UK politics - not inspiring but effective

[Many-Faced Votary]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

‘my relative’ is a good barometer for any opinion right of centre. Is that really where you guys are getting your information? Explains a lot. 

Did you intend to quote me here?

 

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No, I completely disagree, I think the issue is not really being discussed in the way you portray it and the word ‘genocide’ is utterly inappropriate.

Why does sparing your feelings by avoiding the objectively correct word here because you hold some level of sympathy towards those arguments matter more than using it properly in context? (1, 2, 3, 4 out of many sources, if that's what you are looking for.)

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

Can you quote the exact place where you get the "I have steelmanned..." part of Spockydog's post? I admit, I don't see it. I see him saying her world-view is warped and completely wrong and that the arguments are all put forward by "absurd balloon animals" (?), none of which suggests he's steelmanned anything. His being familiar with arguments from "absurd balloon animals" doesn't suggest he's actually encountered or considered the strongest forms of any of the arguments he is in disagreement with.

I derived that from the context of the post and what it is in response to.

Lines like "I have deep knowledge of the arguments" and "I listen patiently" only make sense as a response to the original post raised.

Granted, I could be wrong, but I think it makes less sense to assume the post was a context-free digression from what was quoted just because the word "steelmanning" wasn't used in it.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Why does sparing your feelings by avoiding the objectively correct word here because you hold some level of sympathy towards those arguments matter more than using it properly in context? (1, 2, 3, 4 out of many sources, if that's what you are looking for.)

 

Again ‘objective’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and linking to a series of papers by clearly ideologically driven institutes doesn’t help your case at all.

 

3 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Did you intend to quote me here?

I didn’t, stupid quote function is annoying.

[BigFatCoward]

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

The actual underlying concept is a very good one. What would you suggest as an alternative expression to describe "the opposite of a straw man argument"?

I wouldn't use strawman either. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Again ‘objective’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and linking to a series of papers by clearly ideologically driven institutes doesn’t help your case at all.

It sure is, and it can do that lifting as intended. Trying to eliminate the very existence of trans people is, indeed, attempted genocide of trans people.

"Ideologically driven?" You mean the ideology of studying and preventing genocide? Do you truly mean to insinuate that they offend your sensibilities for being against genocide, or that their interpretation of what genocide is wrong because you know better?

 

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I didn’t, stupid quote function is annoying.

I saw your edit afterwards; sorry. The quote function can definitely bug out a lot.

[Craving Peaches]

23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So I talked about Steelmanning a position and you bring up Great replacement theory.

I brought it up as an example of a possible argument, not exhaustive. What about all the other points I mentioned? Are they relevant to the arguments of the 'other side'? Because once you get to the core of the more respectable looking arguments they still seem to revolve around these points. Do you have an argument that has nothing to do with any of these points?

25 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

illegal migration comes up is precisely because it’s seen as people breaking the rules or taking advantage of lax, soft rules to sneak into the country, under the guise of pretending to be a refugee.

But there's not really a guise of being a refugee. The government can deport those 'illegal migrants' who haven't shown themselves to be genuine refugees.

If the Government thinks there are really too many people coming, they have the ability to reduce the numbers. They haven't, which is one of the reasons I find it strange that all my relatives concerned with immigration still voted conservative (what I also find bizarre is that they don't like the country being run for the benefit of a minority but still vote conservative).

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

It sure is, and it can do that lifting as intended. Trying to eliminate the very existence of trans people is, indeed, attempted genocide of trans people.

‘Erasing the existence of trans people’ is an extreme caricature of the gender critical position. Unless you can genuinely actually understand the argument being presented you are clearly not able to steelman the issue. 

 

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

But there's not really a guise of being a refugee. The government can deport those 'illegal migrants' who haven't shown themselves to be genuine refugees.

 

The whole point is proving someone is not a genuine refugee is an expensive, incredibly long process and actually quite difficult to do. This is especially true when ‘refugees’ lie about their age, sexuality, nationality to gain access to the country. 

 

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

ought it up as an example of a possible argument, not exhaustive. What about all the other points I mentioned? Are they relevant to the arguments of the 'other side'? Because once you get to the core of the more respectable looking arguments they still seem to revolve around these points. Do you have an argument that has nothing to do with any of these points?

I mean I could make a long argument about why excessive immigration is not a benefit for a country that has nothing to do with the great replacement theory and is not about a the demonisation of migrants. Yes.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Heartofice said:

I mean I could make a long argument about why excessive immigration is not a benefit for a country that has nothing to do with the great replacement theory and is not about a the demonisation of migrants. Yes.

Does it have something to do with any of the other points I mentioned?

Also, define 'excessive'. Because it sounds totally subjective.

[Many-Faced Votary]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

‘Erasing the existence of trans people’ is an extreme caricature of the gender critical position. Unless you can genuinely actually understand the argument being presented you are clearly not able to steelman the issue. 

Set aside the fact that gender-critical "feminism" is a tautology, and that it is derived from white feminism, which is neither actual feminism nor a philosophy that bears attention.

I am well aware of what the "gender-critical position" is. Steelmanning it is pointless, because it inevitably leads to one conclusion, and because it is fundamentally reactionary and bigoted: effectively transphobia as an ideology. The very premises are that sex is immutable, gender identity and expression are irrelevant and secondary to biological sex, and that assigned sex at birth ascribes oppression or victomhood in a way that cannot change -- all of which are, in fact, objectively false. 

I have no desire to engage with Feminism-Appropriating Radical Transphobes. You can smell FARTs if you'd like; more power to you.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Does it have something to do with any of the other points I mentioned?

Also, define 'excessive'. Because it sounds totally subjective.

Not really in the way you described. There will be an element of it affecting wages, immigration being higher than public services can cope with problems with lack of social cohesion and integration and it being an overall financial cost to the country. I think it’s absolutely possible to make a cohesive, sensible argument against excessive immigration that doesn’t devolve into crying about ‘great replacement theory’ or ‘complaints about islamism’

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

I have no desire to engage with Feminism-Appropriating Radical Transphobes. You can smell FARTs if you'd like; more power to you.

Thanks for continuously proving my point in this thread, your contribution has been incredibly valuable.

[Many-Faced Votary]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Thanks for continuously proving my point in this thread, your contribution has been incredibly valuable.

I agree. You had no response to my arguments, and instead engaged in a series of ad hominem attacks. I turned out satisfied that your position does not hold up to scrutiny.

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

I am well aware of what the "gender-critical position" is. Steelmanning it is pointless, because it inevitably leads to one conclusion, and because it is fundamentally reactionary and bigoted: effectively transphobia as an ideology. The very premises are that sex is immutable, gender identity and expression are irrelevant and secondary to biological sex, and that assigned sex at birth ascribes oppression or victomhood in a way that cannot change -- all of which are, in fact, objectively false

All of this is actually not false in fact. 

[Craving Peaches]

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

immigration being higher than public services can cope with

That's the government's fault, not the immigrants. The government chooses how many people to let in and they chose to underfund public services.

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

There will be an element of it affecting wages

Government can set higher minimum wage.

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

with lack of social cohesion and integration

Can you explain further?

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

overall financial cost to the country.

What do you mean by 'financial cost'? Taxes? Economy?

All your complaints aside from maybe the social cohesion one seem to be about the way the government has responded to immigration rather than the idea of immigration. Also, they don't address the points for immigration, namely that people in this country are not having enough children to grow or even maintain the population. And what has the government done about that? Capped child benefits at two children and created a situation where it is likely both parents must work full-time to support a child.

Edited March 2 by Craving Peaches

[Ran]

51 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

have deep knowledge of the arguments

... from "absurd fucking balloon animals". Do balloon animals put forward strong arguments in your world?

52 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

"I listen patiently"

... to the allegedly deranged Foxbrained natterings of his mother. 

Neither of these things suggest steelmanning to me, but YMMV. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

... from "absurd fucking balloon animals". Do balloon animals put forward strong arguments in your world?

Do you question the profound polemics exemplified by helium life forms in the harlequin world of evil clowns?

[Which Tyler]

8 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

He was also complaining about 'mob rule' the other day. Prepare for another attempted crackdown on civil liberties.

FTFY

[mormont]

Could we perhaps return to discussing UK Politics?

[polishgenius]

On the earlier question of Galloway and why is he bad- he's one of those people who claims to be pro-freedom etc, but isn't, he's just anti-western and will support any anti-US/UK voice that he thinks will allow him to get a few licks in. Not only Russia as some have mentioned but Iran, plus at times Saddam in Iraq. And he's vocally a supporter of Hamas specifically, not just Palestinian freedom.

 

 

He's also got all the moral strength of a wet biscuit. Check out his flip-flopping position on both Saddam and Assad depending on what he thinks is more beneficial to him at any given moment. Like he criticised Saddam during the 80s when he was getting support from Britain against Iran, was meeting with him in the 90s and then when he fell he was a bestial dictator who Galloway always wanted rid of. 

 

Also this (targeted letters in general are pretty standard, but fuck me these are shameless. How are you going to go all in on 'I am a fighter for the Muslim world' with one hand and toot grooming-gang dogwhistles with the other):
 

 

 

He also thinks the fall of the Soviet Union was a great tragedy so fuck that guy.

Edited March 2 by polishgenius

[Heartofice]

54 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

That's the government's fault, not the immigrants. The government chooses how many people to let in and they chose to underfund public services.

You can make the argument that public services are underfunded,  but I’d also make the argument that there is no way a UK government could realistically build enough schools, hospitals, GP services and housing to cope with importing half a million people into the country each year. Any gains in GDP made by immigration are not reflected in GDP per capita or productivity figures and it’s not a matter of these people paying for themselves. 
 

Either way, I can’t be bothered to have yet another long conversation about immigration on these boards, and I certainly don’t have time this weekend to do it. Returning to the central point of the conversation, there are arguments against mass immigration that are evidence based and rational and don’t have to devolve into demonisation of ‘the other’. You just have to look a little further than what some old lady you know is ranting about. 

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

UK government could realistically build enough schools, hospitals, GP services and housing to cope with importing half a million people into the country each year.

Agree you can make that argument... But the UK government does not have to let that many people in. These arguments act like the no. of immigrants is totally outside of the government's control.

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Returning to the central point of the conversation, there are arguments against mass immigration that are evidence based and rational and don’t have to devolve into demonisation of ‘the other’.

I think those are arguments against the Government's handling of immigration rather than arguments against immigration itself.

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Either way, I can’t be bothered to have yet another long conversation about immigration on these boards, and I certainly don’t have time this weekend to do it.

Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree.