough of a base to get in to power. The Tory party is happy to re-invent itself to get power, and Johnson especially is someone who is an obligate populist and knows how to get a crowd to like him. The purge of the remainer/centrist MPs from the Tory party by Johnson was nothing to do with ideology, it was pure pragmatism to get power. They got in the way of "Get Brexit Done": an incredibly powerful slogan. Remember when Johnson was mayor or everybody was calling him a liberal? Corbyn is and was an inflexible ideologue. If he and Momentum were not converting voters, it was because it was that the voters were wrong. Purity of ideology was more important than securing influence and power. And yes these people exist: we had them posting pretty much exactly that on the EG forum of old. (Before walking off in a huff because their team didn't win the election). Is what I posted a simplification? Sure, but any such glib comment is going to lack nuance. Hell, I'd go as far that left and right are meaningless distinctions in today's politics in the UK.
tbh, you're post kinda proves my point. I'm a progressive kind of guy: I'd support a well funded state to provide security through higher taxation and think the powerful have a moral obligation to protect minority voices. Yet I'm the bad guy here.
No, the fact that you think I'm calling you a "traitor" proves that you're self-regarding in a totally hilarious pearl-clutching way, which is common among, well, ageing middle-class people period, but especially men. There is no-one more prone to pearl-clutching than Jeremy Clarkson-types. You think because I disagree with a statement you admit is totally or largely without merit (given you're now saying left and right are meaningless distinctions, and that it's "glib and lacks nuance"), that I'm saying "you're the bad guy". No, I'm saying "You're repeating utter wank that harms any kind of rational debate or discussion when people buy into it". Which you seem to agree with? If I thought you were a "class traitor" or something, dude, I'd say so. I'm saying "You're repeating drivel that makes people dumber when they believe it". As for "why bring up Corbyn", are you joking? He was in charge in 2019 mate. Two years ago. It might feel like longer, but no, we're not forgetting shit from just two years ago. Also, do you think I supported him? No. I'm making the point that he was literally and repeatedly cast as a "traitor" (which actually backfired). But the easiest counter-example is the US right, which seeks no converts at all, and constantly considers other people on the right "traitors" for failing to support extremist insanity and particularly Trumpism. That shows the slogan you repeated didn't just "lack nuance", it's just dead wrong. The right loves a witch-burning. Other points: "Boris the liberal" - The only people who said that were talking about his social attitudes, and quietly ignoring his huge racism towards Black people and dislike of Muslims. Boris is, hilariously, far to the left of much of the Tory party on LGBT issues, including, specifically, Trans issues (he is not a TERF, he actually turned up to speak to Stonewall for example at the recent Tory conference), and whilst he makes schoolboy comments about gay men, I suspect he's not actually an outright homophobe (unlike assorted Tories). "Purging was pragmatism" - This is a purely hypocritical claim, that people make when they agree with a decision, and instantly reject if they disagree. No-one is claiming Boris is an ideologue, he isn't. He's not even really a Tory, he's just The Man Who Would Be King. But the entire "High Command" of his regime (outside Cummings, who is basically just a weird nutter who tries to combine Totalitarian with Libertarian in a very technocratic way - despite arguing against technocracy, it's his ultimate goal, I sadly understand a lot of the silly shit he was into) are dim-witted ideologues. And by purging like that, they've created a party with an awful lot of ideologues with views that run against "traditional" conservatism and towards fascism/totalitarianism. He's also consistently rewarded power-hungry lunatics like Priti Patel. So whilst we can agree he isn't personally an ideologue, he has built a government of lunatics and dim-wits the likes of which haven't been seen since what, the early '80s? Before that? Ever? Anyway, they "purged" people who the new guard would label "traitors". You could say "Well they're not real ideologues, they just act like them because they're dumb and power-hungry and they think it's how to get ahead", and it's like, thanks for describing the Communist party in Russia in the 1940s and 1950s, who everyone regarded as ideologues. If it quacks like a duck... And you've got people like Frostie trying to push Article 16, which is purely ideological. There's nothing sane there. There's no gain. It's just ideology. Or half of the policing and crime bill, which runs directly against traditional "soft" Tory views, but is entirely ideological far-right/totalitarian stuff. Or the attempted changes to judicial review, which, if the Tories weren't in power, they'd be shrieking about, and screaming to the heavens about how wrong they were (New Labour would be just fine with them, and note Starmer hasn't made a huge deal out of them). They're being put in solely to further an ideological totalitarian approach to government. Unchecked power. Something Tories are notionally against, but ideologues love. So I'll agree that left and right are much less meaningful than they once were. But the idea that the right doesn't love to call people traitors, and does love to invite people in for a cup of tea? Pretty funny given the last few years. You say "Forget about Corbyn!" whilst describing a right that hasn't existed in the UK since the Cameron "Hug a hoodie" era. |
|
lexw
New Member
Posts: 858
|
Post by lexw on Nov 28, 2021 16:27:29 GMT
Anyone that uses literally that many times should be banned from calling anyone else a dumbarse. I concur. Literally should literally be removed from vocabulary. By force if necessary. (Honestly if I had software which could like say "You have typed literally X times in this post, you wanker", it would be very helpful!) |
|
dogbot
Full Member
Posts: 8,738
|
Post by dogbot on Nov 28, 2021 16:29:10 GMT
It's really hard to self edit sometimes, especially when you're impassioned about something. I sometimes cringe when I read back serious posts I've made, especially about things I genuinely care about.
It (literally) didn't affect how the point came across, tbh.
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,682
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Nov 28, 2021 16:32:47 GMT
That's a lot of typing to not say very much.
|
|
|
|
Post by KinkyMong on Nov 28, 2021 16:40:03 GMT
I suspect lexw also thinks the phrase "brevity is the soul of wit" is total bullshit.
Literally.
|
|
lexw
New Member
Posts: 858
|
Post by lexw on Nov 28, 2021 16:51:22 GMT
That's a lot of typing to not say very much. ROFL! How is one supposed to respond to shenanigans like this? You made various specific points (at some length), I responded to those points, now you don't want to respond because I actually put some clear example of how your points weren't correct or were half-truths? I mean, obviously you're "doing a cop-out", have fun with that I guess. But it illustrates my point re: facile and brain-damaging cliches and so on about politics. People like to drop them in, damaging any kind of actual discussion, then do a runner. Just to rag on someone else a bit for a second, I'd say the cliche Bill used was a much worse one, because it literally originates from a time when only certain classes even had a vote or a political party (depending on who you ask, it's from the late 1700s or early 1800s), and where the political situation was very different, indeed, the earliest version seems to be about being a Republican in France, from Francois Guizot (who was not a Republican). Guizot is in fact famous for wanting to restrict suffrage very narrowly, so is referring to a very narrow class of people. The Churchill-attributed version is entirely made up, and wouldn't have made a lick of sense for Churchill to say, because he was literally the reverse of the quote, politically. And it's never been true re: mass suffrage. There's never been a reliable transition where people "go right" as they age. As I noted earlier, people who suffer from dementia do tend to lose empathy and ability to understand new concepts and so on, but brain-damage isn't "moving right politically", I mean, well, if it is that says something pretty funny/mean about the right. And that's usually at 50+, more often 65+, not 35 or w/e. (Before mass suffrage there was some limited truth in it re: narrow social groupings where everyone was a landowner, and younger people were often not yet landowners, or only owned limited amounts of land, and when they ended up owning more, their views sometimes did change. But that was like, in the 1800s, and only among the upper class and the very top of the middle classes. And only men) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 16:52:35 GMT
Should we chip in and hire this guy an editor?
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,682
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Nov 28, 2021 16:52:44 GMT
You're just overly argumentative and confrontational.
I find these ideas interesting to talk about (I'd even concede that I might be wrong on some things), but you're just unpleasant to interact with and life's too short.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 28, 2021 16:53:26 GMT
Hang on I didn't join this forum to literally go back to school.
|
|
lexw
New Member
Posts: 858
|
Post by lexw on Nov 28, 2021 16:59:42 GMT
I suspect lexw also thinks the phrase "brevity is the soul of wit" is total bullshit. Literally. Nah, I actually agree with it 100%. Just because you agree with something doesn't mean you possess the means to do it, does it? I think backflips are awesome but I'm pretty sure I'd die if I tried to do one. My issue is: A) I have adult ADHD (mockery/abuse may commence, I get that it's a "funny" disability) so I feel the need to write everything out because otherwise I'll literally (actual literally here) forget what i was going to say. At work this means I have to edit the shit out of any email before sending it lol. B) I have a rather high typing speed, so I can write a huge amount in the time most people can write a moderate or small one. I once had a guy say "What the fuck, did you take two hours to write all that?" (paraphrasing, it was clear he believed it would literally take one multiple hours to write say, 1000 words). It actually took about five minutes and you could see it from the time stamp lol. So I tend to write very long posts where I try to get out all my thinking on something. C) "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one." (Mark Twain, actual quote not a misattribution though he probably stole it). Story of my life mate. Yeah I could edit it down painfully over an hour or two, but... is it worth it when, on the internet, if you actually, honest-to-god, prove a point, support it with evidence and so on, the usual response is that the other person goes away and never talks about it again? I mean that's not a rhetorical question. |
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 28, 2021 17:02:42 GMT
How long do you think it would take you to re-type Infinite Jest?
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,682
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Nov 28, 2021 17:05:56 GMT
Does MS Word still have that automatic summariser function?
I saw a bot on reddit that would summarise news items to a few lines. Haven't seen it for a while, but it was witchcraft as far as I'm concerned. It absolutely nailed it every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by mothercruncher on Nov 28, 2021 17:10:37 GMT
I’ll say one thing for you- your winning debate style is sure to win anyone over.
|
|
lexw
New Member
Posts: 858
|
Post by lexw on Nov 28, 2021 17:13:12 GMT
You're just overly argumentative and confrontational. I find these ideas interesting to talk about (I'd even concede that I might be wrong on some things), but you're just unpleasant to interact with and life's too short. What I don't get is why you didn't say that in response to my post, instead of starting with the cop-out that I wasn't saying anything? Is it because you would have considered that too confrontational? Personally I think middle-class British people, especially men, have a bit of a problem where they try very hard to avoid confrontation (except when drunk, when shit really kicks off from certain people lol), and consider confrontation a massive sin, when, in fact, sometimes it's the right thing to do, IMHO. I guess it's part of our traditional British self-repression and all that. |
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,682
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Nov 28, 2021 17:19:43 GMT
I stand by both posts. You both don't say very much of substance, and are overly argumentative and confrontational in the way you do it. That last post demonstrates both pretty well.
But hey, you do you. The internet is a wide and varied place with all kinds of people to be found.
|
|
