Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
polishgenius

They're Racist and We Know It - A UK Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hereward said:

You probably know this, but in the theme of celebrities who get a pass versus those who get excoriated, plus the whole 70s thing, Bowie’s statements in support of fascism don’t ever seem to have hurt him amongst his, IMO, largely progressive audience.

Yes, the 70s thing... aka drugs. Like Clapton, Bowie in his Thin White Duke phase was a cocaine fiend, and like Clapton later cited the heavy drug use at the time as a part of why he went off the deep end and said some of the things he did. 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading up on Clapton's..exploits, was surprised/disappointed to see Van Morrison worked with him on an anti-lockdown single.  Pretty ironic a famed recluse is rabidly anti-lockdown, you'd think he'd like the social distancing.

As for the difference between Clapton and Rowling, I agree with the horse that a lot of that has to do with their significantly different fanbases.  And that Rowling's comments are relatively recent while the main racist thing Clapton said was 45 years ago wasted on stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

The fact she was told to leave the Chamber for pointing out what everyone already knows just shows the absolute state of our democracy..

So MPs can lie without repercussions, but get thrown out for telling the truth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Which Tyler said:

So MPs can lie without repercussions, but get thrown out for telling the truth!

No. I’m not sure what is confusing about this. The rule is that you can’t, as an individual, directly accuse another MP of lying. In order to have repercussions, you would have to a system to decide what is and is not a lie, with the subsequent difficulties of bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, L'oiseau français said:

So Clapton’s views don’t prevent people from going to his shows but Rowling needs to be burnt at the stake?

Do you think sexism plays a role there?

 

 

No, I don't think so. Graham Linehan got ragdolled for the same thing Rowling is, after all, much moreso than her so far. Clapton's not getting as much backlash because as others have said the racism was - and was known- in a pre-internet age so it's not a shocking new revelation (he's also since recanted, though not apologised for, those comments, whether one thinks that's enough is another thing but that lessens public outrage too), and being anti-vaxx simply isn't as big a cultural battleground as the gender/trans thing right now. Rightly too, because while dangerous idiocy it's not bigotry.  

Edited by polishgenius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2021 at 1:22 AM, Heartofice said:

Then there is also the issue that this is a brand new vaccine and while there is a lot of good research that it is safe , we’ve all taken the risk that we aren’t going to start growing extra limbs 10 years down the line . So that is another reason to feel uncomfortable about this when you force young people to take that risk.

Hey, has anyone grown any new limbs yet? I've gotten no 5G and remain stuck at four limbs. The anti-vax/vax-hesitancy hysteria really hasn't delivered yet.

Anywho - found this doc to be a really knowledgeable, thoughtful source of info on vaccines and considering metrics for an 'off-ramp' for masks and restrictions. Most striking to me -"Humility in COVID means we change our recommendations with changing data."

 

Also a very good thread on the mechanics of mRNA vs traditional methods -- to alleviate any unnecessary fear.

So far, vaccines have completely delivered - my fear is that we're now overconfident because of their success and falling back into old habits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hereward said:

No. I’m not sure what is confusing about this. The rule is that you can’t, as an individual, directly accuse another MP of lying. In order to have repercussions, you would have to a system to decide what is and is not a lie, with the subsequent difficulties of bias.

I'd like a system which takes more seriously things like, I dunno, lying to Parliament about a fictitious protective ring around care homes - directly resulting in the deaths of thousands of elderly and vulnerable people, than telling the DVLA that it was your wife who was driving when you got flashed for speeding.

As you said earlier, the honour system that is supposed to bind these bozos was formulated for a bygone age. We need a new set of laws, protecting the public from lying and corrupt politicians. 

Dawn Butler should table a bill. 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DMC said:

Reading up on Clapton's..exploits, was surprised/disappointed to see Van Morrison worked with him on an anti-lockdown single.  Pretty ironic a famed recluse is rabidly anti-lockdown, you'd think he'd like the social distancing.

 

You shouldn't be surprised. The guy is an massive arsehole. Told my ex wife to fuck off at Dublin airport when she told him she was a massive fan. 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

No, I don't think so. Graham Linehan got ragdolled for the same thing Rowling is, after all, much moreso than her so far. Clapton's not getting as much backlash because as others have said the racism was - and was known- in a pre-internet age so it's not a shocking new revelation (he's also since recanted, though not apologised for, those comments, whether one thinks that's enough is another thing but that lessens public outrage too), and being anti-vaxx simply isn't as big a cultural battleground as the gender/trans thing right now. Rightly too, because while dangerous idiocy it's not bigotry.  

Well ackshully, there is bigotry, because I am shamed to admit it, but I have a bigotted view of people who are anti-vaxx. I would personally boycott any artist who publicly espouses anti-vaxx views, esp where trying to influence others not to get vaccinated. Safe in this case because I was never a particularly big Clapton fan. Not a particular Van Morrison fan either, so when I saw he was anti-lockdown there wasn't really a decision I needed to make, and anti-lockdown is not nearly as bad as anti-vaxx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 7/21/2021 at 12:56 AM, Heartofice said:

That’s very different to requiring someone to have a medical procedure to access a service. 
 

Well there’s a couple of things. Firstly as i said I could maybe accept giving proof of a negative test, that is reasonable as a temp measure.

......

I find it funny that one medical procedure is unacceptable, but another is just fine. 

On 7/21/2021 at 9:07 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

.....

Making it mandatory also levels the playing field, and helps to protect the workers. Some businesses would want to mandate vaccination proof for entry, because the owners are conscientious and care about their customers and staff. But their business perhaps wouldn't survive if every business was free to choose, as the conscientious business could lose customers and potentially be go out of business, for having made the socially responsible decision. And have anti-vaxxers and COVID conspiracists picketing them, perhaps. You could leave it up to the free market, and who knows, maybe the conscientious businesses would gain customers and public respect, and the uncaring ones would go out of business. So it could go either way. But as a conscientious business owner I would prefer not to have to make that choice, as I don't really even think those uncaring business owners should face ruin, and loss of jobs for the staff, just because they ideologically refuse to make the free choice to mandate vaccinations for customers.

.....

This wouldn't apply in NZ due to the ACC scheme, but in the UK employment liability is a fault based system. I would imagine that any employer who contributes to their employees getting COVID in any way would be liable under the law to cover the employee for costs. I can imagine the insurance companies must be having kittens over this, and where the courts will draw the line on responsibility regarding COVID. Is an employer who isn't insisting on masks liable? As vaccination goes up, if they allow crowded groups without proof of vaccination? It will be interesting. 

Of course, part of the issue would be employees proving they got COVID at work. 

On 7/21/2021 at 3:22 PM, Heartofice said:

.....

Secondly what is also uncomfortable about it is that it’s threatening people to get the jab, not so much so that they themselves can be protected, but to protect others… to protect people who are already protected via their own vaccinations. I made sure to vaccinate my kids against measles and mumps because I don’t want them getting it. 

.......

I would have thought that's a far better basis. If COVID only impacted the individual themselves, requiring them to get vaccinated would be a bit dubious. It is because of the knock on effects (of risk of contagion, or hospital resources, of being unable to open up, etc.) that should be the justification for requiring vaccination. To protect others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individuals may be motivated by self-interest to get vaccinated. But governments need to be motivated by public health outcomes, which is maximising vaccination rates to manage the health of the population. Conceptually it's also self interest if "self" is defined as the nation as a singular entity. Though I'm not sure whether the Govt is the brain or the arse of this singular entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hereward said:

No. I’m not sure what is confusing about this. The rule is that you can’t, as an individual, directly accuse another MP of lying. In order to have repercussions, you would have to a system to decide what is and is not a lie, with the subsequent difficulties of bias.

... isn't there already such a system? The Commons can decide that an MP has misled Parliament, which is just a politer way of saying 'lied'.

The problem isn't having a system to decide what is and isn't a lie. The problem is that the consequence of having lied is that you're 'expected' to resign, and if you just don't, nothing happens to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another big drop in cases today, -15k from last week. Let’s hope it continues.

Still in the middle of a pingdemic however 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Still in the middle of a pingdemic however 

I don't really get all the breathless reporting about this. Over 300,000 people tested positive over the last week or so, around 600,000 people being identified as close contacts seems like a perfectly reasonable number to me. Honestly if you were to question it I'd think it's probably a little on the low side.:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile the UK goverment (Johnson and Frost) continue to whine about their own oven ready meal and got politely told to sod off by Flinten-Uschi, when they tried to renegotiate the NI protocol. It's almost like reality having prevailing over fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Meanwhile the UK goverment (Johnson and Frost) continue to whine about their own oven ready meal and got politely told to sod off by Flinten-Uschi, when they tried to renegotiate the NI protocol. It's almost like reality having prevailing over fantasies.

I thought they said it was ‘fantastic’ for Britain; now it’s shit?

I’m confused.

Almost as if Johnson lied to us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love how being contact traced has now fallen victim to the standard right-wing tactic of relabelling an important thing in order to push the idea that it's an unnecessary annoyance instead of being actually important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The BBC dropped a bit on the news channel suggesting that the dropping numbers of contacts isn't down to the virus peaking (it appears to be far too early for that) but vast numbers of people simply deleting the app, which seems about right.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...