Jump to content

A wilding

  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by A wilding

  1. 7 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

     no clue but let us know if you find out, because now I want to know too :D 

    I am guessing it is a term that they picked up from some obscure online pop psychology article and immediately decided applied to them (which would be typical of them). Or perhaps it was just a typo. It was part of a slightly unhinged rant.

    Still it doesn't matter, I was just curious. Someone is going round to try to find out what is going on and see what can be done to help out.

  2. A question for the hive mind.

    I (and some other family members) have just been accused of "RVO" by a relative who seems to be under severe stress and losing it somewhat.

    My google-fu has failed me, so does anyone know what "RVO" means?

    I doubt it has anything to do with the Netherlands organisation, the eye condition, or the C++ feature. From context it might be a synonym of projection (in the psychological sense)?

    Edit: and it definitely was not being used in the sense of "really good sex"!

  3. 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Not sure anyone is playing that deep of a game when the same pollster starts by finding overwhelming support for Labour. I'd have more respect if everyone against the Tories refused to answer. But a plurality said they don't know, which is sad. 

    Well perhaps they were not playing a deep game. But the first question was "Who would you vote for tomorrow (with Sunak as party leader)?". Then the second was "who is the best recent Tory leader?" with the expected answer clearly expected to be Johnson. Also I note there was a question further down about how best to manage Brexit, but no questions or options that enabled diehard Remainers to express their views.

    And there was, of course, no "refuse to answer" option - I am reasonably confident that if it was even possible to complete the poll without choosing an option, then that would be classified as either "Don't know" or "Prefer not to say".

  4. 2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Because it's easy to pick who you think was the worst and/or least worst even if you'd never vote for any of them. That a majority wouldn't or couldn't answer is a depressing result.

    I am with BFC on this.

    This poll is not some sort of presidential runoff where refusing to vote is abdicating your democratic responsibility. It is a transparent attempt to generate a fraudulent statistic about how Johnson is still massively popular amongst voters. (See who commissioned it.) Refusing to play their game is a democratically correct move for anyone who is not a supporter of the Tories.

  5. 39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Victim blaming? Ha. I'd call it pointing out obvious cowards. 1/5 wouldn't admit who they preferred (I'm guessing most of them were for Boris) and a plurality had no opinion. That's not good if your goal is to maintain a healthy democracy. 

    You seem to be assuming that all those polled voted Tory in the 2019 election? Why would it be cowardly for someone who has never voted Tory in their life to refuse to make a choice between 3 appalling Tory PMs that they would rather see strung up in Westminster Square?

  6. On the intersection of UK Politics and LGBT rights:

    Broadcaster Sandi Toksvig has come out all guns blazing against the Church of England's recent fudge on gay marriage ("we will give it as much surreptitious blessing as we can without upsetting the right wingers or the foreign Anglican churches in deeply socially conservative countries where LGBT people are oppressed")

    Toksvig has started a campaign to remove the bishops from the House of Lords. She has caused some entertaining pearl clutching by pointing out that only one other country in the world has unelected religious leaders in its parliament - Iran.


  7. 2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

    To be fair most leavers said they’d take an economic hit to get brexit done. They were just that terrified polish migrants ruining the country with their……

    I would question that "most". I have talked to plenty of leave voters who had been sold the story that there would be no downside. And even to some that believed the one about more funding for the NHS.

  8. 9 hours ago, Werthead said:

    While that article states the threat being made to be a fact, we all know how it has lately been failing the country by its habit of taking everything Tory politicians say at face value. And:

    1) Johnson has been proven, many times over, to be an utterly shameless liar who makes stuff up on the spot to make him look good to whoever he is speaking to.

    2) Johnson has also been proven, many times over, to be a personal coward whose response to tricky situations is ro placate people getting in his face and/or to quietly disappear. If he had really felt personally threatened by Putin, he would have given Putin whatever he wanted and then kept as low a profile as possible. Though come to think about it, the UK has notoriously dragged its feet in imposing meaningful sanctions on Russian oligarchs.

  9. 1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

    So what I'm taking away from this is...watch the movie instead? Will anyone who has done both (or just watched the movie) care to weigh in?

    My opinion: Andy Weir absolutely cannot do characterisation. The Martian works because the interest is in the central issue of Watney's survival and in the various problems that need to be surmounted to achieve it. Especially as the technical details are nearly all totally correct. The characters are mostly highly trained astronauts or scientists doing their stuff (and occasionally sticking two fingers up at authority) and so don't need to have much psychological depth.

    Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1536/

    So both the book and the film are good. Perhaps the film edges it if you don't know so much about (or aren't interested in) the technology behind space travel.

    I was unimpressed by both of Weir's subsequent books through, sadly.

  10. Since we seem to be generating a great deal of heat on this topic, here is a couple of sensible quotes from the BBC :



    Sarah Armstrong, a professor of criminology at Glasgow University, said she was surprised that concern over the safety of women in prison was "focused on this one, very exceptional case" given the "scathing" reports from the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture after previous visits to [the woman's prison concerned].

    Prof Armstrong said: "We hear the committee saying women are being held in segregation for such long periods and with no mental health support - one women gnawed her arm to the bone. I'd love to hear those who care about the safety of women showing up for the issues that are really facing women in prison."




    A former Scottish prison governor, David Wilson, told BBC Scotland's the Nine that he had been involved in managing a number of transitioning prisoners during his career, which had been done on an "ad-hoc basis" - a strategy he said could no longer be coped with.

    He added: "There's going to have to be a much more concerted plan in relation to how to deal with transitioning prisoners, and that probably means setting up a special unit for those prisoners or a special wing.

    "It's not something that's so unusual - we now have special units that are basically being run in our prisons as hospices because we now have so many older prisoners in our prison population. I don't see this as any different from that."


  11. 1 hour ago, Zorral said:

    Not 'wrong', but a lie and propaganda to consolidate power to itself over England's neighbors.  Arthur, in as much as the mythology (there is no history) existed prior to the French Romance poets,  Kings Edwards I and III, and Henry VII, is the matter of Wales. So the English, who were invaders and determined conquerors of Wales (as well as Scotland Ireland) stole something that wasn't English as English, in order to prop up a new family, as with Edward, and dynasty as with Henry, their tenuous legitimacy to England's throne and power. This is how the dynastic position, called "Prince of Wales" came into being, which included what is now valued as billions of property in Wales for the English crown.  This is how conquerors and imperialists and colonialism operates.  This information btw, is basic history, not in the least arcane. It is heavily documented even in popular biographies such as A Great and Terrible King, and The Winter King 

    I agree up to a point, but I have difficulty with describing the consolidation of the UK into a single political unit as "colonialism" pure and simple. However much it was achieved by military force and propaganda. This consolidation is, after all, something that has taken place in many other European countries.

    In the UK here is a scale between Ireland (most definitely a separate country), Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and finally Northern and Eastern England (which were heavily Scandinavian at one point). The extent to which Wales was a separate country is slightly questionable - as a Welsh relative once told me, "the Scots know that they are a separate nation, the Welsh ... are not sure".

  12. 12 hours ago, Zorral said:

    And there are thousands of other examples, including the Tudors and Arthur, and the Plantangents and Arthur too.

    Out of interest, what was so wrong about the pushing of the Arthur myth? It is a tragedy of heroic but doomed defence against invaders, carried out by a group of people with high ideals, where the bad guys are the people who were the ones then living in England and hearing the myth.

  13. There has been a lot of mention of democracy on this thread, but I have not seen any mention that those democracies are in fact all representative democracies.

    Now partly that is because population size makes direct democracy unviable, but also in my mind it is to prevent democracy descending into mob rule; a situation in which any change can be made to the law or the constitution whenever a bare majority can be whipped up for it by populists, the web, biased news channels, tabloid newspapers, and their ilk. Never mind if the implications of the change are not understood by that bare majority or are successfully kept from them. This could easily lead to such things as reintroducing the death penalty, to taking votes away from some groups of people, or even (whisper it) to Brexit.

    So making a democracy a representative one is a necessary check & balance. Humans being what they are, then a good political system requires as many of these as possible. In my personal opinion, a very useful additional one is to center the mystique of power on a ceremonial head of state who does not have to think about standing for re-election in future, rather than on the executive. Possibly making this role hereditary is not ideal, but there are worse approaches.

  14. 7 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

    I'm pissed off that these people are forced to fight for what their entitled to. I'm pissed off that billionaire douchbags can be so nakedly authoritarian. A lifetime agreement to never say anything bad about someone? Is he fucking serious? Who the hell does that? 

    Using NDAs to silence whistleblowers and keep harassment and other bad behaviours secret is commonplace. Even when legally doubtful they are often still effective in scaring people into compliance. Musk is merely ramping things up a notch here.

  15. 7 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

    Not really directed at you, but the concept of the “rich” being forced to sell their homes.

    Do you realize that during WW 2 the top tax rate in the UK was 99.25%? After the war it was lowered to 90%, during the 40s, 50s and 60s. The top rate on investment income in the 70s was 98%. There’s a reason why rock stars and movie stars and corporate millionaires fled the country.

    A bit late, but I would like to comment on the history behind all this.

    To put those tax rates in context: by about the middle of WW2 the UK was basically bankrupt, with a desperate need for whatever money it could scrounge up from wherever it could be obtained. Then, after WW2, money was also needed to fund the promised welfare state - the NHS and so forth. Why should the very rich have been allowed to preserve and increase their inherited wealth though all this, with the literal consequence of the rest of the country starving and dying young of preventable diseases?

    Incidentally, the UK before WW2 was still a massively unequal society totally dominated by the wealthy upper classes. For example, all those big houses were run by small armies of servants who worked very long hours and were paid a pittance. This, by the way, is the reason why those UK upper classes tried so hard to avoid WW2, in some cases to the extent of actually supporting Hitler. They knew that any war would overturn the UK social order and end their cosy existence. (You get some echo of this dilemma at the beginning of Lord of the Rings.) It is also the reason why so many people became communists in the 1930s.

    Of course, once prosperity returned in the 1960s it was another matter.

    By the way there exists a very large and well funded UK charity, the National Trust, that exists to preserve as many of those big houses as possible. In some cases they have negotiated deals with the owners to allow those owners to continue living in them. Feel free to donate! (Actually the National Trust is schizophrenic, it also owns a large amount of wild country in the UK for the purposes of preserving it unchanged. I support that cause, but can't support the National Trust when they are also about the big houses.)



  16. I do agree that GRRM does get hostile and unfair comments. But I think there is some nuance to the situation.

    While a few people may be GRRM's friends and others (such as myself) may have known who he was before ASoIaF, most people are aware of him only as the author of ASoIaF, Most people have little interest in him him other than as the author of ASoIaF. Obviously the vast majority of such people (myself included) stay away and don't bother reading his blog or otherwise interacting with him. However, in our culture, a small minority are sadly going to behave obnoxiously.

    Basically the elephant in the room is that ASoIaF is what has made GRRM famous (and rich), but that he is not going to finish it. And whenever GRRM goes out there to talk to ASoIaF fans, the elephant is always going to be present.

  17. 13 minutes ago, Werthead said:

    Yes, the bizarre thing about TWoW is that the wait has been twice as long as for ADWD but maybe half as rancorous, if that. I ascribe that to the lack of a glaring promise of a release date in the preceding book (as AFFC had for ADWD), which definitely fuelled that fire much more greatly.

    At a guess, most people have given up on him. I imagine that few people now think he is ever going to finish the series. I suspect many people think he is unlikely even to finish TWoW.

  • Create New...