UK Politics: And Brexit came swirling down

[Platypus Rex]

16 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I've seen enough from Squab over the years to know that engaging with whatever resentful shitposting he pretends to be arguments is futile. 

Nobody said you were required to engage with him

Quote

Political correctness is liberal fascism?

Well, it's certainly not liberal.  I'm all for politeness and consideration, but it ceases to operate on that level once you start to enforce it.  Then it quickly becomes a weapon, with one rule for me but not for thee.

Quote

Have people been murdered or marched off to prison camps for refusing to use requested gender pronouns? What exactly am I supposed to engage with there?

I never said you were supposed to engage.  You need not respond at all.  I'm just noting the irony of using a racially charged insult while you defend political correctness.

[DanteGabriel]

8 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Nobody said you were required to engage with him

Well, it's certainly not liberal.  

I never said you were supposed to engage.  You need not respond at all.  I'm just noting the irony of using a racially charged insult while you defend political correctness.

White racial resentment is a real thing and arguably the single biggest driver of the current degradation of Western democracies. We need to be able to call it out. However, if Squab has preferred nomenclature, like "awareness-challenged high-privilege Caucusoid" or something like that, I'd be happy to consider it.

[Platypus Rex]

8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

White racial resentment is a real thing

Sure.  There are lots of real things, and all kinds of racial resentments, in this vast vast world.

[Platypus Rex]

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You could switch to socialism almost overnight with a law saying all means of production should be owned through some form of cooperative.

Well, I couldn't do that by tomorrow.  Maybe you can.  Also, laws are not self-implementing, so you would need to do a lot more than simply get a law on paper.  Also, I don't see what this has to do with the recent UK election.

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, I couldn't do that by tomorrow.  Maybe you can.  Also, laws are not self-implementing, so you would need to do a lot more than simply get a law on paper.  Also, I don't see what this has to do with the recent UK election.

The point is that socialism does not require concentration of power. Just something to think about. 

[Platypus Rex]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The point is that socialism does not require concentration of power. Just something to think about. 

I don't think concentrations of power can be avoided no matter what you do.  But where has socialism ever been implemented without concentrations of power?  

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 hours ago, Squab said:

Conformitism isn't popular on the right anymore.

I don’t know where you’re getting that. Certainly gender roles are heavily advocated as being needed for people to conform is advocated by many on the right. 13 states in the good ole US of A still have laws on the books that criminalize same-sex relations because many of those on the right really dislike these people who like to have non-heterosexual sex. The mere prospect of hearing a person speak a different language in public makes nearly half of white Republicans uncomfortable. And if someone who doesn’t worship the god of Abraham does something in regards to religion in a public in tax paid setting many do get angry. If a Wiccan or Satanist wanted to start a public counsel meeting with an invocation praising something integral to their religion many on the right would grow outraged. 

There are plenty on the right who want people to conform to their standards-whether that be regards to sex, language race, or religion. 

And have no problem using the idea people need to conform to a certain thing to bludgeon their opposition.

For example, telling a man whose expressing an opinion they disagree with less of a man. Many on the right say they hate identity politics-and I think there could be a rational reason to be adverse to it-but have no problem saying you need to think this way if you’re a man. 

To be clear man, I understand people on the left commit similar sins.

For example thinking non-white Hispanic groups must place a great amount of significance on Immigration or feel the protocols surrounding it must relaxed. They do obviously do not. 

10 hours ago, Squab said:

Different people are offended by different things and when someone uses being offended as a reason to shut down someone, by definition that “offended” person is privileged. 

 

Quite frankly, its hard to discuss taboo topics

I don’t think that’s right. Otherwise, you’d have to contend blacks in the US were “privileged” by virtue of boycotting businesses that in effect treated them as inferiors to whites. I’m sure if it was a more popular term to use back then, people would label blacks wanting store workers to address them like “mr” or “Mrs” as PC run amok.  

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, it's certainly not liberal.  I'm all for politeness and consideration, but it ceases to operate on that level once you start to enforce it.  Then it quickly becomes a weapon, with one rule for me but not for thee.

I mean it could be liberal. But no it doesn’t have to be. Political correctness is in theory a neutral term. It’s behavior or rhetoric  precipitated not to offend everyone or certain groups. 

It would offend many social-conservatives for kids to be taught people from the LGBTQ community aren’t monsters. So in way companies barring writers from featuring non-heterosexual characters in their work is acting “PC”  it’s just that the group the company is trying not to offend are homophobes, to which there are many. 

Hell, there’s an entire movement in the US to quash the teaching of evolution in public schools, or at the very least offer teaching creationism as an alternative “theory” to spare the feelings of Creationists who are actually deluded enough to think the Flintstones were based on a true story.  

Your aversion to Political correctness seems odd. Politeness and consideration are fine, unless people push others to show just that? 

 

[maarsen]

34 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

I don't think concentrations of power can be avoided no matter what you do.  But where has socialism ever been implemented without concentrations of power?  

Saskatchewan. 

[Gorn]

9 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

I don't think concentrations of power can be avoided no matter what you do.  But where has socialism ever been implemented without concentrations of power?  

Initial years of Mitterand's presidency in France, UK in 1945, Sweden in 1970's, Greece in 1980's, Mexico under Calles and Cardenas, Chile in 1970... Carnation Revolution in Portugal even de-centralized power compared to the Salazar's regime it overthrew.

[Mentat]

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Initial years of Mitterand's presidency in France, UK in 1945, Sweden in 1970's, Greece in 1980's, Mexico under Calles and Cardenas, Chile in 1970... Carnation Revolution in Portugal even de-centralized power compared to the Salazar's regime it overthrew.

I may be mistaken, but I think we're confusing Capitalism (an economic system based on private ownership of most property and enterprise where most resources are allocated through trade) which usually opposes Communism (an economic system based on public ownership of most property and enterprise where most resources are allocated through policy) and Socialism (a political system based on a high level of taxation and regulation of the economy resulting in an abundance of public services and public redistribution of wealth through policy) which usually opposes Liberalism (a political system based on a low level of taxation and regulation of the economy resulting in a scarcity of public services and private redistribution of wealth through market forces).

 

13 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You could switch to socialism almost overnight with a law saying all means of production should be owned through some form of cooperative.

I'm not so sure. In Spain at least this would imply previously repealing the Constitution and leaving the European Union. In most western countries this would probably imply a major upheaval of their political systems rather than simply passing a law. The concept of means of production is also much more difficult to pin down than it used to be in Marx's day.

 

All this said, I feel that this conversation is veering steadily away from UK politics. If someone would like to open a new thread, I feel like there's quite a lot of interesting things to discuss, though.

[Platypus Rex]

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Initial years of Mitterand's presidency in France, UK in 1945, Sweden in 1970's, Greece in 1980's, Mexico under Calles and Cardenas, Chile in 1970... Carnation Revolution in Portugal even de-centralized power compared to the Salazar's regime it overthrew.

Are you joking, or do you really think there were no concentrations of power in those countries?  I tend to doubt they were even socialist in the precise sense that was just defined to me.  But never mind that.

[Platypus Rex]

On 12/17/2019 at 3:40 PM, Rippounet said:

I have given no opinion on Brexit itself, I merely object to the ludicrous idea that the entire affair is somehow a victory for British democracy.

Well, it certainly would have been a DEFEAT for British democracy if a supposedly-binding referendum had been held and the results not followed.  Maybe it would not have been as big a disaster as a refusal to follow the results of a general election, but it would still have been a hugely dangerous precedent.  But we seem to be past that danger now.  Finally.  

But yeah.  Following the results of referendums or elections that are meant to be binding should not be a "huge victory".  It should be routine.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

4 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, it certainly would have been a DEFEAT for British democracy if a supposedly-binding referendum had been held and the results not followed.  Maybe it would not have been as big a disaster as a refusal to follow the results of a general election, but it would still have been a hugely dangerous precedent.  But we seem to be past that danger now.  Finally.  

But yeah.  Following the results of referendums or elections that are meant to be binding should not be a "huge victory".  It should be routine.

hate to break it to you, the Referendum was Non-binding and advisory only.   In fact it was so much non-binding that it was ruled in a court of law had the referendum been Binding then it would have been null and void due to the breaking of electoral laws.   however due to the non-binding nature of the referendum they had no legal power to void it.

 

But lets not let facts get in the way.

[Gorn]

28 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Are you joking, or do you really think there were no concentrations of power in those countries?  I tend to doubt they were even socialist in the precise sense that was just defined to me.  But never mind that.

No, I'm not joking. To remain within the bounds of the thread subject, UK Labour party in late 1940's nationalized the Bank of England, railways, electric utilities, gas utilities, telecommunications, coal industry, canals and the steel industry (about 20% of economy), in addition to creating the NHS and national insurance system, building public housing and significantly improving worker rights. If that's not socialism, I don't know what is.

As to concentrations of power, now you're just moving the goalposts. Clement Atlee didn't create any additional concentration of power that didn't already exist under Churchill and Chamberlain.

[Chaircat Meow]

16 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, it certainly would have been a DEFEAT for British democracy if a supposedly-binding referendum had been held and the results not followed.  Maybe it would not have been as big a disaster as a refusal to follow the results of a general election, but it would still have been a hugely dangerous precedent.  But we seem to be past that danger now.  Finally.  

But yeah.  Following the results of referendums or elections that are meant to be binding should not be a "huge victory".  It should be routine.

It is far from obvious to me why a general election result can't in principle overturn a referendum result before the result has been fully implemented (and we did spend 3 years or so trying to implement it).

In any case the referendum result itself actually couldn't be implemented; the promises of Vote Leave were incompatible and contradictory. Of course you could say the referendum just mandated the government to leave, never mind fulfilling the rationale behind that choice which Vote Leave presented but that was expressly ruled out by the Brexiteers themselves who said certain iterations of leaving were not Brexit. 

[SeanF]

47 minutes ago, Gorn said:

No, I'm not joking. To remain within the bounds of the thread subject, UK Labour party in late 1940's nationalized the Bank of England, railways, electric utilities, gas utilities, telecommunications, coal industry, canals and the steel industry (about 20% of economy), in addition to creating the NHS and national insurance system, building public housing and significantly improving worker rights. If that's not socialism, I don't know what is.

As to concentrations of power, now you're just moving the goalposts. Clement Atlee didn't create any additional concentration of power that didn't already exist under Churchill and Chamberlain.

I think that Attlee's programme could not have been implemented, had the State not already taken control of the economy during WWII.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-queens-speech-voter-id-polling-station-a9253386.html

Quote

Boris Johnson to ‘stop tens of thousands voting’ by making photo ID mandatory at polling stations

Pilots of scheme saw hundreds of voters without photographic ID turned away from polling stations

Boris Johnson has confirmed plans to press ahead with new requirements for photographic ID at polling stations, in the face of accusations that the move is designed to suppress voting by young people and disadvantaged groups.

The prime minister faced immediate calls to ditch the “dangerous” proposal from the Electoral Reform Society, which warned: “Make no mistake – these plans will leave tens of thousands of legitimate voters voiceless.”

Campaigners accused the PM of taking action on an “imaginary” problem while ignoring more serious threats to British democracy, such as anonymous political ads, dodgy donations and fake news.

Meanwhile, the 15-year limit on expats voting in general elections is to be lifted, allowing UK citizens living abroad to continue casting their ballots for the rest of their lives.

Traditionally this has been seen as a way of boosting the Conservative vote, though Mr Johnson risks a backlash from the million-plus UK citizens in the EU who overwhelmingly supported Remain in the 2016 referendum but were denied a vote.

 

Article Continues...

 

[mormont]

Fuck voter ID. It's a scam. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

17 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-queens-speech-voter-id-polling-station-a9253386.html

Boris Johnson to ‘stop tens of thousands voting’ by making photo ID mandatory at polling stations

Pilots of scheme saw hundreds of voters without photographic ID turned away from polling stations

Boris Johnson has confirmed plans to press ahead with new requirements for photographic ID at polling stations, in the face of accusations that the move is designed to suppress voting by young people and disadvantaged groups.
 

It's truly a great thing for Democracy to make it harder for more people to participate in it. 

[BigFatCoward]

I would 100% trust the people who work at polling stations to be able to spot a fake ID, or verify the one presented was legit.