Jump to content


Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About mormont

  • Rank
    A bear there was
  • Birthday 05/10/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    St Andrews, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

35,834 profile views
  1. mormont

    War of the Worlds: the BBC adaptation

    Nah. The shot with him coming out of the rubble* would be pointless if he was. They'll clearly go back in time again from the ending of episode one to pick up the story. *one of the weakest shots: it's clearly just bits and pieces of random rubble piled between an undamaged house and an undamaged wall. It was a bit Doctor Who, and Doctor Who 1989 rather than 2019. Some of the other location shots looked a bit low-budget too, which was disappointing as otherwise the programme looked really good IMO.
  2. mormont

    U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

    Trump says he'll 'strongly consider' testifying. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/trump-says-he-will-strongly-consider-testifying-in-impeachment-probe.html I don't think I need to translate that for anyone here: he'll refuse to testify while insisting that he really wants to.
  3. Anyone else watch this one last night? Thoughts? It certainly looks fantastic. Some stunning shots in there. Eleanor Tomlinson and Robert Carlyle are terrific, though I'm not quite sure about Rafe Spall. Decent, I guess? Some weird choices in the writing, though, and I groaned when Amy announced she was pregnant. Can writers really not think of any better plots for female characters? Moment of the episode, in a bad way: there's an alien invasion devastating the village but the lead character decides to stop to complain about how his wife won't sign the divorce papers. Timing, dude.
  4. This is true, but it's also true that this cycle is not the last cycle. Some of the previous factors no longer apply (Corbyn, for example, is more of a known factor so it's less likely that he will be able to turn around perceptions of his performance as he did last time): while other factors, such as the short campaign, did not apply last time. I see a lot of Labour supporters talking about 'last time' in a way that's almost complacent. It's actually quite worrying, because that turnaround is not guaranteed to happen again. It's just not.
  5. I mean, I'm not astonished. There's a certain level of privilege and wealth, and the Royals are definitely in it, where people become both arrogant and blind to their own arrogance.
  6. mormont

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    The issue is that Trump's motives and methods of looking into this alleged corruption were themselves corrupt. But if you want to talk about something being 'a take', trying to pretend Trump, of all people, has any genuine concern about corruption is indeed a take. You know and I know he's doing far worse every day than anything the Bidens have ever done.
  7. [mod] Let's not get personal, please. Thank you. [/mod]
  8. I'm sorry, but it seems like you just want to move this on to this specific area you've marked out, as if it were remotely possible in the current political climate to 'just have a debate about immigration' devoid of the context of racism. That feels to me intellectually dishonest. We need to acknowledge that in the present climate, people who say they want to 'just have a debate about immigration' are very likely to be about to say something racist. The entire debate has been hijacked by racists and it's not a productive approach to attempt to ignore that for the sake of argument. I'm all in favour of having an open debate, but debates have rules. Rule number one here has to be: let's not pretend racism doesn't exist. Your hypothetical anti-immigrant recent immigrant, whatever the source of their views, is going to have their opinion triumphantly seized upon by racists the moment they open their mouth. It would be naive to pretend otherwise.
  9. You mean like Priti Patel and Sajid Javid? The term 'blood traitors', frankly, isn't helpful and however it was intended comes off as a cheap shot, so I'm going to ignore it. But can a first or second generation immigrant be racist against other immigrants? As I've already pointed out, that does happen, yes. Again, I have a sense of someone using terminology ('completely non-PC') and implied threats to promote appeasement as a solution to racism. I'm all in favour of having the discussion in the open: nobody opposes that. It's by no means limited to this forum, I assure you. https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/jlm-lambasts-priti-patel-for-north-london-metropolitan-liberal-elite-comment/ https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/priti-patel-turns-her-back-on-theresa-mays-legacy-at-the-home-office/ It's even cited in the Wikipedia entry on anti-Semitism in the Conservative party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party#Priti_Patel Now, it is certainly true that Patel is a friend to the Israeli government - in fact, she had to resign from her first government job for being altogether too friendly with them, to the point of setting up secret unauthorised meetings. So I don't think she is genuinely anti-Semitic. But on the other hand, I don't believe that she is so naive as to not understand that the phrasing she chose to use appeals to a certain demographic, as I've said before. And if she is that naive, then that's no excuse. For someone in her position, that level of naivete is inexcusable and suggests that she doesn't care. Javid is guilty of it too, by the way. His comments on asylum seekers, for example, often resort to coded language. These people know what they're doing. As I've said, making legal immigrants feel vulnerable and uncomfortable is a feature, not a bug, of the way they talk. They know the audience they need to appeal to eats that up. Likely they believe it's a form of appeasement too. But it's playing with fire.
  10. I feel like the moment a person sees themselves type the term 'group-think' is the moment that person should sit down and have a good, honest think about their own position and exactly why it is so many people are on the other side. If you're willing to ascribe that to everyone else suffering from some ill-defined pseudopsychological phenomenon that means you can dismiss their views out of hand, I feel you're not giving your opponents any credit - and that's a bad thing. It blinds you to problems in your own arguments. I would be happy to hear you explain, but this explanation is just a rhetorical smokescreen. Your position appears to be that 'anti-immigration' is defined as literally any position short of completely open borders. That not only makes your 'explanation' merely a tautology, it's nonsensical if applied to the real world. By your definition, nobody is pro-immigration, even if they're in favour of more immigration! It's not a useful way of defining positions in reality: it's just a way of downplaying that connection between racism and restrictions on immigration by selective definition of terms. We literally just discussed Patel giving a speech using anti-Semitic dog whistles. Both have supported and advocated for policies that they know will have a disproportionate and unjustified impact on minorities, and both have resorted to citing their own background as a shield against criticism for that. For you, it appears to have worked. But being a minority does not mean you can't engage in racism. And how many of these immigrants do you need to hear telling you that the rhetoric Johnson, Javid, Patel et al are engaging in makes them feel vulnerable and singled out? The press is full of such accounts. And I don't like to break it to you, but for Johnson and the rest, that's the point. That's why they're doing it. They're pandering to voters who want immigrants to feel vulnerable, for the sake of their own careers. You appear to be advocating appeasement as a response to racism. That's... not a strategy I endorse. And it's based on the assumption that one simply can't persuade people of the benefits of immigration, when in fact that has never really, honestly been tried.
  11. This is based on the twin assumptions that those voters being polled a, did not say they were going to vote UKIP last time and b, would in fact have voted for the Brexit party. As I recall, UKIP were polling around 3-4% last time and wound up with 0.2%. So a lot more than half of them probably went Tory last time. In any case, it seems Farage has annoyed his own party, not least by refusing to refund the expenses of candidates he now won't back.
  12. Uh... which contests would those be? UKIP only stood in ten seats in Scotland last time out and lost their deposit in each. None of them were the constituencies that elected Conservative MPs: not one of those thirteen faced a UKIP opponent. This means literally nothing in Scotland.
  13. I think the indications were, right from the start, that the Brexit party don't have the resources to stand in every seat. They were scraping the barrel but couldn't find 600 remotely sane candidates, for a start. This more or less guarantees there will be no Brexit party MPs elected. While opinions vary on the numbers of Labour Brexit voters out there, there aren't enough to win a seat. So really, what Farage is announcing is his party's complete irrelevance.
  14. Oh dear. 'Get out and move forward'. Ah, no. Once we 'get out', we are then paralysed by years if not decades of international trade negotiations that have to be completed just to get us back to somewhere approximating where we are now. There's only one way to avoid Brexit dragging on for the next ten years. Revoke Article 50. One can argue about if and how that should be done, of course. But one cannot argue that continuing with Brexit is in any way, shape or form going to bring resolution or allow the country to 'move forward'. We've barely started the process. People need to have that explained to them. When they do, they become distinctly less enthusiastic about Brexit.