[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 82573)
Message
File  []
close
1012336-System__Resources__Image-1197978.jpg
825738257382573
>> No. 82573 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 6:27 am
82573 2017 General Election polling day/results thread
Morning, lads.

As per .gs tradition, it's time for the separate polling day/results thread.

Results are expected slightly earlier than previous years as there's no local elections at the same time.
305 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 82962 Anonymous
17th June 2017
Saturday 2:30 am
82962 spacer
>>82951
But governments do have access to that facility, ours doesn't seem to 'really' be making use of it. (Obviously they benefit from lower lending costs on the money borrowed to finance the present deficit, but the policy is to eliminate the deficit, instead of "ignoring" it to pursue other goals with cheap cash.)
>> No. 82963 Anonymous
17th June 2017
Saturday 8:55 am
82963 spacer
>>82962

There's a perfectly legitimate argument that we should have pursued a policy of Keynesian stimulus since the 2008 crash. My only real qualm is with the argument that debt and deficit are irrelevant, the Modern Monetary Theory argument that a sovereign government has effectively unlimited spending power. It may well be possible to spend your way out of recession, but there are clear risks to both austerity and stimulus, particularly when taken to extremes.
>> No. 83013 Anonymous
19th June 2017
Monday 1:04 pm
83013 spacer
>The Scottish champions Celtic will play Northern Ireland’s Linfield or La Fiorita of San Marino in the second qualifying round of the Champions League.

>With Celtic drawn away for the first leg, the possibility of them playing in Belfast on 12 July, a key date in the marching calendar, is potentially problematic for security services given past sectarian tensions.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/19/celtic-linfield-champions-league-draw-marching-day

That's that, then. Troubles 2.0 all but confirmed.
>> No. 83014 Anonymous
19th June 2017
Monday 7:09 pm
83014 spacer
>>83013
Double Troubles.
>> No. 83015 Anonymous
20th June 2017
Tuesday 6:33 pm
83015 spacer
>>82960

>We don't all pay the national debt, the government does. But yes, the government could decide to not issue gilts and refuse to meet its obligation to its debtors.

Government is supposed to be our representative. If the government is in debt, that ultimately means we are too.

>You've yet to explain why it should though.

Because it is stifling human development and benefiting the most power hungry.

>Profound though it may be to point out that countries and governments and debts are all just in our mind maaan, the reality is that we have collectively agreed to give these institutions meaning and legitimacy and power. I don't think you're going to convince anyone that we shouldn't if you're not able to even begin to develop your case.

Less collectively agreed and more just accepted without question how things are or put up with because no alternative is provided.

It's not just the institutions themselves that are the problem though, it's also the people who are given the power to run them (not always elected either). Government offers a type of power that attracts a high percentage of sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists and all the rest of it.

I think if you want to be in government, you will need to go through a rigorous psychological examination before anything else among other things. Perhaps make them work at a care home for a year on minimum wage, but most importantly they should be physically attractive. We are giving power away far too easily and that's why we get shit in return.

The current application process to become an elected politician requires nothing more than the ability to sell yourself to potential customers/voters using marketing, slogans, logos and your own gift of the gab. And we wonder why politicians are notorious liars?

>I think a large part of your problem is that you think everything that isn't a rock or something is magic.

I don't think ideas are magic, but that doesn't stop them being extremely good at tricking the mind into thinking they're as real as a rock.
>> No. 83016 Anonymous
20th June 2017
Tuesday 7:13 pm
83016 spacer
>>83014
Apparently there's going to be a legal challenge over whether this breaches the Good Friday agreement, so the double trouble may not bubble.
>> No. 83017 Anonymous
20th June 2017
Tuesday 7:56 pm
83017 spacer

fb730b6b10bdb389d6c856da9b809662.jpg
830178301783017
>>83015
Electing people in government isn't always a good idea. Just look at the USA for a good example of this. I don't want public officials afraid of doing the right thing for fear of losing their bid for re-election. It's bad enough they've got us electing police commissioners, but just look at this sample ballot. The majority of the positions there have no business being on it. Elected officials end up wanting to consolidate power, which means either pandering to the voters or working to disenfranchise them, rather than carrying out one's duties without fear or favour.
>> No. 83018 Anonymous
23rd June 2017
Friday 5:19 pm
83018 spacer
>>83017

Elections are far from ideal, if they ever could be.

But I think they could be much improved. Who fucking came up with the current rules for elections in the first place? Can they be changed? Who can change them? If no one has the power to, are we stuck with them forever?

Our current political system reinforces the false dichotomy of left/right politics which turns it into a nauseatingly predictable battle between the "loony left" and the "fascist right", the side that will fuck me over a bit more, or the side that will fuck me over a bit less, depending on the social class I identify with.

It's always funny when politicians talk about "a country that works for all" when the class system our country operates in requires the very opposite to be true.
>> No. 83019 Anonymous
23rd June 2017
Friday 8:13 pm
83019 spacer
>>83018
We had an AV referendum about this and the public gave it a resounding "no". Similarly the general public overwhelmingly vote tactically rather than on conviction which is further why the overwhelming trend over the past three decades has been the fight for the centre ground.

>It's always funny when politicians talk about "a country that works for all" when the class system our country operates in requires the very opposite to be true.

While class conciousness still exists but it is and in a way always has been a divided sentiment since the time the working class were given the vote. One-nationism is a direct expression of this and a key to landslide elections.
>> No. 83020 Anonymous
23rd June 2017
Friday 8:29 pm
83020 spacer
>>83017

That's insanity. How they hell are people expected to keep up with nearly twenty different electoral candidates all running at once? It's impossible; three Jeremy Vine's on a holodeck couldn't manage it.
>> No. 83022 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 3:56 pm
83022 spacer
>>83019

>We had an AV referendum about this and the public gave it a resounding "no". Similarly the general public overwhelmingly vote tactically rather than on conviction which is further why the overwhelming trend over the past three decades has been the fight for the centre ground.

I'm not talking about the method of voting itself. I'm saying that it should be much harder to become a political candidate in the first place. Blabbering tired, cliche platitudes is a pathetic way of judging the quality of someone who wants power.

If you want power over people's lives then you should fucking well earn it. The application process should be extremely rigorous, otherwise we deserve what we get in return.

>While class conciousness still exists but it is and in a way always has been a divided sentiment since the time the working class were given the vote. One-nationism is a direct expression of this and a key to landslide elections.


Absolutely. Maintaining identities such as working/middle/upper class also makes it much easier to appeal to a large chunk of the population without having to do much work, because you already know what appeals to them.

They've done a very clever thing with immigration too. They know the class system will create resentment, particularly for the working class who are essentially considered the least valuable by those of a higher class. To keep this resentment away from the higher classes, a new class of people for the working class to feel superior about has been created. Immigrants are now considered a class below the white working class. So not only are the working class focused on a class below them, they will value anyone who is white British more than someone who isn't. The higher classes are now not an enemy to the working class because they are white and British, as long as you are that, you are a friend. It's very clever indeed.
>> No. 83023 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 5:01 pm
83023 spacer
>>83022
Class is not an identity.
>> No. 83024 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 5:16 pm
83024 spacer
>>83022
>The application process should be extremely rigorous, otherwise we deserve what we get in return.

I get the point you're trying to make her - but why? Why should we put barriers in place as to who are elected representatives are? The whole point of democracy is that anyone can have a go and its up to the rest of us to put them in power. We absolutely get the leaders we deserve.
>> No. 83025 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 6:26 pm
83025 spacer
>>83022
>I'm saying that it should be much harder to become a political candidate in the first place.

What you're suggesting is that the state should exert increasing control over who the voters can pick effectively nullifying democracy and creating a system of gatekeepers like the Republic of Iran. That stinks to me not least because how the hell do we create a system of political competence evaluation that doesn't select ideological purity? Momentum certainly won't be happy and nor will anyone the gatekeepers won't tolerate.

Political office should instead remain open to citizens who want a go and likewise it is the responsibility of citizens to do their own vetting at the ballot box and who then have to live with their choices. It might fuck up but anything else is to say the public cannot be trusted to vote properly which sends the whole edifice crumbling down.

I recommend checking out a podcast Dan Carlin did with James Burke by the way as it goes into this topic in some detail following Trump and Brexit: https://goo.gl/dYSBFv

>Absolutely. Maintaining identities such as working/middle/upper class also makes it much easier to appeal to a large chunk of the population without having to do much work, because you already know what appeals to them.

I committed a typo there so maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant is that looking at society strictly in terms of class is inherently reductionist and gives the impression that class identities vote along rigid party lines when nothing could be further from the truth and indeed parties rely upon it (consider that middle class people don't all vote Liberal).

Keep in mind as well that class identity in British politics is not something confined to wealth or power metrics but instead comes from multiple sources like geography and associations. Your theory that the working class have been brainwashed into hating immigrants is a fallacy both because it assumes that anti-immigrant sentiment is confined to the working class and that it is something that is kept alive artificially when as Marx himself admitted of the Irish:

>But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
(he of course then quickly ignores this point to talk some more about the bourgeois bogeyman like you can just ignore this material impact)

>>83023
It evidently is. If someone says they are working class then that is an identity.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2k1iRD2f-c
>> No. 83026 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 7:14 pm
83026 spacer
>>83025
>What you're suggesting is that the state should exert increasing control over who the voters can pick effectively nullifying democracy
Not him, but yeah, that's one way you could twist that argument into some nonsense that nobody suggested.

>It might fuck up but anything else is to say the public cannot be trusted to vote properly which sends the whole edifice crumbling down.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
>> No. 83027 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 7:23 pm
83027 spacer
>>83025
>It evidently is. If someone says they are working class then that is an identity.
No, class is a position, determined by one's relation to capital. You can identify as whatever you want, but that won't change your class.
>> No. 83028 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 7:29 pm
83028 spacer
>>83023

Are you sure? It's just as much an identity as "being British".

>>83024

Using that logic we might as well not put barriers on anything at all.

>>83025

>What you're suggesting is that the state should exert increasing control over who the voters can pick effectively nullifying democracy and creating a system of gatekeepers like the Republic of Iran.

Would you be okay with a psychopath as prime minister? Psychopaths are superficially charming. The political system suits them to a T. It offers power and money. Why do you consider it a bad thing to filter people like that out? You probably don't have an issue stopping 9 year olds from being politicians do you?

>I committed a typo there so maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant is that looking at society strictly in terms of class is inherently reductionist and gives the impression that class identities vote along rigid party lines when nothing could be further from the truth and indeed parties rely upon it (consider that middle class people don't all vote Liberal).

It would be silly to look at society purely in terms of class, but that is sort of my point. Humans are not black and white, which is why it is important for those in control to try and force black and white identities like class. It's not going neatly categorise the entire population, but it's still a very important ally.

>Keep in mind as well that class identity in British politics is not something confined to wealth or power metrics but instead comes from multiple sources like geography and associations. Your theory that the working class have been brainwashed into hating immigrants is a fallacy both because it assumes that anti-immigrant sentiment is confined to the working class and that it is something that is kept alive artificially when as Marx himself admitted of the Irish

Of course anti-immigration isn't confined to the working classes. Those of a higher class have the luxury of disliking all classes lower than them. The point is that immigrants are a class that the working class can look down upon as well. It provides a sense of value because there's no fucking chance the higher classes are going to make them feel valued.

I will check the Dan Carlin podcast out, heard a lot of good things about it.
>> No. 83031 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 9:05 pm
83031 spacer
>>83027
It is true that you can quantify social class by an objective economic materialism but we are talking about class as a socio-political identity which repels neat objectivity. Don't be fooled by the rocks J-Lo's got she's still Jenny from the block.

Yes I suppose you can sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter for the purposes of what we're talking about.

>>83028
Well firstly a 'psychopath' is not some neatly defined thing but on the surface no, I do not have a problem with someone suffering a mental disorder running for office or even winning a democratic election. If I judge their actions and beliefs as against my own convictions then I will vote for someone else and have faith the public will adopt a similar position but I not will deny someone their political rights from prejudice.

Anyway we're heading into the field of psychology which is interesting given the history of political abuse. This would be the primary reason for my objection and why I'm emphasising the power this hands to the state.

>You probably don't have an issue stopping 9 year olds from being politicians do you?

That would effectively be representation without taxation and a question not of removing a right held (as with mental illness) but when a right is conferred.

>The point is that immigrants are a class that the working class can look down upon as well. It provides a sense of value because there's no fucking chance the higher classes are going to make them feel valued.

No I think you are still falling into reductionism on this only in the opposite way. There are a host of reasons someone might dislike immigrants whether it be a fear of someones surroundings are changing (taken over), economic competition or as you seem to suggest just because they are bullies.

Thing is though that working class culture also provides a value of its own just as family and nation do. Indeed the working class can also in their own way be snobby of the toffs which is hardly helpful for social control by the establishment.
>> No. 83032 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 10:26 pm
83032 spacer
>>83024
>The whole point of democracy is that anyone can have a go and its up to the rest of us to put them in power
I mean, this point is already highly compromised by our party-system.

>>83027
There's a difference between Class in marxist terms and the British class system.
One is a relationship to the means of production, the other is a social position.


Anyway, an idea on controlling who gets to be elected and that: Fuck around with the rules on broadcasting, etc, to disadvantage certain types of people.

This doesn't even have to be totalitarian, you can just get the broadcasters to agree to stuff. For example in a great book on the 1979 election, it noted that lots of news people were suggesting the networks should all agree to deny coverage to political events staged purely for TV cameras. They sadly don't appear to have done this - but consider, for example, if we were spared the strategically filmed pictures of Theresa May addressing a crowd of 50 through the narrowest lens possible (Look how crowded that aircraft hanger looks!) - if the cameramen said "No, look, we're showing them you're as popular as Cancer or we're using the timeslot to talk about gardening in East Timor."

Plus we could impose my pet project: Politicians must wear shock collars. Whenever they trail off into a party strapline ("Strong and Stable", "Stronger for Scotland", "If you value it, Vote for it.") or egregiously try to dodge the question they get shocked. This can be broadened as is necessary to ensure political debate never becomes tedious.
>> No. 83036 Anonymous
24th June 2017
Saturday 11:35 pm
83036 spacer
>>83031
>That would effectively be representation without taxation
Yet we still let benefit scroungers vote.
>> No. 83039 Anonymous
25th June 2017
Sunday 2:44 am
83039 spacer
>>83036
VAT solves all ills.
>> No. 83041 Anonymous
25th June 2017
Sunday 3:10 am
83041 spacer
>>83032

If we want better candidates, we need to pay MPs more and stop treating them like shit.

The vast majority of parliamentarians could be earning far more in the private sector. The base salary for an MP is about the same as that for the headmaster of a mid-sized secondary school. Most MPs have an utterly nightmarish commute. The hours are ridiculously long and you've got to deal with an endless procession of cunts. On top of that, you're pretty much guaranteed to be utterly vilified by half the public, regardless of what you do. The best you can hope for is a cozy post-politics rehabilitation via some kind of reality programme, but you'll probably be remembered as some cunt who cut something/put my taxes up/got mauled by Paxman/forgot a number.

Of course we get venal, power-hungry lunatics. Nobody in their right mind who is remotely qualified would willingly take the job. It's an unremitting slog, for which the only real perk is a shabby kind of c-list fame. You'd be better off going on Big Brother and sticking a bottle up your fanny.

The good Miliband has fucked off to America to be a Thunderbird. The baby of the house can't stand the place. Nearly all of the non-cunty MPs have been in Westminster for so long that they're institutionalised, like an old lag who keeps getting nicked so he can go back home - Ken Clarke, Paul Flynn, Frank Dobson et al.
>> No. 83042 Anonymous
25th June 2017
Sunday 3:29 am
83042 spacer
>>83041
The idea of qualification seems a bit concerning. I can't help but read it as a euphemism for "Think-Tank centrist" - maybe because of the idea there's a good Miliband. (If there is a good one of the weirdo bunch, it's surely Ed in his true calling as a Radio presenter.)

Not to say I'm against paying MPs more (If I thought it would definitely mean "Ed out, IEA in" then I'd want them on poverty wages.) by default, I'm just skeptical of the qualification argument. (It would also seem to overlook any ideological aims in parliament. I mean, I'd endure shit conditions if I thought it'd actually meaningfully change the way things were run.)

I wonder if there's any good data on the SNP crop from 2015 that could be looked at for this. I bet that in their scramble for candidates, they had a good mix of people trained through the ranks (Councillor > MSP > MP or such.), people qualified in various sectors, people from in dodgy think-tanks, and random crazies plucked off the street because the polls said that even an Englishman in a yellow rosette could take a seat.

Maybe not, though.
>> No. 83051 Anonymous
25th June 2017
Sunday 12:53 pm
83051 spacer
>>83041
Mhairi Black is an annoying cunt regardless.
>> No. 83067 Anonymous
26th June 2017
Monday 10:30 pm
83067 spacer
>>83031

>Well firstly a 'psychopath' is not some neatly defined thing but on the surface no, I do not have a problem with someone suffering a mental disorder running for office or even winning a democratic election. If I judge their actions and beliefs as against my own convictions then I will vote for someone else and have faith the public will adopt a similar position but I not will deny someone their political rights from prejudice.

I admire the sentiment, and it would be nice not to have to filter people out because no doubt that could be abused too, but some common sense needs to be applied at the same time. Let me ask, would you like to know if a politician has a mental health issue of the kind that can fuel the need for power? They can still run and be voted for, but would you be against it being compulsory to disclose it?

And anyway the whole process of voting for one person/party is inherently prejudicial, which is amplified by the party/left/right political system.

>That would effectively be representation without taxation and a question not of removing a right held (as with mental illness) but when a right is conferred.

So the 9 year old part isn't a problem too?

>No I think you are still falling into reductionism on this only in the opposite way. There are a host of reasons someone might dislike immigrants whether it be a fear of someones surroundings are changing (taken over), economic competition or as you seem to suggest just because they are bullies.

All these reasons you suggest are based on the perception that immigrants are of a lower class/social standing and do not deserve the life that the working and upper classes supposedly deserve. It's not so much bullying, more just the preservation of identity fuelled by fear. The British identity is one of the only identities they have left to cling on to that doesn't automatically turn them into worthless shite that can be mocked and laughed at.

>Thing is though that working class culture also provides a value of its own just as family and nation do.

It certainly does, but it's not a value the higher classes give a shit about.

>Indeed the working class can also in their own way be snobby of the toffs which is hardly helpful for social control by the establishment.

I think they can handle it.
>> No. 83068 Anonymous
26th June 2017
Monday 10:40 pm
83068 spacer

Jimmy-Savile-photographed-in-2007.jpg
830688306883068
>>83067
>So the 9 year old part isn't a problem too?
The 9 year old part is never a problem.
>> No. 83069 Anonymous
27th June 2017
Tuesday 1:20 am
83069 spacer

Xw4srN6.jpg
830698306983069
>>83067
>Let me ask, would you like to know if a politician has a mental health issue of the kind that can fuel the need for power? They can still run and be voted for, but would you be against it being compulsory to disclose it?

No I do not feel like this should be something subject to public disclosure because as you are demonstrating it opens the door to all manner of prejudice. If you truly think that people with the disorders associated with psychopathy can only be evil then why don't we just lock them up and throw away the key? Why give the pretense that they are sentient beings at all when unlike everyone else they can be judged not by their words and actions but by a black mark on a medical record?

Without wanting to repeat myself I can understand why you might like this idea, volumes have been written on diagnosing historical bogeymen with whatever illness is in fashion and it is comforting to neatly sort them into some other rather than a face what lurks in all of us. The thing is good and bad are not so neatly sorted when it comes to real people, you can talk of risk factors all you want but what you really suggest is the ability to judge innocent men and women as guilty almost from birth. This isn't a rigorous competence evaluation it is a witch-hunt.

I hope you liked my Captain Picard impression, I watched The Drumhead earlier.

>So the 9 year old part isn't a problem too?

If 9 year olds had all the bullshit that comes with being an adult citizen (and weren't in compulsory education) then I would be hard pressed to argue against it. This is a slippery slope because the real issue we're going to hit is one of mental competence but I don't look good enough in all black to start stripping the mentally handicapped of their fundamental rights.

>All these reasons you suggest are based on the perception that immigrants are of a lower class/social standing and do not deserve the life that the working and upper classes supposedly deserve.

Well yes, they are not citizens. Unless you are going to go full abolish all borders a national society has the right to control who comes into it and people have a right to complain if immigration is eroding (economically) social contract or erasing local culture rather than enriching.

>It certainly does, but it's not a value the higher classes give a shit about.

I'd say the higher classes have given a shit about working class culture since at least the time of Chartism if not before by risk and imitated with some affection the working class in phenomena such as Britpop.
>> No. 83070 Anonymous
27th June 2017
Tuesday 1:44 am
83070 spacer
>>83069
>Why give the pretense that they are sentient beings at all when unlike everyone else they can be judged not by their words and actions but by a black mark on a medical record?
That'll be because, unlike everyone else, their words and actions cannot be trusted. Even addicts can be trusted - you know that their words will be hollow and their actions treacherous.

>Well yes, they are not citizens.
Everyone's a citizen of somewhere. Borders are arbitrary lines on the ground, and citizenship is an accident of birth. Being born on the wrong side of some made-up boundary doesn't make you any less of a person and shouldn't entitle you to any less favourable treatment.

>people have a right to complain if immigration is eroding (economically) social contract or erasing local culture rather than enriching.
Only if this is actually happening, rather than being the figment of their imagination (which it is almost every time).
>> No. 83071 Anonymous
27th June 2017
Tuesday 3:03 am
83071 spacer
While we're talking about borders can I just say what a bastard it is that having a British passport doesn't immediately entitle you to permanent residency in the white commonwealth?
Because it's a bastard. And I don't like it. And it isn't good. And other similar statements.
>> No. 83072 Anonymous
27th June 2017
Tuesday 3:18 am
83072 spacer
>>83070
>Borders are arbitrary
They most certainly aren't. Do you know what arbitrary means?
>> No. 83073 Anonymous
27th June 2017
Tuesday 3:38 am
83073 spacer
>>83072
Fine. Third world borders are arbitrary because of white people.
>> No. 83074 Anonymous
27th June 2017
Tuesday 9:01 am
83074 spacer
>>83072
>Do you know what arbitrary means?
Yes, but evidently you don't.
>> No. 83076 Anonymous
30th June 2017
Friday 2:24 am
83076 spacer
>>83069
>Well yes, they are not citizens. Unless you are going to go full abolish all borders a national society has the right to control who comes into it and people have a right to complain if immigration is eroding (economically) social contract or erasing local culture rather than enriching.

In the same episode you quoted Picard talks about how any kind of prejudice or curtailing of freedom, no matter how minor or seemingly justified, is the first link in the chain which binds us all irrevocably. He chastised the entire court (and Worf) for being ready to "extinguish a man because he carries the blood of a current enemy", hardly gels with your anti-immigrant rhetoric.

In later episodes he would argue that a culture of one was just as valid as a culture of one billion, warn a man torturing him in the Cardassian equivalent of Guantanamo Bay that once children learn to devalue others they can devalue anyone and even offer asylum to a member of the borg.
>> No. 83077 Anonymous
30th June 2017
Friday 2:55 am
83077 spacer
>>83073

>Fine. Third world borders are arbitrary because of white people.

The Marxist infection is strong in this one.
>> No. 83078 Anonymous
30th June 2017
Friday 3:02 am
83078 spacer
>>83076

Do all students talk with such tepid cuntery or are they all just dribbly bellends.
>> No. 83079 Anonymous
30th June 2017
Friday 3:26 am
83079 spacer
>>83078
A surprisingly large number of disproportionately successful and influential people take Star Trek very seriously (rightly in my opinion, but it doesn't even matter). Just providing some context. No need to get arsey.
>> No. 83080 Anonymous
30th June 2017
Friday 7:04 am
83080 spacer
>>83079
>A surprisingly large number of disproportionately successful and influential people take Star Trek very seriously

Citation needed.
>> No. 83081 Anonymous
30th June 2017
Friday 8:02 am
83081 spacer
>>83080

Richard Branson, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are all massive Star Trek fans; it played a major role in inspiring their private space race. Bezos has a vast collection of sci-fi memorabilia and had a cameo in Star Trek: Beyond. Branson named his first spacecraft the VSS Enterprise.

https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/09/without-star-trek-there-would-be-no-spacex-or-blue-origins/
>> No. 83082 Anonymous
30th June 2017
Friday 9:05 am
83082 spacer
>>83077
What's wrong with that statement, racist lad?
>> No. 83083 Anonymous
1st July 2017
Saturday 1:27 am
83083 spacer
>>83070
>That'll be because, unlike everyone else, their words and actions cannot be trusted.

Look I've dropped the hint a few times now and you still haven't picked up on it, psychopathy is not a disorder recognised by mainstream psychiatry and with good reason as it shows a cluster of conditions. A psychopath is a cultural label subjectively defined by television and spread by the gutter press to give a simple narrative for the plebs.

Again though, why don't we just lock these undesirables up under our flimsy understanding of the human mind? Better yet why don't we instead maintain and improve our system of checks and balances because people in general cannot be trusted with power?

>Everyone's a citizen of somewhere. Borders are arbitrary lines on the ground, and citizenship is an accident of birth. Being born on the wrong side of some made-up boundary doesn't make you any less of a person and shouldn't entitle you to any less favourable treatment.

The vast VAST majority of international custom, law, society and theory says otherwise. Citizenship is a thing we own in common that arguably forms the basis of our system of government, one that comes with responsibilities as well as privileges and almost by definition a society has every right to restrict its membership just as I can't walk into your home and start smoking all your weed.

I mean ask yourself, how exactly is democracy going to work if the right to vote in any election is open to all?

>Only if this is actually happening, rather than being the figment of their imagination (which it is almost every time).

No we can see the impact of immigration on the labour market just as we can see immigrant communities coming to dominate local areas. I think I pointed out to you a few days ago that even Marx accepted the way immigration was used by the bourgeoisie to undermine local workers.

Perhaps this could change if we had strong labour rights and some Singapore style quota system but then that opens up its own myriad problems.

>>83076
Actually the accused was a Federation citizen, this was a trial for treason and Picard accepted that his Starfleet career was over even though he lied to get around some rule (I think, Trek society was always a little ambiguous). The episode concerns more fundamental principles of jurisprudence in criminal law just as the Data trial was about human sentient rights centering around bodily sovereignty.

Not that I'm sure you can use Picard as some model, I merely brought him up to excuse my pompous speech. Picard was also willing to ethnically cleanse Native Americans, enforced rigid rules on Feddie membership and all that post-Vietnam non-intervention nonsense that bled into the series so a species couldn't be told they were smoking space-crack.

>>83078
The attempts to browbeat with assumed ethical superiority over facts points more to far-left circles that exclude outside opinion. Academia tends to be more selective unless you go to some circus like Brighton.
>> No. 83084 Anonymous
1st July 2017
Saturday 4:02 am
83084 spacer
>>83083
>Again though, why don't we just lock these undesirables up under our flimsy understanding of the human mind?
We don't need to lock them up. We just need to prevent them from getting into a position where they can do harm to others.

>Better yet why don't we instead maintain and improve our system of checks and balances
Because then we'd never get anything done. Everything would be tied up in knots in legislative and judicial procedure.

>because people in general cannot be trusted with power?
Not people in general, just certain classes of people, the well-documented and plentifully-evident existence of which you insist on denying.

>The vast VAST majority of international custom, law, society and theory says otherwise
Do go on. I'd love to hear more on your theory of how international law says that people who happen to be born on the wrong side of a completely made-up line in the sand are somehow subhuman scum. Yes, that is in fact what you've just said.

>I mean ask yourself, how exactly is democracy going to work if the right to vote in any election is open to all?
Erm, more or less exactly the same way it works right now. Remember that whole "no taxation without representation" thing?

>No we can see the impact of immigration on the labour market
Namely, almost bugger all. There is no evidence whatsoever of any significant detrimental impact on the labour market or on wages. "Waaaah I can't get a job cuz all dem forriners" is not evidence of anything.
>> No. 83085 Anonymous
1st July 2017
Saturday 5:14 am
83085 spacer
>>83083

>psychopathy is not a disorder recognised by mainstream psychiatry

We just renamed it as antisocial personality disorder. The DSM and ICD criteria for ASPD align very closely with the popular understanding of psychopathy. A lot of entirely legitimate researchers and clinicians use the term "psychopathy" as a synonym for or a category distinct from ASPD.
>> No. 83088 Anonymous
2nd July 2017
Sunday 9:40 am
83088 spacer
>>83084
>We don't need to lock them up. We just need to prevent them from getting into a position where they can do harm to others.

I'm sure you are aware that being out in the public is a position where you can do harm to others, this is half the reason someone can end up sectioned. The point is in your mind that such people cannot be trusted so why are you trusting them...

>Not people in general, just certain classes of people, the well-documented and plentifully-evident existence of which you insist on denying.

Oh right, I'm trying not to jump to conclusions here but am I correct in thinking that this test for psychopathy or whatever you want would-be MPs put through would include questions that are of a certain political bent. Specifically whether they conform to your ethics?

Moving on we already have checks and balances within our system through Parliament and some nations go much further without getting themselves tied into knots. We have this because historical experience generally shows that vesting absolute power in the hands of one man is an incredibly naive idea with a perfect example in the kings of Rome or more local from Charles I to the Glorious Revolution.

>Do go on. I'd love to hear more on your theory of how international law says that people who happen to be born on the wrong side of a completely made-up line in the sand are somehow subhuman scum. Yes, that is in fact what you've just said.

No I did not, calm yourself. Anyway the principles of jus soli (right by soil) and jus sanguinis (right by blood) are rather definitive on this and serve as the starting points of nationality law which barring a few exceptions is an internal affair covered by national sovereignty.

Once this citizenship is conferred you hold the rights as a citizen including the right to run or vote for someone who wishes to raise barriers for aliens seeking to acquire citizenship. Aliens I need to point out (for some reason) don't hold the right to vote in national elections and who are not covered by representation rights because its context under the Bill of Rights 1689 is specifically referring to Englishmen i.e. citizens.

>There is no evidence whatsoever of any significant detrimental impact on the labour market or on wages.

"The static results suggest that the statistically significant negative effects of immigration on wages are concentrated among skilled production workers, and semi/unskilled service workers. In the latter cases, the coefficients indicates that a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants working in semi/unskilled services — that is, in care homes, bars, shops, restaurants, cleaning, for example — leads to a 1.88 percent reduction in pay."

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf#page=23

10 seconds on google.

>>83085
>We just renamed it as antisocial personality disorder.

No they differ diagnostically for reasons I have outlined that psychopathy is open to subjectivity and furthermore ASPD operates on a spectrum. That someone is advocating denying someone the right to stand for office based on a criteria they clearly don't understand it is significant.
>> No. 83089 Anonymous
2nd July 2017
Sunday 11:41 am
83089 spacer
>>83088
>I'm sure you are aware that being out in the public is a position where you can do harm to others
Yes, but then I'm sure you are aware that you're taking the piss, since we're talking specifically about being in a position of power.

>No I did not, calm yourself
Actually, yes, you did. The exact word with which you disagreed were "doesn't make you any less of a person". By disagreeing, you are, in fact, saying that it does make you less of a person.

>10 seconds on google.
No, that report is not evidence of "significant detrimental impact". It even says so right there in the abstract.
>> No. 83168 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 9:23 pm
83168 spacer
>>83088

Vesting power in a small group of people is better is it?

Did you know that the supposed democracy we have in this country is actually a vote to give away democracy for 4 years?

From time to time you get some bullshit referendum like leaving the EU - it was amazing how many people were suddenly experts on the EU and knew exactly what was going to happen. No one fucking knows! Why are we suddenly voting for these extremely complicated and abstract ideas? Because you're not allowed to vote on anything you truly understand or want. Where's the referendum to erase all debt?

The public can vote for reality TV stars on Big Brother, or for performers on Britain's Got Talent - these programmes provide enough illusion of democracy and power to satisfy the public and keep them apathetic.

>"The static results suggest that the statistically significant negative effects of immigration on wages are concentrated among skilled production workers, and semi/unskilled service workers. In the latter cases, the coefficients indicates that a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants working in semi/unskilled services — that is, in care homes, bars, shops, restaurants, cleaning, for example — leads to a 1.88 percent reduction in pay."

Does this mean immigration is bad, or the people who employ and take advantage of immigrants are bad?

>No they differ diagnostically for reasons I have outlined that psychopathy is open to subjectivity and furthermore ASPD operates on a spectrum. That someone is advocating denying someone the right to stand for office based on a criteria they clearly don't understand it is significant.

You can label the condition what you want, it's the behaviour that matters. The brain can suffer problems just like any other organ, that doesn't mean they are a bad person or incurable, but if there is a problem I want to know about it. If someone running for prime minister had cancer, I would want to know that too.

All I know about Theresa May is that she's an apparent devout Christian married to a banker, and the worst thing she's ever done is run through a wheat field despite selling a load of killing machines to a country like Saudi Arabia that likes killing things. Can the public section Mrs May?
>> No. 83169 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 9:27 pm
83169 spacer
>>83168
>Does this mean immigration is bad, or the people who employ and take advantage of immigrants are bad?
It means >>83088 apparently can't do maths.
>> No. 83173 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 11:23 pm
83173 spacer
>>83089
>Actually, yes, you did. The exact word with which you disagreed were "doesn't make you any less of a person". By disagreeing, you are, in fact, saying that it does make you less of a person.

Is there really any point in talking to you when your position is automatically "anyone or anything that disagrees with me is racist" including widely recognised concepts like borders and nationality?

I mean I did just assume we were wasting our time here but here we go and the thread is back up.

>No, that report is not evidence of "significant detrimental impact". It even says so right there in the abstract.

Read the quote then do a Ctrl+f and understand the context. Abstract browsers are on par with people who try and bullshit you on what footnotes say.

>>83168
>Vesting power in a small group of people is better is it?

I wouldn't call the checks and balances we have in modern society small. Certainly it could be bigger in some areas but if cabinet tried to pass some nonsense today you can imagine the uphill battle they would face against backbenchers, the media, potential protests, facebook memes etc.

The rest just seems like some mental rant about people being thick or whatever which while I agree with I'm not entirely sure if it is relevant or that you understand what checks and balances mean.

>Does this mean immigration is bad, or the people who employ and take advantage of immigrants are bad?

It means workers in certain industries have a valid argument that immigration is in fact bad for their socioeconomic conditions.

>You can label the condition what you want, it's the behaviour that matters. The brain can suffer problems just like any other organ, that doesn't mean they are a bad person or incurable, but if there is a problem I want to know about it. If someone running for prime minister had cancer, I would want to know that too.

You see you start off well enough that yes, we must judge people for who they are not who they were born but then you start talking about how we should publish MPs medical records because they might be hiding cancer...
>> No. 83174 Anonymous
15th July 2017
Saturday 11:39 pm
83174 spacer
>>83173
>Is there really any point in talking to you when your position is automatically "anyone or anything that disagrees with me is racist" including widely recognised concepts like borders and nationality?
Put that straw man away, lad. My position is "anyone or anything that disagrees with me does not agree with me".

>Read the quote then do a Ctrl+f and understand the context
It's your argument. Chapter and verse to support your claim that the report claims "substantial detrimental impact". I suspect you can't provide one because either the report doesn't say what you think it says or you just can't add up.
>> No. 83209 Anonymous
7th August 2017
Monday 8:33 pm
83209 spacer
>I wouldn't call the checks and balances we have in modern society small. Certainly it could be bigger in some areas but if cabinet tried to pass some nonsense today you can imagine the uphill battle they would face against backbenchers, the media, potential protests, facebook memes etc.

They pass nonsense all the time, with the help of the media of course. Protests and facebook memes are laughable and change nothing.

>The rest just seems like some mental rant about people being thick or whatever which while I agree with I'm not entirely sure if it is relevant or that you understand what checks and balances mean.

It's not just that people have been conditioned to be thick, people have also been conditioned (by the media they consume) to think they know what's going on and what the correct decision is to be made on things like "Brexit".

>You see you start off well enough that yes, we must judge people for who they are not who they were born but then you start talking about how we should publish MPs medical records because they might be hiding cancer...

I'm struggling to see what the issue is with knowing an MP's medical record? I don't give a shit if they had gonorrhoea 20 years ago, but there are certain things which are important to know if they want to be in charge of a country.
>> No. 83210 Anonymous
7th August 2017
Monday 8:43 pm
83210 spacer
>>83209
Well worth the bump, mate.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password