UK Politics - Put your mask in the bin and hug your granny

[A wilding]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But given what he’s been revealed as at best they’ll be silent about this terrorism attack.

at worst they’ll use it as a reason for trying to pressure women into getting together with incels to fix them(because women have to be collectivist). The misogynistic worldview suddenly becomes sympathetic and rational and need be catered to.
Maybe push for government to roll back some protections in the workplace so women are more easily forced out, preach for women to be chase before marriage(slut-shame) more, and making harder women to apply for a divorce. 

Fortunately things are not that bad in the UK, or at least not yet. The recent mainstream news actually has a fair number of reasoned discussions about whether incelism should be declared to be a terrorist ideology. I think two of the dead being a random respectable white man plus his three year old daughter put any possibility of any sympathy for this murderer totally out of court.

 

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

So it turns out the killer in Plymouth had had his licence and gun taken away in December and they were returned to him last month. That's not a great look for the local police force.

Yes, the apparent story that they gave him his gun back because he agreed to attend an anger management course, while his family were simultaneously begging for medical intervention because of his steadily worsening mental health, really does not play well.

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, ljkeane said:

So it turns out the killer in Plymouth had had his licence and gun taken away in December and they were returned to him last month. That's not a great look for the local police force.

After the dunblane attack I was always under the impression pretty much all guns outside of essentially pea shooters were outlawed. Clearly I was wrong. It seems that to own a firearm like the on the plymouth killer had, you would need a valid reason. The gun in question seems to have been a pump action shotgun. I cannot see what need he would have for such a weapon. So outside of them not checking his mental status this seems to be something that should really be investigated.

22 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

White people can't be terrorists. Even ones with unkempt beards. 

This really isn't true.
 

23 hours ago, mormont said:

It's early yet and there's still time for further details to emerge. But if these rumours do turn out to be true, I think the claim that this is not a 'terror' incident - when it may have been inspired by a violent ideology - seems somewhat loose with the concept of 'terrorism'.

I'm not sure what your definition of terrorism is here.

[Maltaran]

The ban after Dunblane was on handguns, on top of the ban on semi automatics that came in after Hungerford. Shotguns have always been allowed if you have a licence, because farmers need them for pest control.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

The ban after Dunblane was on handguns, on top of the ban on semi automatics that came in after Hungerford. Shotguns have always been allowed if you have a licence, because farmers need them for pest control.

Thanks. Clearly this guy wasn't a farmer who needed it for pest control.

[kiko]

2 hours ago, A wilding said:

I think two of the dead being a random respectable white man plus his three year old daughter put any possibility of any sympathy for this murderer totally out of court.

So if not for those three...sorry, you lost me there.

[A wilding]

6 minutes ago, kiko said:

So if not for those three...sorry, you lost me there.

?

If there is any confusion, I was trying to say that if this murderer had killed, say, some immigrants, or a bunch of teenage black gang members, then the more right wing of our news outlets might possibly have been tempted to go easy on him. But they knew that would not go down well with their base when the second and third people killed were these two:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/375C/production/_119927141_hi069370711.jpg

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, A wilding said:

?

If there is any confusion, I was trying to say that if this murderer had killed, say, some immigrants, or a bunch of teenage black gang members, then the more right wing of our news outlets might possibly have been tempted to go easy on him. But they knew that would not go down well with their base when the second and third people killed were these two:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/375C/production/_119927141_hi069370711.jpg

It’s amazing you genuinely believe this. But ok.

[A wilding]

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It’s amazing you genuinely believe this. But ok.

What can I say? My confidence that my compatriots won't be willing to lap up what I would consider to be jingoistic nonsense, or racist nonsense, or sexist nonsense, has taken a serious hit in recent years. And I seem to recall you yourself giving a somewhat sympathetic explanation of the underlying beliefs of incelism on this very board not long ago.

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Thanks. Clearly this guy wasn't a farmer who needed it for pest control.

You can also get a licence if you’re a member of a shooting club and you’re having the gun for sporting purposes - either target shooting or hunting (grouse, pheasants, etc). The husband of one of my work colleagues has one. I suspect that will be how this guy got his licence, since he doesn’t appear to have worked in agriculture.

Edit: the BBC have a pretty good explainer of UK gun licence laws here 

[Werthead]

Fascinating documentary on the BBC (The Rise of the Murdoch Dynasty) about the Murdoch media empire. Not so much about its rise, weirdly, but its intersection with British politics, starting in the early 1990s and carrying through to the present day. John Major notes that his refusal to change his stance on Europe cost him the 1997 election because it cost him Murdoch's support, and he was happy (well, accepting) about that because he was not going to sell out his principles, whilst Blair very blatantly did. Murdoch's aides at the time and, in a roundabout way, Prescott and Campbell confirm that Blair basically gave his promise of a referendum on entry to the Euro as the price of Murdoch's support, and of course he knew that without the support of The Sun and other papers, they would never have a remote chance of winning that referendum, so it never happened (to Farage's glee, as he notes that Brexit would have been utterly impossible if Britain had entered the Euro in 1999). 

It's fairly solid in that it dives deep into interviews with Murdoch's friends and supporters (several of whom even say proudly they're doing the interviews with his permission), so it's not just a hatchet job from the usual suspects, but it's clever in that what those friends say about Murdoch's decision making and choices is sometimes more controversial than what his critics say. When one of his friends says that Murdoch genuinely did not know about the extent of the phone hacking it makes him sound incompetent; what should have been a humanising moment where the revelation of the Millie Dowler voicemail hacking actually caused Murdoch to flip out in rage at what his underlings had done merely drives home the fact he didn't know what was going on in his own organisation, or that his style of journalism had inspired that to happen.

Someone who emerges with a lot more credit and kudos than you'd think is Max Moseley, not exactly a paragon of virtue, who confirms here (the interview was filmed just a few weeks before his death, I believe) that he underwrote the legal costs of almost every single person who sued News International in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, as otherwise most of them would not have taken up the case and the story would have withered and died very quickly.

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I'm not sure what your definition of terrorism is here.

What is your definition? And how does a man committing a mass slaughter out of hopes curtailing the political rights and status of half of the population not fall under it?

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 hours ago, A wilding said:

I think two of the dead being a random respectable white man plus his three year old daughter put any possibility of any sympathy for this murderer totally out of court.

I wish I can share your optimism but even with the readily apparent victims I think there’s more than an insignificant of society which while saying the violence is bad, will immediately push for society to cater to Incel demands. You know try to get them wives who are suitably subservient to them in most or every respect.

[Heartofice]

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What is your definition? And how does a man committing a mass slaughter out of hopes curtailing the political rights and status of half of the population not fall under it?

Where is your evidence for this?

[DaveSumm]

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I wish I can share your optimism but even with the readily apparent victims I think there’s more than an insignificant of society which while saying the violence is bad, will immediately push for society to cater to Incel demands. You know try to get them wives who are suitably subservient to them in most or every respect.

It hadn’t remotely occurred to me that I’d encounter this point of view, and I’d be shocked if I ever saw it outside of some random Twitter users. So basically other Incels will say some Incel stuff. But that view doesn’t have a serious seat at the table for this discussion.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 8/15/2021 at 6:58 PM, Heartofice said:

Where is your evidence for this?

That's the Incel manifesto: State mandated sexual relations. If I can't get a sexual partner myself, society must provide one for me.

I think Incels would argue that what they really want is love and companionship, but the clue of their frustration is in the name: involuntary celebate. You can have love and companionship and be celebate. So the emphasis is on the sex element. There is also hatred towards their object of desire; though that is far from unique to Incels.

I think the Contrapoints video essay on Youtube about Incels is one of the best out there for understanding that community and the mindset. I would recommend it to everyone.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

involuntary celebate.

Which is always a misleading title because they can just pay to see a sex-worker.

They typically don’t. Not because they’re too poor but because what they what really is total obedience from a woman who they could brandish to other men like a new car, a status signifier and something they can feel superior to. 

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There is also hatred towards their object of desire; though that is far from unique to Incels.

True unfortunately. Though some maybe polite and/or may be getting laid the substance of their misogyny is still there.

 

[Which Tyler]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think the Contrapoints video essay on Youtube about Incels is one of the best out there for understanding that community and the mindset. I would recommend it to everyone.

Just googled it.
Top tip, if using google to fin this - it will show you the video; only go to the video.
Do not be side-tracked by "replies to" or reddit discussions of it etc etc.

[Soylent Brown]

I'm not sure why anyone would want to seek out that garbage and immerse themselves in those viewpoints. I'm not interested in better understanding white supremacy or cannibalism either.

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's the Incel manifesto: State mandated sexual relations. If I can't get a sexual partner myself, society must provide one for me.

There isn’t an incel manifesto, certainly not in the way you are describing. There is is no grand political aim or set of goals that incels are trying to achieve. It isn’t a political movement in the way that some people are talking about it. It’s barely even an ideology. 
 

Even if you read the Elliot Roger ‘ manifesto’ , it isn’t really a manifesto, it’s a narcissistic rant about his own life that goes on forever and about how everyone is shit and the world is terrible. He’s basically Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver.

There might be a bunch of stuff incels rant about and how things should be, but if it’s anything close to an ideology it’s an ideology based on extreme inaction and self loathing, nobody is interested in affecting real change, they just want to wallow in their own shit and find excuses for why their lives are so bad whilst moaning on the internet.
 

If there is any proof that the Plymouth killer wanted to create some sort of societal change through his actions I haven’t seen it. Everything I’ve seen so far suggests a very damaged guy who was unable to cope with the world and took his inner rage about his own crap circumstances out on his mother and some innocent bystanders. Just because he’d read some stuff on the internet doesn’t mean he had any real aims. The videos of him talking show a guy who has just given up on life and wants to end it, taking a bunch of people with him.

[Spockydog]

Yeah, what Soylent said.