At least when Rayner abuses people she does it under her own name.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mps-star-wars-r2-d2-10409810

She's always struck me as a bit thick. I know it's her schtick of "I was a teenage mum and I didn't have a proper education so I'm not right good with words" but she often seems to struggle when she's questioned on details.

>>84456

My mate has his name on FB set the same as his PSN name and has done since before they forced you to choose a real name, so when they did ask he just made it two words and now it wont let him change it to his real name as they have an ad portfolio for him now that will be invalidated if he did.

Should he banned from FB? Probably, but not for that.

>>84458

I'm in the very same boat, but I'm more than happy with it. My real name is boring. I wish we could all be known by our daft online handles instead of "Peter" or "Norman" or "Tracy".

>>84459

Someone's bound to ask what teacock means eventually, though.

>>84460
Long after they've queried crabkiller and auntifucker, though.

I've been curating spare online aliases for a couple of decades now. I know that, in theory, FB can ask for real ID, but they seem perfectly happy with a plausible and mildly humorous, but entirely false, name. Why wouldn't they be? How much would it cost them to vet everyone? I guess I might bother to forge a scan of a passport - they don't ask for the real thing, do they? Is it even a crime?

>>84461
>Long after they've queried crabkiller and auntifucker, though.

Those seem fairly self-explanatory.

Semi-related, there's someone who writes for Vice under the name "Hydall Codeen", which can't be a real name. Assuming it's not, where would that kind of thing lie under these proposals?

>>84462
Anyone who wishes to write under a pseudonym may submit their proposal to do so to Westminster along with photographic ID of their real identity and await a response before proceeding. Anyone who can't/won't do this is obviously hiding something to begin with, innit?

>>84463
Exactly. NUFFINTUWIDE NUFFINTUFFIR innit.

I honestly think people like this just don't understand the internet enough to know the implications of what they're suggesting or supporting.

If you started calling it a ban on pen names, that might get through their skulls.

>>420602
Shut the fuck up about dogs. It's literally boring at this point.>>84456

>>84466
Nice one, ladmate.

Angela Rayner's puppies won't no wots hit 'em. I bet you'd love to smack them around a bit.

>>84467
Now I wish I didn't look up her full height photo.
Bugger.

>>84471

Were you expecting her to have massive jugs and a 22" waist? She's nicely proportioned and carries her weight well.

>>84471
Since when has casual objectification of women been acceptable around here?

>>84473
Since at least 2010.

>>84473

I'd casually objectify her IYKWIM.

>>84472
>She's nicely proportioned and carries her weight well.

She's a bit council. Also her level of attractiveness varies considerably depending on the angle of the picture.

>>84476

She's more than a bit council - she left school at 16 with no GCSEs and an unplanned pregnancy.

>>84478
Doesn't the Labour Party have unspoken selection criteria that ought to prevent this kind of thing?

>>84481
Momentum probably target people like that. Only uneducated dolescum support Comrade Corbyn.

>>84481
What, select against dim birds with massive tits? They're their greatest hope. Until, of course, it all gets out of hand, as with Diane Abbott, and even thick voters start worrying.

>>84476

GILF.

>>84483

Corbyn has traded her in for a newer model.

>>84476
>>84478

>a bit council

Snide anti-working class prejudice in action.

>>84489
>council
>working

Good one, ladmate.

Oi you got a license for that shipost?

(A good day to you Sir!)

Wouldn't it be easier to just ban politicians from Facebook?

>>84476
In a way I think every man dreams of being that mug. Filled to the brim with Irish and spilling all over the knockers of a gigantic woman.

>>84485
I miss the old Corbyn like in >>84467 where he's dressed like a substitute Maths teacher. Did they kill that one off?

>>84864
He's now dressed as a regular private school Maths teacher. Psychological warfare against the Tories. Get their Pavlovian reflexes going.

>>84472
> Were you expecting her to have massive jugs and a 22" waist?
I've met a few ladies like that or almost like that.
Captivating sight.

>>84473
I'm sorry but how on Earth have you missed the ascot ladies day threads every year? It's one of our grandest traditions.

>>84881
Honestly it's starting to feel played out.

>>84882

Agreed. I'm not even sure why they bother bringing the horses anymore.

>>84881
That months old post wont know wot hit it.

>>84467

I'd love to slap my man meat in between them, that's for sure.

and then piss all over them after I'm done

>The Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge has said the government must ban online anonymity or make social media directors personally liable for defamatory posts, revealing that she receives tens of thousands of abusive tweets a month.

>Hodge accused the government of deliberately delaying the online harms bill in order to avoid difficult conversations with powerful social media companies, and said she was prepared to take up a campaign to make sure the law was tough enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/06/margaret-hodge-calls-for-ban-on-social-media-anonymity

Bollocks to this.

>>91829
If they can't ram the porn ID scheme through they have no chance with that.

>>91829
Stupid biddies who need their nephews to help them log into Facebook are trying to come up with policies and legislations. They might as well come out and say they want to follow the Chinese model.

>>91829
How are they going to get Russian troll farms to sway our elections if they don't have British ID?

>>91829
I was the OP of this thread and everything I said in 2018 still stands. She clearly has absolutely no idea how people use the internet. I was going to say "use the net in 2020", but anonymised online handles have been a part of the internet since, functionally speaking, forever. Am I going to have to change my Steam name to "John Smith" and give every online game my NI number? What if I start a YouTube or Twitch channel under a nickname so it doesn't effect my real world life? What if I start a blog whistle blowing about dodgy goings on in my local council? I'm genuinely sorry people think you're a carpet-bagging, Nazi steel dealing, Boer-lover, but so what? It's Twitter. If you go to a 100 Gecs gig and decide you hate it, that doesn't mean no one's allowed to do music anymore, you just have to stop listening to 100 Gecs. I don't think I'm making too far of a stretch with that metaphor either, because removing anonymity from online communications would completely and utterly change, or outright end, so much of how people interact on the web. She clearly seems to think "social media = the internet" and even then has a very low-level of understanding of how that works in reality. Perhaps "Facebook in 2010 = the internet" would be a more accurate assumption.

>>91833
I'll also reiterate my witty comment in >>84864 that politicians should be banned from social media. Fuck 'em, nothing but trouble for all parties.

For the record: being placed between two enormous breasts and worked until I spill everywhere still sounds nice. Little did 2019 me know that such a scenario would soon be illegal in order to address a global pandemic caused by someone in China shagging a bat.

Weird how this is now back on the front page of * and at the top and now the site's SSL certificate has just expired. You'll never take me alive, GCHQlad

>>91829

Fortunately I think even the average person who barely uses the internet is canny enough to know how bollocks this is. Even your dad who can barely work a mouse hears that idea, and the first thought to go through his head is "... So people will know I'm looking at porn?"

It'll never happen, but what we have to ask is why Labour is full of these nanny state arseholes. It's this kind of nonsense that had me voting LibDem when I was 21 and didn't know anything about politics. Actually I know why it is and I'm not afraid to say it: We let mums vote. Not women, mums. Women who have given birth.

Ban mums from voting. They are objectively unfit to make rational decisions.

>>91836

>what we have to ask is why Labour is full of these nanny state arseholes

Why don't you trust The Party? Are you some kind of counter-revolutionary?

Do we have a right to keep secrets?

>>91841
No, now spill.

>>91835
Any of you involved in any illegal activity? 'Cause I could sure go for some!

Here's to Labour beating Conservatives at their own game.

>>92156
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/02/labour-urged-to-focus-on-flag-and-patriotism-to-win-voters-trust-leak-reveals
>Red wall voters have also been targeted with a Facebook advert, which demands the Tories get tougher on border control, something which Labour emphasised in an opposition day debate on Monday.

Nice - I won't vote for Labour again until they sort this out.

Of course they tried this schtick under Miliband with One Nation Labour and it didn't pan out. I get that Labour aren't really trying to win so much as claw back seats but it's going to have the same problem as Brexit where Party is divided and the voters don't trust them on the issues.

>a fund to invest in barren high streets

The high street died over the decade ago. I suspect people might say they want this but in reality they know they will keep buying from Amazon because it's cheap, convenient and the 'high-street experience' was ghastly.

>>92157
> the 'high-street experience' was ghastly.
For poshos maybe. But some people may prefer the hustle and bustle, the feel of the wares in your hand IYKWIM, the ability to use cash etc.

>>92157

From a political position it makes sense, winning back disaffected Northerners is far more important than keeping maungy lefties on board, no matter how you feel about the matter. And let's face it they've no incentive to try and please the party's left, because no matter what they do they'll never be happy. He could announce UBI as a Labour policy tomorrow and they'd find a way to call it a Tory move. Incidentally, that's is the mistake the lefties themselves made while Corbyn was in- They thought they could appease the centrists whatsoever, instead of telling them "fuck off, we're in charge now."

What you're definitely right about is that nobody will take it seriously coming from Labour, they have poisoned that well far too thoroughly over the last couple of decades. I can see it maybe going down better from Starmer than from Milliband, but that's because Milliband was the sort of guy you can see wetting himself if a fight broke out in a pub he was drinking in.

Either way I think economically left, socially small c conservative is the correct way for Labour to be, they just have to make sure it can be taken seriously.

>>92156
What sodding brain genius at Labour HQ thinks they can out right-wing the Tories, let alone these Tories? Honestly, I can't stomach the shiteness of the idea far, far more than I care about migration. Everyone hated Corbyn, but at least he had policies that polled well, or at the very, very least they got people talking. So now some absolute cretin thinks the idea is to have absolutely no policies and Labour will soar to electoral domination on the magnetic charm of a former QC who speaks like he couldn't stir a mug of tea, let alone a crowd. When you tell people to "get tougher on border control" they aren't going to think "aha! At last a job for Labour!", they think UKIP, Brexit Party or whatever viper saville happens to be nursing these days.

>>92159
It only makes political sense if you see the world as a bunch of graphs and levers where, if you pull the lever that says "right-wing" the graph for "right-wing votes" goes up. In reality shifting the overton window further right is only damning the Labour Party more. If you let your opponent choose the battleground you're already halfway to losing the fight. The second Starmer opens his gob about migration the opposite bench will immediately say "you're a remainer, you wanted a second EU referendum, if you had your way we'd be in the Schengen Area". If memory serves at least Sideshow Bob didn't put those rakes on the ground himself, I don't think I'm being unreasonable to want at least as much from the Labour Party. I mean is this fucking it?! Are these the political masterstrokes I was being told Corbyn was missing every step of the way for five years? IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED NICK COHEN?! IS IT!? YOU FOUR-EYED TWAT!

>>92160

I don't think it helps that we never distinguish between the economic and social right/left spectrum, when I feel that in reality and in the minds of many voters they are very much distinct. It's arguable which one they care about most, but recent years would seem to indicate they care more about the social layer than the economic layer; they're willing to tolerate austerity in order to get their way on the EU, but they're not willing to tolerate high immigration in order to get more funding for public services.

One has to wonder what would have happened is Jez stuck to his guns and ran 2019 on a pro-Brexit stance instead of the wishy washy second referendum option that pleased nobody. I suspect he would have done far, far better.

Of course, the issue is that Starmer and his lot very much are economically conservative as well as socially, so it'll never achieve anything for them- You might as well just vote Tory if you want a Tory. But it's fair to say there are considerable numbers of people in this country who would vote for things like renationalisation, more generous state welfare, and infrastructure investment if they felt comfortable that it didn't come attached to the kind of party that lets 36 year old men come in to the country pretending to be asylum seeking children.

There's also the issue of how the Murdoch press is really behind a lot of all that stuff as a manipulative narrative that creates a mountain out of a molehill when so much of it really isn't true. But you're certainly not going to convince someone who reads the Sun and lives within a ten minute drive of Bradford or Dewsbury it's not true. That ship has long since sailed, and all we did was shout RACIST as we watched it float past.

>>92160
>if you see the world as a bunch of graphs and levers where, if you pull the lever that says "right-wing" the graph for "right-wing votes" goes up.

There's a Dril tweet for that.

>>92161

>I don't think it helps that we never distinguish between the economic and social right/left spectrum, when I feel that in reality and in the minds of many voters they are very much distinct.

100% this. Labour voters in the north didn't abandon Labour because they disliked Corbyn's economic policies, they abandoned Labour because they saw Corbyn as weak, out-of-touch and unpatriotic. We talk about being in a "post truth" era, but feelings have always trumped facts at the ballot box.

I'd also add that voters are generally quite flexible about what policies they'll accept, but they want those policies to fit into a coherent narrative. "Cut public services to the bone" is a deeply unpopular policy, but voters largely believed in the concept of austerity. You don't win an election by having the most popular policies, you win an election by having the most believable story about how we got here and where we're headed.

>>92163
I never felt that Labour had a coherent message about austerity. The word itself doesn't really resonate with people and there's millions of people who've not being tangibly affected by it so the message never connected with them and it was easily countered by the Tories with a glib "austerity is living within your means".

>>92164

Austerity is an economically incoherent policy, so lacking a coherent message about it is pretty on brand tbh

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/imf-austerity-doesnt-work-immigrants-working-class

>>92164
It might not connect with the voters, but I wish just once Labour would go into a "He's had too many pints" style campaign-a-rant about how this country is being run into the ground.
Just drive home: We've had the longest wage stagnation since the Napoleonic wars, for a while we were the only country in Europe to combine wage contraction with economic growth, if CANZUK was real we'd be the poorest people in it. depending on your measures. sometimes it's New Zealand. Our poorer regions are the poorest in Northern Europe despite the fact that inner London is the richest region in Europe. We struck oil and have nothing to show for it - but only the Scots realise they should be upset about that. The trains are bad, the care homes are in crisis, we haven't had a positive balance of trade since Britpop was a thing, the government only recently noticed that the NHS has been mismanaged for 30 years, we've got a housing shortage that nobody's got any intention of fixing, the unemployment figures are fake, and on, and on, and Ariston.

Just a campaign built around getting the electorate as angry as possible. No "our carefully costed manifesto of decline is a message of hope and optimism" nonsense, just anger. You don't even really need a particularly coherent set of policies to fix the problems: Just lay them out, make people angry that they're not being solved, and viciously mock any solution the government puts forward. Anger, anger and spite. Just one campaign to say: Vote for us, don't vote for us, but if you re-elect this government then the only thing we ask is that you don't say we didn't tell you so, and the only advice we can offer you is to go to college, learn hairdressing, and move to Australia on a skills shortage visa because this nation truly has no future.
I am not myself an angry person. It would just be a nice change of pace from conventional campaigns, which are boring, carefully stage managed, disingenuous and short termist.

>>92167
Someone's been forcing Labour to "take the high road" in their campaigns for so many elections now they have to know it's a losing strategy.

>>92167
>the unemployment figures are fake

Hmm?

>>92169
The big trick is that they only count people who've looked for work recently, which means people who don't bother looking because they know they've got no chance of getting a job aren't counted as unemployed despite the fact that if you went up to them and went "Hey mate, want a job?" they'd say "yes"
https://www.centreforcities.org/publication/hidden-unemployment-in-uk-cities/
Then there are the other lesser tricks: Ignoring underemployment and the like.
https://www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-in-the-uk-is-now-so-low-its-in-danger-of-exposing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7

Now of course, you can argue that the ONS isn't actually faking the numbers since they are what the ONS defines them to be, the ONS just doesn't define "Unemployment" the same way normal people do - but when politicians come out using those figures to pretend that we're back to the heady days of the 1970s where 1 million unemployed was considered politically untenable, those politicians are lying fakers.

>>92167

>I wish just once Labour would go into a "He's had too many pints" style campaign-a-rant about how this country is being run into the ground

IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS? Yes, that's why he won by a landslide.

>>92169

We've been fiddling the numbers for decades. Previous governments made it very easy to claim incapacity benefit, which shifted millions of people from the unemployment figures because they were ostensibly "too sick to work". Their main medical complaint seemed to be that they were middle-aged men living in ex-industrial towns in the north. Mass unemployment never went away, we just got better at hiding it.

This government has salami-sliced the labour market, pushing millions of people from unemployment benefits into zero-hours, part-time and self-employed work that doesn't pay enough to live on. Instead of having one unemployed person on the dole, we've now got three people who are nominally working but rely on benefits to survive. They call it the "gig economy" to make it sound exciting and modern, but really it's just disguised unemployment. The huge increase in in-work poverty was knowingly created by this government, because they want low unemployment numbers while refusing to admit the reality that there just isn't enough work to go around.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/our-hidden-army-under-employed-10211368.html

>>92171
Fuck me, I've never seen that before. Pete Postlethwaite playing an angel advocating voting Labour? Hilarious.

Right I haven't thought this through so you'll have to bear with me.

What if all of the people without a job formed one massive company and they all employed each other? They could do it so that they win all the contracts from the DWP to get people into work and at the end just hire the person to work for them so there'd be a 100% success rate. Something like that.

>>92172

There's a haunting quality to politics from the 90s - the aesthetics are totally foreign, but the issues are all the same. It's like we never really figured out how to move past Thatcher and we've just been replaying the dying years of the Major government on an infinite loop.

Blair was, in a sense, too good at politics - his unifying charisma smoothed over a whole array of deep political problems that were never really addressed and roared back with a vengeance when he left office.

It looks like he's fucked it:

>Sir Keir Starmer has said he was "wrong" to describe Boris Johnson's claims he backed the European Medicines Agency as "complete nonsense". Mr Johnson accused the Labour leader of wanting to stay in the agency after Brexit, at Prime Minister's Questions.
>This was angrily denied by Sir Keir. Reports the two men continued the row afterwards were played down by Labour. But the party has now issued a statement to say Sir Keir had "misheard" the prime minister.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55924153

Every time Starmer opens his mouth he will be attacked for wanting a European-style vaccine programme while Boris will be able to claim the UK's success as a government victory. His reaction shows there's blood in the water which every reporter is going to press him on.

>>92160
>What sodding brain genius at Labour HQ thinks they can out right-wing the Tories, let alone these Tories?

The same one in the Tories that has been coming out with public spending and building back better commitments? You can actually do policy because it makes sense to do so. Hence that generally right and left have converged towards the centre.

>>92167
Angry campaigns usually fail, it's not just that nobody will leave the house for it but you start to lose credibility. The Scottish Referendum and Brexit are both campaigns where negativity failed.

I want to see a minimalist campaign a 'Vote Labour: We'll put a bit more money into the schools and that'. Keep it simple and coached in terms of reasonable investment rather than screeching about a genocide of the working class.

>>92174
>the issues are all the same

I don't see tax coming up even if we've been hit by something worse than Black Wednesday. Give it a year, maybe, but Rishi has ruled out most ordinary tax rises.
https://www.ft.com/content/9d5b8500-73d8-4d6a-b0e5-7b13b1668a63

What I see are rises to corporation and capital gains on the next budget which would be a strange turn on affairs. Labour becomes the party of the aspirational middle class and fat cats.

>>92173

Your kind of describing a worker's co-op funded by government subsidies which is totally a thing that works in progressive European nations like Netherlands. I think they had a bunch of deros reconstruct a tall ship in Amsterdam, but I can't find a source so may be mistaken. They definitely do have initiatives like Brouwerij De Prael which is a brewery that employs people who struggle to find work in elsewhere.

The UK government is ideologically opposed to such initiatives.

If disgusted by such obviously commie initiatives, the UK could look to Germany which has laws which make it necessary to have workers sit on Corporate Boards to ensure that the labour class has representation in the business and that shareholders don't threaten the long-term stability of an operation for short-term capital gains.

Again, the UK government is ideologically opposed to such things and the 50-or-so donor oligarchs who really call the shots are vehemently opposed to such things.

>>92176
So we should let Timpsons run the country?

Don't fucking post it. You know what I mean.

>>92174
In a way Blair was the precursor for Obama, except Obama had much more appealing IDpol credentials and was a more effective agent for the manufacture of consent.

The function of Government is to curtail the rabblement and condition them to think they want what Global Corporations are going to do regardless.

source: Hardt-Negri 'Empire' (2000)

>>92175
>right and left have converged towards the centre.

Kind of, except due to long-term sustained capitulation from the Labour to the Tories and capitulation from the Tories to the lunatic fringe of their party, the center is way further right than what it once was. Prevailing trends mean that it will only continue to shift further right.

The whole left/right dichotomy is a hangover from post-revolution French politics and is kind of a moronic heuristic for judging contemporary politics especially since every mainstream politician with any significant influence is a Neoliberal pisspig.

>>92175
There's a big difference between a negative campaign and an angry campaign. Better Together and Stronger In were both dire, boring, stage managed affairs incapable of any genuine emotion. If anything I'd say Leave captured more of the energy of an angry campaign than Stronger In did, having tapped into the sense of decline that many people had and successfully associated it with Europe.
Fundamentally you can tell the difference because a failed angry campaign would still be interesting to watch. Imagine it, a Labour leader doing a cross between a Stewart Lee style contrived breakdown and the world's most jaded history lecturer, giving off the sense he's more interested in having you hate the Prime Minister than he is in becoming Prime Minister. Even if they only got 150 seats it would be more than worth the price of admission. Lloyd George never did anything so interesting as that when he was running his party into the ground.

Meanwhile something like Better Together or Stronger In is only interesting to the kind of people who like to read academic papers about smug identikit rent-a-suits step on rakes repeatedly while going "Christ, I could've done a better job than that and I'm just some guy". Their actual messaging inspires a sort of disgust that they felt such contempt for the electorate.

>>92179

In the purest sense the left is a belief in Dialectical philosophy (the idea of a dominant position is overthrown in revolution) applies to people and not just ideas. This is often meant to mean dialectical materialism (ie Marxism) but also applies to other systems that don't consider class (a perfect example of modern times would be identity politics that disregard wealth and upbringing as a factor as long as the people who control the corrupt system are black women or gay, who mysteriously are predominately black women or gay.)

Center is something of a mislabling, the ideas we consider socially liberal are central and the ideas we consider illiberal are 'far'. Neither the right nor the left ever has a hold on this concept even though both will claim to be more liberal when it suits them and the ends will justify the means when it doesn't. The centre feels like it creeps in Britain because there is such a unspoken consensus of liberalism good that to have a politician not be liberal would be unthinkable.

>>92181

Yes.

But watch how much of electoral politics is culture war meant only to distract the unwashed masses from the question of class.

>>92182

I don't think people are that clever. It is far more likely to be spearheaded Laurie Pennys complaining they didn't personally get everything they wanted even though they got far more than the rest of us and expecting everyone else to champion the fight (there is a reason female CEOs get brought up so much in the rhetoric (the feel they should be a CEO) even though being a CEO is about as detached concept of being male for 999,999 out of a million men as living on the moon. The politics of entitlement dresses it self as power balancing because that is better rhetoric. All it wants to do is change the rules. For the rest of us we should have no stake in it.

>>92183

That should read "change the rulers" not rules. Auto correct fucked me.

>>92183

Yes, it's not the fault of the people doing all the immoral things, it's the women who are the problem.

>>92185

If the women's only issue is not the system but the fact that they aren't in charge then yes, they are exactly the problem, and I have no tears for them.

>>92186
If your issue is the system then your issue is that it's not what you want, meaning you can't change the system, which is to say your issue is that you're not in charge. You're complaining about the exact same thing.

Women CEOS would be a legitimate goal if said Women implemented policies that made working environments less hostile and more nurturing to female interests.

Having childcare facilities in the workplace for instance being a major one.

If a special identitarian interest group gets recruited to the upper enchelons of an organization for reasons of diversity, inclusion and intersectionality and proceeds to behave in exactly the manner that the 'old white man' they are replacing would do, it's meaningless. This is what happens in practice.

Speaking to fisherperson friends who bring up the patriarchy I mention to them that Theresa May was PM and she was a shit, likewise Thatcher, and Queen Victoria did Imperialism in Africa.

Gramsci has this thing about Hegemony, basically the social institutions have a structure and only those who conform to the purpose of the organization can end up in the hot seat but the catch 22 is that you can't get so close to power unless you compromise your ideals enough to be moulded by the system you seek to change. People don't wield power so much as power wields them. Therefore we should aim to have a system which doesn't empower individuals (like Caesar or whatever) but rewards integrity and behaviours deemed to be conducive to the good function of society as a whole, or something.

>>92187

No I am bloody not. Just because you don't have the imagination to picture anything different from a changing of the guard. Just having a woman in charge because they are a woman is the equivalent of "Don't blame me I voted for Kodos". You'd Support Hitler if he had tits.


>>92188 gets it.

>>92187
There's a big difference between moaning that you're not a CEO, and moaning that we're not all equal co-owners of our workplaces.

>>92189
>>92190
You're both arguing at a right angle to what I said. Distinguish between "What women want is for positions of power to be taken by women in general" and "What any given woman wants is for herself to be in power". I was talking about the latter. To want something to change is to want the power to make that change.

But as >>92188 points out, in the former case, those women often replicate the same patriarchal system or whatever you want to call it. People know that. Ranting about how all women are stupid because they don't know that is just you being ignorant of the women who aren't.

>>92191
>Distinguish between "What women want is for positions of power to be taken by women in general" and "What any given woman wants is for herself to be in power

Those things are immaterially different. I don't care about arguing the difference between big titted trump, and merely being someone voting for big titted trump.

You are arguing the false equivalence that being a woman leads to a specific ideological stance, as if it were the be all and end all of charter traits, if anyone has an underdeveloped view of the sexes it is you.
which brings us to...

>Ranting about how all women are stupid because they don't know that is just you being ignorant of the women who aren't.

No one said that, but I guess you need to shape things to make your position seem correct. Of course there are a lot of stupid women, there are a lot of stupid men and having an unfetishized view of women means recognising that.

>>92192
>Those things are immaterially different. I don't care about arguing the difference between big titted trump, and merely being someone voting for big titted trump.

No you fucking idiot it's the difference between there being a big titted Trump and you being the big titted Trump.

>No one said that
>the women's only issue

>>92193

>No you fucking idiot it's the difference between there being a big titted Trump and you being the big titted Trump.

Be honest though you'd support them just because they had tits. And that is precisesly my point.


>the women's only issue

You seem to have selectively missed the word before 'if', IF, as in distiguishing a sub class, i.e. Not all

Could you lot stop doing

This

After every setence

It's making the thread

frankly, unreadable.

>>92195
>Proper formatting

Is as follows. Happy with that?

>>92195
>>92196
I reckon a lot of this is down to the post box being much narrower than the displayed posts -- it looks like you're writing full paragraphs that need spacing between, but when it's displayed on a wide desktop monitor it's just one or two lines.

>>92197
Luddite.

>>92194
>Be honest though you'd support them just because they had tits. And that is precisesly my point.
No, I wouldn't. I'm criticising your logic, not arguing the opposite.
>'if', IF, as in distiguishing a sub class
Holy shit you're stolid.

>>92199
Now this is just too much.

I appreciate the font is different for quotes vs original text, but the omission of line breaks is just too claustrophobic.

>You could at *least* do a single line break
When you move from

>Quote
To the next quote.

>>92200
Not him but because quotes are green and darker than the white of ordinary text they remove much of the need for line breaks in shorter posts

>>92197
>>92200
>>92201
I purposely alter how I format my posts on here randomly just for the fuck of it.

>>92202

angela
rayner

has massive
jugs

>>92203

Nope. I tried to format that like an e.e. cummings poem but it didn't work

angela
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀rayner
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀has massive
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀jugs

Lose the weight, lose the juggalugs.

>>92206

Now you get it. 2021, year of the third tit, mark my words.

>>92205

Get on your knees and grovel, you worthless maggot.

>>92206
Fuck me this is even more disappointing than the whole Keith Starmer premiership.

I saw her kneeling in her New Rock boots and tights though. Very sexy. I'm not saying I want her to literally stand on my testicles and smash them into oblivion, but I'm in the same postcode.