UK politics - not inspiring but effective

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

genocide trans people"

That’s the point. Nobody is saying this. It’s not an accurate or even close to being accurate depiction of that side of the debate. I can’t honestly believe you would be so blinkered to believe that. It’s bizarre. 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

Define 'should be' in relation to these numbers please. Because that sounds like a completely subjective thing, and therefore you are complaining that the government is letting in too many people because it is more than you want let in.

Point being there is a difference between having concerns about the numbers of illegal migrants and ‘demonising refugees’

 

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

What ideological position? I don't recall any such position being hoisted on myself or anyone I know. I have never even seen/heard people talk this way outside of the internet or news.

Accepting that trans women literally are women is an ideological position which has become engrained enough in popular discourse that disagreeing with it can get you fired. 

 

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Such as?

Go look at the CASS report and the Tavistock.

 

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

course not. Who here made that equation?

‘Dismantle the NHS’ was a direct quote from Spocky. There really are not any plans to dismantle the NHS. It would be politically impossible for any UK government to even try.

 

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think that's a rather harsh and uncharitable view, and not an accurate depiction. It is hard to view the other side seriously, when for the most part, its arguments lack credibility and are based on appealing to emotions/playing on people's fears.

Thats your opinion, I disagree and I doubt you even know what those arguments even are.

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Thats your opinion, I disagree and I doubt you even know what those arguments even are.

Actually I think I am quite aware of them, since one of my relatives is so inclined to tell the rest of us all about them. Are the arguments to do with any of the following?: birth rates, government wanting cheap labour, cultural marxism, 'The Great Replacement', immigrants taking jobs, immigrants leading to lower wages, immigrants taking houses, Islamisation of the UK etc?

Appealing to fear of 'The Other' is a classic tactic to score political points.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Point being there is a difference between having concerns about the numbers of illegal migrants and ‘demonising refugees’

Refugees/asylum seekers are not illegal migrants. The government can legally deport illegal migrants.

No one has suggested that the two issues you mentioned are the same.

The issue is, you initially gave the impression that this is an either/or choice between one side and the 'other side' rather than a spectrum of views. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Accepting that trans women literally are women

What exactly do you mean by this?

Edited March 2 by Craving Peaches

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Point being, in all the above topics I reckon I could give a pretty good stab at steelmanning the position on both sides of the debate. I highly doubt Spocky or any other of the cheering crowd on this thread could do the same, because they literally believe anyone who disagrees with their position is.. well basically evil. They are completely stuck in a bubble and have no interest in challenging their own ideas on any of these topics. 

*almost chokes to death on coffee*

Dude. I'm LMFAO over here. You have no idea how badly you are wrong.

In case you haven't been paying attention to my posts over the years (and don't try and claim you've not been borderline stalking me), I have deep, deep knowledge on most of the arguments put forward by the likes of you, JRM, 30p Lee, Liz Sunak, and all the rest of those absurd fucking balloon-animals.

I visit my dear old mum every other day, to bring her meals and whatnot. What do you think I do when she starts banging on about whatever is Murdoch's issue de jour? Do I scream and shout and tell her to shut up? Do I tell her she is an evil old cow? Do I tell her it's no fucking wonder she doesn't share her true views with her friends?

No, like a good son, I sit there and take it, listening patiently to her distorted, fucked up worldview. And as she's spouting whatever the machine is currently programming her to spout, I sit there wondering what on earth happened to my mum. How did she stop being this wonderfully caring human being, a union activist who, more than once, campaigned unsuccessfully for office on a decidedly left wing platform.

So, take it from someone who knows. It's all bollocks. You should hear her. Some of the stuff she comes out in private with is just fucking mental (yeah, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your dinner table). It breaks my heart because she doesn't understand that she is a pawn, willingly lapping up the poison designed to sow division and wreck our society. She's got Murdoch-Brain.

And, guess what, there's a danger you're going to end up just like that. It's inevitable, mate. I mean, you're basically on the same page as my mum on almost every issue.

I mean, I'm sure you don't care. But I care. I care about my mum. Because I know that she was a better human being when she didn't hold views like this. Put me in a shipping container with Rupert Murdoch AND his witless fucking sons, and it'd be like that scene in The Shield. 

Anyway, I would love to see some scientific data on the damage done to families by FoxBrain. 

And let's drop the ridiculous notion that everyone on the left is extreme, stupid, or living in some ridiculous non-information bubble. The first two news sites in my internet favourites are AP and Reuters.

 

Edited March 2 by Spockydog

[JGP]

Reminds me of this bit:

 

[Spockydog]

I genuinely thought this was going be a story about internal Tory party bullshit.

Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech

Oh, fuck off.

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I genuinely thought this was going be a story about internal Tory party bullshit.

Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech

Oh, fuck off.

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

[Spockydog]

stupid quote button

Edited March 2 by Spockydog

[kissdbyfire]

17 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I genuinely thought this was going be a story about internal Tory party bullshit.

Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech

Oh, fuck off.

That was so odd and ridiculous, JFC. Rishi really sucks at this. Doubly fuck off.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

That there might be a debate about the number of illegal migrants into this country, how valid many of their claims are? That the numbers are clearly far higher than they should be? 

Put more rubber bands on cocks 

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

That the gender critical argument is actually not about demonising trans people at all, that there might be a number of considerations that need to be rather than blindly following the gender ideological position that has been hoisted on our society and correct some of the mistakes made over the past few years.

Obviously this can also be solved by more bands on cocks

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

That the NHS isn’t the best health service in the world, and that the way to deal with that is not just a matter of adding more money and that other systems might need to be looked at. Suggesting that isn’t ‘dismantling the NHS’.

The better health care is more bands on cocks

 

 

[Many-Faced Votary]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

That’s the point. Nobody is saying this. It’s not an accurate or even close to being accurate depiction of that side of the debate. I can’t honestly believe you would be so blinkered to believe that. It’s bizarre. 

I was about to say that no one is outright saying they want to genocide trans people for obvious reasons, but in point of fact, there are many far-right figures who feel comfortable admitting to that very goal. That undercuts your narrative quite a bit on its own.

In any case, I have to believe that you understand that transphobic rhetoric and legislation that dehumanizes trans people, paints gender dysphoria as mental illness, aims to remove legal protections and recourse for transitioning, and seeks to exclude them from all spheres of society, effectively combine to result in an insidious and sustained genocide. The end goal is to make it impossible for people to ever successfully transition, and if they succeed in doing so anyway, to ensure they can never participate in society the way cis people can.

Since I have to believe you understand this, the only thing I can think of is that you do not care, because you believe it is a valid perspective on the subject.

[kissdbyfire]

20 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

In any case, I have to believe that you understand that transphobic rhetoric and legislation that dehumanizes trans people, paints gender dysphoria as mental illness, aims to remove legal protections and recourse for transitioning, and seeks to exclude them from all spheres of society, effectively combine to result in an insidious and sustained genocide. The end goal is to make it impossible for people to ever successfully transition, and if they succeed in doing so anyway, to ensure they can never participate in society the way cis people can.

All of this x a lot. 
And I will say, I find it particularly troubling when the argument turns to some form of denialism of trans people, like it’s a new and modern thing that woke leftists invented just to fuck with your kids’ heads or something equally evil (and totally stupid). Trans people have always existed. What changed is that now we’re supposedly evolved enough to acknowledge and understand this and embrace our trans sisters and brothers instead of burning them at the stake or whatever. Clearly many of us still have a long way to go. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

All of this x a lot. 
And I will say, I find it particularly troubling when the argument turns to some form of denialism of trans people, like it’s a new and modern thing that woke leftists invented just to fuck with your kids’ heads or something equally evil (and totally stupid). Trans people have always existed. What changed is that now we’re supposedly evolved enough to acknowledge and understand this and embrace our trans sisters and brothers instead of burning them at the stake or whatever. Clearly many of us still have a long way to go. 

You can just talk about that with sexual identity in general. I recall reading an article from either the late 70's or early 80's condemning lesbians. The language used in it was exactly what's said about trans people today. They're groomers who are trying to convert our daughters and what not. 

Somethings change, others don't, and the latter is why we can't all have nice things. If you're not okay with what consenting adults want to do in private and/or how they want to identify, they aren't the problem. Look in the mirror. 

[DaveSumm]

7 hours ago, Spockydog said:

*almost chokes to death on coffee*

Dude. I'm LMFAO over here. You have no idea how badly you are wrong.

In case you haven't been paying attention to my posts over the years (and don't try and claim you've not been borderline stalking me), I have deep, deep knowledge on most of the arguments put forward by the likes of you, JRM, 30p Lee, Liz Sunak, and all the rest of those absurd fucking balloon-animals.

I visit my dear old mum every other day, to bring her meals and whatnot. What do you think I do when she starts banging on about whatever is Murdoch's issue de jour? Do I scream and shout and tell her to shut up? Do I tell her she is an evil old cow? Do I tell her it's no fucking wonder she doesn't share her true views with her friends?

No, like a good son, I sit there and take it, listening patiently to her distorted, fucked up worldview. And as she's spouting whatever the machine is currently programming her to spout, I sit there wondering what on earth happened to my mum. How did she stop being this wonderfully caring human being, a union activist who, more than once, campaigned unsuccessfully for office on a decidedly left wing platform.

So, take it from someone who knows. It's all bollocks. You should hear her. Some of the stuff she comes out in private with is just fucking mental (yeah, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your dinner table). It breaks my heart because she doesn't understand that she is a pawn, willingly lapping up the poison designed to sow division and wreck our society. She's got Murdoch-Brain.

And, guess what, there's a danger you're going to end up just like that. It's inevitable, mate. I mean, you're basically on the same page as my mum on almost every issue.

I mean, I'm sure you don't care. But I care. I care about my mum. Because I know that she was a better human being when she didn't hold views like this. Put me in a shipping container with Rupert Murdoch AND his witless fucking sons, and it'd be like that scene in The Shield. 

Anyway, I would love to see some scientific data on the damage done to families by FoxBrain. 

And let's drop the ridiculous notion that everyone on the left is extreme, stupid, or living in some ridiculous non-information bubble. The first two news sites in my internet favourites are AP and Reuters.

 

That’s an awful lot of words for “I don’t know what steelmanning is”.

Edited March 2 by DaveSumm

[Many-Faced Votary]

4 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

That’s an awful lot of words for “I don’t know what steelmanning is”.

Unlikely.

If there were too many words for you, the gist of it was: "I have steelmanned arguments put forth by my own mom, and for this reason, I know that any purported rationale behind those arguments is nonsense."

[Heartofice]

8 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Actually I think I am quite aware of them, since one of my relatives is so inclined to tell the rest of us all about them. Are the arguments to do with any of the following?: birth rates, government wanting cheap labour, cultural marxism, 'The Great Replacement', immigrants taking jobs, immigrants leading to lower wages, immigrants taking houses, Islamisation of the UK etc?

So I talked about Steelmanning a position and you bring up Great replacement theory. It really sounds like you and Spocky thino ‘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. 
 

 

8 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Refugees/asylum seekers are not illegal migrants. The government can legally deport illegal migrants.

No one has suggested that the two issues you mentioned are the same.

Huh? They get conflated all the time. Especially by the left. The assumption being anyone coming on the boat is a refugee. 
 

One of the main reasons 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. This ‘demonisation of refugees’ line by Spocky is really a total caricature of what the arguments are and why they are happening. 

8 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

What exactly do you mean by this?

I don’t understand your question. What do you think I mean?

 

6 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

In any case, I have to believe that you understand that transphobic rhetoric and legislation that dehumanizes trans people, paints gender dysphoria as mental illness, aims to remove legal protections and recourse for transitioning, and seeks to exclude them from all spheres of society, effectively combine to result in an insidious and sustained genocide

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.

Edited March 2 by Heartofice

[Ran]

12 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

I have steelmanned arguments put forth by my own mom

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.

From Wikipedia, for those who are unaware of what steelmanning is:

Quote

A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of the other person's argument, even if it is not the one they presented.

 

Edited March 2 by Ran

[BigFatCoward]

Steelman is the stupidest expression I've heard in a long time. 

[Ran]

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

Steelman is the stupidest expression I've heard in a long time. 

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"?

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Steelman is the stupidest expression I've heard in a long time. 

I think strawman is a dumb term, but if people are going to use that then there needs to be a term to describe the opposite.