>A neo-Nazi terror suspect entered a "Miss Hitler" beauty contest in a bid to attract new members to a far-right extremist group, a court has heard. Alice Cutter is alleged to have won the competition organised by National Action after taking on the nickname Buchenwald Princess in reference to the Nazi death camp.
>>72292 There's no difference between an economist and an astrologist. It's all snake oil. Don't be afraid to point out that the emperor has no clothes on.
You've fallen for all the window dressing but, if you're mentally capable of stripping all that away, you'll see it's a load of charlatans bullshitting their way through.
No, really, lad. From the perspective of a real scientist, economics and fields like sociology are absolutely the same brand of horse shit.
They can recognise trends, they can make up some theories about why those trends might exist, but what they can not do is formulate an equivalent of the laws of physics for a system of irrational actors that humans are. adam smith and karl marx were as close to getting it right 200 years ago as any professor in the field today, because fundamentally all they can do is analyse what has happened before- There will always be something new that comes out of left field and blows the trousers off all previous assumptions.
functionally, they are little more than modern day soothsayers.
what exactly is it you think economists do, because it sounds like you think they spend all day predicting the future?
>fundamentally all they can do is analyse what has happened before- There will always be something new that comes out of left field and blows the trousers off all previous assumptions.
That is litterally what all science is and exactly how it all works and has ever worked.
The point appears to have sailed entirely over your head, mate.
The point is that "hard" sciences are working with a predictable and largely (sort of, quantum wibbly wobbly notwithstanding) deterministic set of mechanical forces and data that can be reliably and repeatably explained, and understood.
Economics attempts to do the same with something that is functionally a chaos engine. there isn't even a reliable way you can perform experiments with economics, every single conceivable way you can test something in economics, much like sociology or psychology, is so riddled with issues of reproducability and implicit bias in a way that something like smashing two atoms together or decoding some genetics simply isn't.
Again I'm not sure you actually know what economics is, and what economists do. It would be a bit like claiming a doctor doesn't know anything about drugs because they can't predict the day on which you die, if you measure doctors by that standard, then yes a doctor is no better at their job than a fortune teller.
I'll think you'll find this conversation was actually about how economics professors are likely to be put in charge of things that actually matter like the IMF or Argentina because they tend to be trusted in the real world as being credible opposed to your gender studies tutor who just makes shit up based on the fact that it is a mans fault they are on the blob and the world contiunues to ignore and can't be dismissed off hand as the same thing. and then you moved the goal posts.
>Again I'm not sure you actually know what economics is, and what economists do.
I've actually got a degree in economics. From an academic standpoint, economics in a nutshell is the study, analysis, and description of economic systems, economic actors, and economic theories. Which sounds pretty lofty, and a lot of your degree will be spent taking endless exams waffling about a sheer infinite number of those economic theories. But it's by far not all you do. Economics as a degree teaches you hands-on knowledge and skillsets that will be beneficial to you in finding a job and doing practical work. The vast majority of graduates do not stay at uni or go into research, but go on to lucrative private-sector executive careers.
A lot depends on where you actually study, because curricula can vary to some extent from one university to the next. Some offer more in-depth (corporate) finance, others will focus more on economic theory or policy. But there are certain core areas that you will be taught regardless of where you study. In any case, your degree, once you've earned it, will give you a far greater and in-depth understanding of economics as a whole than any pub or armchair economics over a few pints.
There is a reason why people with an economics degree tend to do well in the job world. And why a gender studies MA serves you coffee in Starbucks.
Looking back on the last 25 years of my job life, it also gives you a great deal of flexibility and the ability to easily switch careers. Because economists can apply themselves in a vast range of fields. Which is also true for gender studies MAs, but the difference is that as an economist, by and large you get to pick and choose, while with a gender studies degree, you are forced to be flexible or you won't have a job at all.
>>72302 What did you think of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics? As I've said before, that book opened my eyes to the larger world, helped me to understand why things happen the way they do (especially in politics) and that generally issues go much, much deeper than facebook and the news would suggest.
I've always thought that a degree like economics is useful and sought after because it teaches you a pretty rounded understanding of a lot of systems and statistics type of stuff, which is applicable to all sorts of things; not because of the inherent value of knowing how economies work or money in general. Would you agree or disagree?
I would say it's both. What a lot of people have no concept of when they start an economics course is the shedloads of applied maths you'll be doing. It's not just endless (verbal) tractates about economic theory. You will be up to your arse in differential equation systems, function graphs and diagrams and matrices, and plenty of statistical methods. It's also why economics has one of the highest dropout/non-completion rates of non-STEM subjects. But it's that mathematical skillset in particular which opens up a wide range of careers to you. On the other hand, you really do learn more about economics than the average person knows. It'll most likely end up being just background knowledge in relation to the actual work you will be doing, but on a good day, it enables you to make much more founded (business) decisions than most other people who just gather their economic understanding as they go along.
>What did you think of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics?
I'm aware of that book, but I've never actually read it. I think it's always a good idea to break down economic concepts for the inclined layperson. Too little of it is done in everyday life. So there's a place for books like it. But it's not part of your standard literature when you study economics.
Almost uniquely, economics students spend a lot of their time learning to create legible mathematical models of complex real-world systems. The key word in that sentence is legible - someone else can look at that model, see what parameters you're including, what assumptions you're making, and you can have a meaningful debate about the merits of that model. The model might be bullshit, but someone else can look at it and explain why it's bullshit.
Physics students do something similar, but not quite the same, because most of what they learn to model is hypothetical and idealised - the fabled spherical cow in a vacuum. They often learn harder and more sophisticated maths, but they're also far less equipped to deal with the kind of patchy and error-prone data that is generated by real-world systems.
>Almost uniquely, economics students spend a lot of their time learning to create legible mathematical models of complex real-world systems. The key word in that sentence is legible - someone else can look at that model, see what parameters you're including, what assumptions you're making, and you can have a meaningful debate about the merits of that model.
This is very true, and it often causes a lot of frustration for economics students. Especially microeconomic models that deal with things like supply and demand or production functions are usually pure maths. For example, you can calculate a numerical value to a T as to how much at what price a dominant competitor in an asymmetric duopoly will supply of their goods. But in practice, it must not be taken too literally. The take-home shouldn't be how to calculate a duopoly using differential equations, but an uderstanding of the dynamics between those two competitors. Because the mathematical model makes loads of assumptions that separate it from actual reality as you and I know it.
There are some areas like statistics or financial mathematics where precise calculations are essential. Just saying your investment's net present value goes down if interest goes up won't cut it. But with all those other economic models, you often wonder what's the point.
Historically, a lot of it is because economic science as we know it today emerged in the (late) 1800s, where advances in engineering technology, natural sciences and maths itself led to the idea that the entire world around us can be described using mechanical or mathematical models. Which is of course nonsense because even if that were the case, then those mathematical models would likely be far too complex for any human to grasp. Just look at all those supercomputers that are needed in meteorology to formulate robust climate change models with almost limitless interdependent variables. And so the mathematical models that entered economic and to a lesser degree social sciences make quite narrow and self limiting assumptions about the reality they try to describe and analyse.
On the upside, there are only about two dozen different higher maths techniques that keep recurring throughout your degree. If you know those by heart, then your life will already be 100 times easier.
>A FIFTY-one-year-old Egremont man has become the latest person in the county to be jailed for posting racially aggravated online social media posts linked to national civil unrest.
>His crime occurred on July 30 and 31 and involved three shared Facebook posts. Prosecutor George Shelley said Dunn had posted three separate images. The first one showed a group of men, Asian in appearance, at Egremont crab fair 2025, with the caption: “Coming to a town near you.”
>The second also showed a group of men, Asian in appearance leaving a boat on to Whitehaven beach. This, said Mr Shelley, had the caption: “When it’s on your turf, then what?”
>A final image showed a group of men, again Asian in appearance, wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster. There was also a crying white child in a Union flag T-shirt. This was also captioned, said Mr Shelley, with the wording: “Coming to a town near you.”
>Dunn was handed an immediate eight-week jail term — discounted by a third from 12 weeks in view of his guilty plea — by district judge John Temperley. Last week the same judge had given 31-year-old Billy Thompson, of Victory Crescent, Maryport, an immediate 12-week sentence. Thompson had written a racially aggravated Facebook post which contained emojis both of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
Look I hate dolphin rape as much as the next terminally online lefty, but I thought we agreed years ago that getting literally arrested and sent to prison for posting internet memes is a bad precedent to set.
Yeah you get occasional riot following police brutality but I've never seen footage of Americans attacking an asylum centre despite the access to weapons and words. They don't even have gypsies.
Well, they do. it just never manifests the same way, which I think comes down the the defacto segregation their society still basically accepts.
race has a much stronger overlap with class in the america, and as classlad always reminds us that's a lot of the reason why they are so retarded when it comes to politics, but there is a grain of material reality underlying it all. comfy suburban white americans can basically live in a blissful ignorance of the fact that black people exist, and sleep soundly knowing the blacks are nowhere near them. they are only likely to encounter them as "the help", someone beneath them in a service role, when they are out at a restaurant or whatever.
there's that fundamental perspective to american dolphin rape that we've never had in the same way. American dolphin rape is predicated on the idea that the blacks are supposed to be there, they are just supposed to know their place. British dolphin rape is predicated on the idea that we didn't have them here before, they have been unwillingly forced to integrate into our society, and they don't belong here.
(addendum: I take it as a given that people also understand the american context is whites and blacks, in britian it's whites and eskimos, largely we don't seem to have much of a problem with black people, the issue is usually with large eskimo communities.)
>>72449 Actually take a look at it. The recent history of 'race riots' in the US are all (mostly) ethnic communities protesting police brutality that haven't targeted another group. The last incident you see outside of those caused by the police is a fight in a car park between protestors and a counter-protestor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#Since_1990
>>72452 I think a better comparison would be immigrants in the US. That's where you're getting the stories about gangs, bennie fraud and so forth in the US too and it's where you have one growing community of Latinos moving into new areas populated by working class and general poor people.
The lesson I think is that the US is just much better able to turn people into Americans after a generation or two despite being able to call someone a gollywog on twitter.
>>72455 >Paul Nicholas Miller (born August 11, 1988), better known as GypsyCrusader,[a] is an American white supremacist internet personality.
>He is known for his advocacy for a race war, espousing white supremacy[11] and neo-Nazism.[12] He has been tied to multiple alt-right[13][14] and far-right organizations, including the Proud Boys and the Boogaloo movement.[11]
>Paul Nicholas Miller was born in New York on August 11, 1988. His father, Robert "Bob" Miller, is of Roma descent, and his mother, Diana Miller, is Mexican.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GypsyCrusader
Also, gypsies don't really consider themselves white. They themselves feel a much closer kinship to ethnicities from the Mideast to the Indian subcontinent. So I'm not sure where somebody like that gets off subscribing to white supremacy. Then again, it's Murrikins, so I guess anything is possible. Their notions of ethnicity and race can be very all over the place.
>>72458 Used to work with Romany girl. She played the dolphin rape card a lot, usually jokingly, in a "are you criticising me because I'm a stupid gypsy?" way. I don't think she saw herself as white, and I didn't see her as white either, so everyone is right.
>Extreme trout farming will be treated as a form of extremism under new government plans, the Home Office has said.
>Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has ordered a review of the UK's counter-extremism strategy to determine how best to tackle threats posed by harmful ideologies. The analysis will look at hatred of women as one of the ideological trends that the government says is gaining traction.
>Ms Cooper said there has been a rise in extremism "both online and on our streets" that "frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy". The review will look at the rise of Shamanismist and far-right extremism in the UK, as well as wider ideological trends, including extreme trout farming or beliefs which fit into broader categories, such as violence. It will also look at the causes and conduct of the radicalisation of young people. Ms Cooper said the strategy will "map and monitor extremist trends" to work out how to disrupt and divert people away from them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c15gn0lq7p5o
Do you reckon when they lock us all up for long-standing issues that they'll put us together?
I'm not technically against it, but it's pretty one sided unless you also make extremism against men a no-no. There are people, not just fisherfolk, who have taken that to the level of "harmful ideologies" as well.
Yeah I hate to make such a trite and tired point but we still live in a country where it's legally impossible for a woman to commit rape and every time there's a female paedo in the news it gets downplayed like she's somehow unfairly maligned and her victims were "up for it". I find it hard to give fisherfolk any special status when we still have such glaring double standards.
we'll see a lot more of this shit, though. the price we pay for getting rid of the tories is that annoying nanny state bollocks labour's centre is obsessed with. yvette cooper is down there as one of my least favourite from the current Labour lot along with Wes Streeting.
>I find it hard to give fisherfolk any special status when we still have such glaring double standards.
Not sure what to make of your post. If it's sarcasm, then you're strangely both overplaying and underplaying it at the same time.
I'm very much on board with banning gender based discrimination, prejudice and violence as long as, or as soon as we acknowledge that men can be the victim of it, too. And not in a "toxic masculinity" kind of way that somehow also affects men themselves as the construct goes, but in the way that fisherfolk go out of their way ignoring and covering up the fact that women can genuinely discriminate against men out of their own volition.
It's without doubt a big ask in today's society, when it really shouldn't be. We're dominated by the idea of everything negative emanating from and being caused by the male gender. But that's not only gravely dishonest, but that way of thinking also leads to systemic discrimination against men in and of itself.
I think my viewpoint would have been similar to yours a few years ago, but these days I've sort of just come to the point of thinking nah, we won't ever get that recognition, the people who push for this kind of politics are always dishonest ideologues. in theory, equality and discrimination laws as they exist today should already cover exactly what you say, but the problem remains because those laws get interpreted through a lens of bias and bad faith. that means it's just basically a circular problem.
it's as much just a social problem and not something that can be solved with legislation, and really the best thing is just to leave well alone and let the scales balance out as the younger generations grow up in the post-fishing world, my generation gets old enough to start being in positions of real influence, and the old battleaxe radfems who still act like it's the 1970s fade into irrelevance.
>my generation gets old enough to start being in positions of real influence, and the old battleaxe radfems who still act like it's the 1970s fade into irrelevance.
You're not wrong that they are losing their relevance, but what they are leaving behind is a structural bias against men in society that will be hard to undo or balance out. Because their way of thinking has become so ingrained in our modern-day culture that it's hard to argue against it reasonably, and be taken seriously and not lumped in with MRAs, chronic masturbators, and whoever else they'll name in order to discredit you through guilt by association.
>>72467 >THE BEST THING IS JUST TO LEAVE WELL ALONE AND LET THE SCALES BALANCE OUT AS THE YOUNGER GENERATIONS GROW UP IN THE POST-FISHING WORLD
Oh I don't know. There's not a lot of men becoming teachers anymore but there are a lot of young men getting lost in the world. It's especially worrying considering it's a charge being led by Yvette Cooper and Jess Philips, with the latter having all the nuance of someone who recently become under secretary for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls (which used to be Victims and Safeguarding) and decides to spend her time playing her own version of culture war.
Call me cynical but I think I've said before that I fully expect absolutely nothing being done to actually address what are the root causes in the uptick in chronic masturbator culture beyond shysters exploiting people and then we'll just end up with the next generation being increasingly dominated by pepe enthusiasts and Jordon Peterson fans.
No, on reflection everything is fine. All we need to do is force tech companies solve it with increasing gimmicks. When tech companies decide that we're not worth the hassle our kids will learn how to use VPNs, develop a distrust of the government and maybe we'll get a few into programming and personal fitness.
Nah I don;t think it's quite that bad, or at any rate, the bias against men they're leaving behind isn't as bad as the bias against women it was intended to fix. Because despite what they say, men are stronger and harder than women, and men will learn to deal with it; whereas women only know how to moan and whinge until somebody else fixes it for them. That's the fundamental difference that even fisherperson rhetoric and ideology implicitly carries through underneath the surface- "you can deal with it, because of your hard strong penises, but we can't, because of our vulnerable soft vaginas".
I'm being slightly facetious there I suppose but to get more serious again, no, I see it in the yunger generations that even if they are a bit naively taken in by extremely eye-roll inducing liberal twitter user type opinions, they also do often genuinely recognise a lot of the shit blokes have to deal with and how it's unfair. in time, the pendulum will swing back, people recognise that letting the most hardcore fishers have their own way with everything is a major overcorrecion and will ultimately be a bigger detriment than benefit to society.
the equilibrium will be restored out of pragmatism and need, not ideals or morality. it sounds crass, but effectively, the only reason we were able to let women out of the kitchen and go through this social upheaval is because we invented the dishwasher and the washing machine. we're still living through the consequences of that. but no matter how hard the journalists scream about the sky falling over AI and how the internet has changed everything, in reality, nothing all that fundamental has really changed since the invention of those labour saving white goods. We still need blokes doin stuff because women still drop out of the running as soon as they've had a kid or two, and that will likely always be the way.
>the only reason we were able to let women out of the kitchen and go through this social upheaval is because we invented the dishwasher and the washing machine.
Not just that. Women were needed in the workforce in WWI and WWII because the men were all dying in the battlefields and somebody needed to put all the weapons and ammunition together in the factories at home. This was even before there were dishwashers and most people had electrical washing machines.
>We still need blokes doin stuff
Yes we do. And also, women always talk about how they want to make inroads into traditionally male professions. And bless them. But how many women want to be builders or industrial divers or heavy equipment mechanics. It's not just that these professions often require a degree of physical strength that the average woman cannot provide. Women don't want to do those shit jobs, as traditionally male as they may be and therefore at least theoretically ripe for their taking. Women want to cherry pick and ideally sit in cosy executive and boardroom chairs and not much else. Which is fine, in the end, but ultimately still a bit dishonest.
>>72471 >WE STILL NEED BLOKES DOIN STUFF BECAUSE WOMEN STILL DROP OUT OF THE RUNNING AS SOON AS THEY'VE HAD A KID OR TWO, AND THAT WILL LIKELY ALWAYS BE THE WAY.
So we need to increase childcare provision and encourage more blokes to prioritise spending time with their kids. Simple. We can even see how 'THAT WILL LIKELY ALWAYS BE THE WAY' is a cop-out when we look at those places behind us in terms of mothers participating in the workforce.
>>72473 >WOMEN DON'T WANT TO DO THOSE SHIT JOBS, AS TRADITIONALLY MALE AS THEY MAY BE AND THEREFORE AT LEAST THEORETICALLY RIPE FOR THEIR TAKING. WOMEN WANT TO CHERRY PICK AND IDEALLY SIT IN COSY EXECUTIVE AND BOARDROOM CHAIRS AND NOT MUCH ELSE. WHICH IS FINE, IN THE END, BUT ULTIMATELY STILL A BIT DISHONEST.
I think this is a trap. Yes, second-wave feminism focused on the aspirations of middle-upper class women and if you ask a working class woman she might just dream of being a footballer's wife but, well, is the world like that? When we've got massive labour shortages in key sectors of the economy it make sense to look at these barriers more closely.
Blokes don't become teachers, nurses or carers either and women do. Both sexes dominate certain professions, some of which, I am told, aren't shit, and a lot of them don't have barriers outside of the mind of a 1950s husband who yearns for the good old days. It should really be a fundamentally good thing to open opportunity as wide as possible and to challenge all kinds of barriers to achieving that.
>When we've got massive labour shortages in key sectors of the economy it make sense to look at these barriers more closely.
I don't believe it. WHich ones?
Health and social care. It's not really a shortage, just that the government insists on paying below-market wages. Funnily enough, people don't want to wipe pensioners' arses for less money than they'd get on the tills at Lidl. Fortunately for the government, women tend to get fixated on particular jobs regardless of pay and conditions and there's a steady stream of Nigerians who will do anything for a visa, so the system hasn't completely collapsed yet.
Is there some way I can arrange a fictitious care arrangement where a woman cooks and cleans for me and maybe gives my bum a tickle all for minimum wage? So far I've been paying much more.
It's quite pervasive and a growing problem in the high-tech space on account of people being thick, lazy or otherwise unable to spend 7 years getting a PhD in robotics back in 2008.
>So we need to increase childcare provision and encourage more blokes to prioritise spending time with their kids. Simple.
Do we though? Why? THAT'S NOT A SMART ASE QUESTION, i JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS IS TAKEN AS A GIVEN, BUT WHAT'S THE ACTUAL BENEFIT?
LOOK AT SOUTH KOREA. IT'S A COUNTRY WAY AHEAD OF US IN THIS BUT IT'S NOT DOING THEM ANY FAVOURS. DO WE REALLY WANT AN ECONOMY WHERE wE HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE TO LOOK AFTER OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS SO THAT THOSE PEOPLE CAN GO OUT TO SPEND MORE TIME SLAVING AWAY AT THE GRINDSTONE? WHAT WAS WRONG WITH JUST GIVING PEOPLE ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK AFTER THEIR OWN KIDS? THE ONLY BIT THAT NEEDS FIXING, ARGUABLY, IS THE EXPECTATION OF THAT BEING THE "WOMAN'S ROLE" WHILE THE FATHER WAS THE BREADWINNER. BUT YOU CAN'T APPROACH THAT WITHOUT ASKING WHY THINGS WERE THAT WAY TO BEGIN WITH.
THIS IS THE REAL CORE OF MY ISSUE WITH FISHERY, WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT. IT'S GONE FROM A CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WITH JUSTIFIED AIMS, TO A STOOGE FOR THE ECONOMIC GOALS OF LATE STAGE NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM. IT WRAPS AROUND TOWARDS BECOMING THE SAME PROBLEM AS IMMIGRATION. PRODUCTIVITY IS SHOCKINGLY LOW IN OUR ECONOMY, AND WE CAN ONLY PLASTER OVER THOSE CRACKS BY INCREASING THE QUANTITY OF LABOUR TO COMPENSATE FOR SO LONG. I'D EVEN ARGUE THAT'S PART OF THE VERY REASON PRODUCTIVITY IS SO LOW, AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HOURS PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK TO EARN A DECENT LIVING, AND THEN WE WOULD SEE PRODUCTIVITY SKYROCKET AS A NATURAL RESULT AND THE CHOICES PEOPLE MAKE AROUND THEIR FAMILY STRUCTURE AND CHILDCARE WOULD ALL SHIFT TOO.
>AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HOURS PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK TO EARN A DECENT LIVING
But that money has to come from somewhere, and while we're talking late-stage neoliberalism, Big Money isn't known for its willingness to part with profits they've grown accustomed to. Shareholder value has been the cancer of our economy for a long time, but it's probably here to stay.
Although it's not as bad as some low-end service industry jobs in the U.S., where employers nowadays very literally say it isn't their problem if their employee can't survive on what they get paid. They'll just tell you you're always free to take up additional jobs elsewhere to earn more money. And even that will not be enough to support yourself in a dignified way. While ordinary Americans have bought the narrative hook line and sinker that it's somehow a badge of honour that you're working multiple jobs to support yourself. Especially if you've got kids to provide for. Nobody asks why you don't just pay people more so they don't have it that hard. Because, y'know, that's socialism.
We're not at that kind of level of cynicism in the job world yet over here, but it'll never be the worker's paradise again that the UK was before Thatcher and then Blair dismantled it to suit the needs of Big Capital.
