Jump to content

kaosmark2

Members
  • Posts

    20,516
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Posts posted by kaosmark2

  1. 2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

    So you can bomb and starve people to death based on who it is decided the attackers are then?
    Do you have proof the government there are not connected?
    If Russia now attacked the country does that make it right or wrong?

    Are they brown?

  2. 1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

    I wonder if all the MP's (and members of the public) who moaned loads about Just Stop Oil holding up traffic will be equally as vocal about the farmers doing the same?

    I doubt it, likely will just stay very quiet and have no idea of their hypocrisy or selective anger.image.gif.3966523e0a76e15bc4484b278adc36c1.gifimage.gif.3eeab42422802c0d0a583cbb5df479e2.gif

    Of course not, because they worry about the votes of farmers, and the media reaction, etc etc.

    The thing is, while I don't think it'll hit too notably this election, the rejection of Millennials and Gen Z will come to bite both the main parties if it carries on. The endless dismissal of both our hopes and principles as "naive youthful idealism" can't sustain itself. Some Millennials are over 40! 

  3. 5 hours ago, Ozanne said:

    Labour won’t do that, they’re saying that they are gonna keep it. They might amend it further down the line but it is staying. 

    Labour have never said they're gonna keep something then change their minds!

  4. 1 hour ago, lazyred said:

    But you used the article as justification for grouping LGB Alliance with white supremisists and the reported comments  don't support that. Basically the reported comments (not even LGB Alliance as you implied) were feminists accusing trans activists of using the same tactics as Hitler in Mein Kampf. So they weren't postive about Mein Kampf they were negative.

    I don't know about LGB alliance so I looked at their website. The list of trustees and patrons are establishment figures. They include longstanding gay rights activists and feminists and a Labour peer who used to be a trade union leader. Their main concern seems to be keeping a definiton of being gay and lesbian based on same sex attraction.

    They were using the exact phrasing Hitler said about the Jews about trans people. And as a reminder, trans people were also targeted in the holocaust.

    The thing is, hate groups don't publicly start their arguments by saying "lets murder our targets". They start with something softer, and usually something that actually is reasonable, and then claim their target are trying to take that away. And they are a hate group.

    1 hour ago, lazyred said:

    Its quite sad really. Two groups of gay rights/feminist activists who probably agree on 90% of stuff shouting nazi and facist at each other.

    This bit I agree with. The thing is though, LGB Alliance are defining themselves by the exclusion of trans people and the removal of intersectionality from queer rights and feminism. Their very existence is focused on fighting against trans people having rights in society. They work with literal fascists - literally with people who take away abortion rights, and equate queer people with paedos.

    Maintaining intersectionality is vital when fighting for human rights and fighting against the patriarchal systems. Rejecting that leads us nowhere.

  5. 15 hours ago, lazyred said:

    That link does not show what you said it does. The reported views are gender critcal, a viewpoint protected in law and consistent with the uk equality acts. 

    Mein Kampf is quoted in the context of someone accusing  trans activists of telling a big lie

    Saying that Mein Kampf is quoted so as to describe a target minority in the same way as Hitler described the Jews isn't a good thing?

  6. 2 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

    Well that article doesn't mention LGB a or any of their founders so I'll have to take your word for it. As they are a legal organization and a registered charity I would expect they could be linked to for political discussion (not that I'm going to, this subject is a real can of worms!).

    Well here's another:
    https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/04/03/lgb-alliance-neo-nazi-homophobia-spinster-death-head-charity-commission/

    that links them to neo-nazis, and their founders have said positive things about "Posie Parker" who was referenced as the organiser of the rally where Mein Kampf was directly quoted.

    They post a lot of the sort of insidious, first-level hate speech stuff that's equivalent to "puppet of the Jewish bankers", while hanging out with the people who post the equivalents of the blood libel.

  7. 6 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

    Wasn't aware of LGB Alliance, just read up on them and can't really see why you have put them in the same category as the other two. Are their views really that extreme? Would have thought quite a few people would share them.

    Yeah. They're literally a hate group designed to bully trans people. Their founders and prominent allies stand around supporting people who quote Mein Kampf positively:
    https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/16/newcastle-let-women-speak-rally-adolt-hitler-trans-speech/

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  8. 2 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

    More to politics than Labour and Conservative - but sadly the others get very little coverage apart from Reform who now seem to be mainstream news despite having never actually won anything.
    Media bias is scary at the moment.

    It's always been the case in our media, at least in my lifetime. Farage on his own has had more appearances on Question Time than everyone involved with the Green Party altogether. Not to mention T*mmy R*b*ns*n and similar.

  9. I'm going to respond to this one more, and this one only, because this is a thread about UK politics, not forum moderation. I just felt that given your accusations, it was important to address these things publicly:

    13 minutes ago, Neil said:

    you're also sometimnes putting people on moderation for the use of facts, keeping the use of facts off these forums.

    you know mew always in public cos the cliquey stuff is forum death.

    The "facts" you've complained about being hidden/moderated have been you calling another forum user something insulting. We're not hiding or restricting links to sources, to pieces of news, etc, we're hiding people throwing insults and accusations at each other.

    And if you want to talk about cliquey things being forum death - way back ~2009 on these forums, you told me and others off for having a personal argument on these forums - saying that was just cliquey arguments and that these forums weren't about us. I respected that then, and I wish you'd respect that now. Bringing personal arguments onto the forums, and dragging the conversation around to what you specifically know/believe about other individuals is cliquey, isn't welcoming to people outside of that. That is exactly what we've been moderating you for, and exactly what we're trying to reduce.

    • Upvote 5
  10. 32 minutes ago, Neil said:

    the mods do a special line in censorship, you'll never see this post. 😛 

    Neil, this isn't "censorship" to try and prevent criticism. It's to cut down on the endless personal arguments that have been plaguing the thread since COVID. 

    We've been working together, with Iggy, to try and ensure the forum is a welcoming place for everyone. Our communication is about applying consistency between us and how we're all treating all users, not about a "cosy friends club" as you referred to it a couple of weeks ago.

    You aren't the only regular on these forums that has had some degree of moderation applied to them over the past months, but we're trying to deal with each person individually and privately, and not discuss how other people get restricted.

    We made a joint decision to try and get personal arguments off the forums. If people want to have them by DM that's fine, and that also means that anyone who finds any personal arguments too unpleasant can end them by blocking the other user.

    However, arguments being constantly and repeatedly personal is off-putting to people outside that, and does shut down a wider discussion. This has always been the case, and you yourself used to call out ongoing personal conversations on this forum to say "this isn't about you". The politics threads aren't about who you dislike, they're a space to discuss politics. Threads like this inherently create arguments, and inherently get passionate, and we're not trying to stop that, but we want to make sure that it isn't so personal that others don't feel comfortable participating.

    No moderation team, anywhere on the internet, gets things perfect, but I'm pleased with the shift that has been happening, and your complaints - whether public or private - so far seem like they're based on being upset that we're trying to keep fights off the public forums.

    Once again, keeping threads on topic, and reducing the personal attacks isn't "censorship". The vast majority of your posts - and those of others who have been put on pre-moderation in recent months - have been approved. We're not shutting down anything because we don't agree with it, anything like that we're calling out ourselves, as other forum users, not as moderators.

    Please make an effort to understand and respect, that what we're doing isn't personal, and isn't cliquey. Hopefully once we've finalised the forum/website rules and posted them that'll add further clarity, but until then, please take away the reminder that we're hiding personal attacks that don't help foster an inclusive discussion.

  11. 8 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

    Farage interviewing tRump!

    OMFGG. 

    and then some journalist says tRump would be great as he is 'a nutter' as so other leaders would be scared as they would not know what he will do.

    Yeh, cos nutters have a great track record of not causing huge problems.

    One of my friends watched this and said you could see in Farage's face that he thought Trump was far too nutty and right-wing.

    I'm taking his word for it, but if so... wow.

  12. 9 hours ago, steviewevie said:

    Latest worry with massive Labour landslide and Tory wipeout is seating in parliament, Labour will have to sit on both sides.

    Keir Starmer would attempt that anyway.

  13. 4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

    he did go on some sort of training course for it didn't he? because he put the cost of it on his expenses...

    You mean the one day thing when Abbott is asked to go on a week-long one?

  14. 16 hours ago, Neil said:

    if they don't want that battle, the likes of abbott and corbyn (I'm unsure about others) only have to take the simple steps they've been asked to take. if those leftist MP's  are too stupid to remain as labour MPs  that's their issue.

    I agree with Abbott and Corbyn's suspensions, but why were they asked to take antisemitism/similar training, when Neil Coyle wasn't asked to take Sinophobia training?

  15. 5 minutes ago, charlierc said:

    Yes. I'm not at that point yet though - I know some on Twitter or Reddit call for this at even the slightest inconvenience but the noise is that he'll stick around for next season and his work in the first 2 seasons still has enough credit in the bank.

    Certainly, I don't want Mourinho like some want given his form at Roma in league games was pretty poor.

    I don't give much credence to those opinions tbh. I think the problems this season aren't really to do with the manager. I'm also not really sure there's a big name I want that'd consider joining.

  16. Just now, steviewevie said:

    I don't buy this at all.

    But...I do buy that Labour providing stability and some public investment that drives private investment could lead to some growth...and closer ties to EU...but at same time I think UK economy has so many problems I am not convinced at all that good times are on the way.

    To be clear, I don't think good times are on the way, just less sh*t times. There's enough just obvious, basic stuff to change that'll create some improvement.

  17. 43 minutes ago, charlierc said:

    Exactly - last season's 4th place was achieved with a core of players that had been also in the team when Eddie Howe took over. The argument as to whether we need to trade up to push up is a different one, but even then, we're still at a better level than the often passive teams in the Steve Bruce era.

    By trade up do you mean the manager?

    As I'd say Howe's done plenty to earn a longer chance.

  18. 2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

    Who knows what will happen when they get into power...but at moment they seem to be hoping that growth is the answer which will enable them to turn on the spending taps..but where this growth will come from is the problem. Rejoining the EU might help.

    Some of the growth will just naturally come from there being trust in there being a stable government for the next 10 years. Add in that the country will no longer be losing as much money to corruption, and there will just be some natural, inherent growth that's been choked out by the Tories.

    Other growth will be triggered just by spending on the basics. If you get more money in the pockets of working classes, they instantly spend it because it's actually really hard emotionally to save when you've been struggling. Whether this is a big night out, on a new fridge when the old one is almost but not quite dead, a nice outfit, or whatever, if money gets into the pockets of people who've been skint and tight, it'll get spent and chain into more growth.

    I think after Labour's first budget, regardless of what's in it, there'll be a starting point for some growth. My fear is largely that they don't utilise it enough to turn the spending taps on and trigger more.

  19. 3 hours ago, Neil said:

    get a coach that improves players, if you make cheap players better it doesn't have to cost billions.

    Have you seen the difference in how good Wilson, Joelinton, Schar, Murphy, Almiron, Longstaff have been under Howe compared to Bruce? And Lascalles has been back to the level he was under Benitez instead of how he was playing under Bruce.

    I didn't rate Gordon when we signed him, but he's been magnificent this season.

    I'd argue that the only player that regressed under Howe was ASM, and that's because the system under Bruce was "pass it to Allan and hope his trickery gets a corner". And he's been sold on.

  20. 4 minutes ago, charlierc said:

    I think the issue with the Tonali deal for me is that we said we wanted somebody to play as a holding midfielder to allow Bruno to move into the right-side of the trio, and by definition meant something combative, but it became quickly apparent in pre-season that Tonali wasn't really that kind of player so he took the role Bruno was going to take up.

    I don't deny that Tonali had some good games but there were also some like Brighton and West Ham away that weren't it. Saying that, if Bruno does leave in the summer, it means Tonali is gonna have to hit the ground running as his de facto replacement imo. I think the talent is there tbf, but I personally wasn't sure he was right for what we were initially planning.

    Squad depth is true, though. November and December was an exhausting amount of football for a club not used to playing every midweek and it was clear the squad wasn't chunky enough to handle it. The team has badly missed Pope & Joelinton, plus Wilson and Isak seem to be unable to be fit at the same time.

    I saw a piece a month or two ago saying that Tonali was using this time wher ehe couldn't play to settle into the city/country more, while still training hard, which if true, makes me hopeful for next season. In the game's Tonali was good, he could break up play effectively and turn it into going forward, but Bruno can do that as well. I get the concept that they're similar, but they're also both quite all-round box-to-box midfielders, so I'm hoping that somehow between our midfielders we can get a functioning system. 

    The squad depth thing absolutely showed in the game yesterday though. A quadruple substitution and 3 of the players brought on are teenagers.

  21. 53 minutes ago, charlierc said:

    I mean, if it is to happen, it's going to have to be done in a different way. Man City & Chelsea had the luxury in a pre-FFP era of just spending and not having to care about losses or percentage of revenue spending or whatever. It is essentially having to try and nail every transfer window, getting more player trading calls right than wrong, and getting on-paper inferior players to put in their 10/10s all the time, which tbf, I would argue is how Spurs got into the big 6, but that's much easier said than done.

    If the goal is on transfers, I think last summer was a mis-step - Tonali was imo the wrong fit but then got the gambling ban, Barnes has had a nightmare with injuries and Howe hasn't been convinced by Lewis Hall. Throw-in a season-long injury crisis, including several long-term injuries to key players, and the fact we seem to have a core of barely fit players essentially being played into the ground, and it's just become a bit of a chore. Even if we could somehow still sneak a Europa Conference League place if we can just get our act together in the final games.

    Maybe it is just the difficult second album. Though if we sell a crown jewel like Bruno or Isak in the summer, it means they have to f**king nail the rebuild.

    Tonali had a couple of games where he looked insanely good. He was ridiculous in the opening Villa game, and our 2nd best player after Pope in the draw at Milan. I don't know how much the upcoming gambling ban affected him after that. I'm not convinced by the "Tonali and Bruno don't mesh well together" noises without seeing more to justify that.

    I think the biggest problem is squad depth - basically we didn't have our summer signings for various reasons, and Wilson has gone back into the injury cycle that's plagued his career. Add in more games and an injury crisis creating a chain-reaction of just most of the squad being permanently barely fit, and it's just difficult.

  22. 4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

    just feels like Labour are fighting amongst themselves with this racism hierarchy thing depending on what faction you are from...you're a racist, no you're a racist etc etc. I guess get it everywhere though...we probably all are guilty of it.

    Neil Coyle is a racist c**t and shouldn't be in the Labour party.

  23. £3k to go to Rwanda is definitely a great deal.

    Just like convicts being pardoned the death penalty to go to Australia was a great deal.

     

    It's not a real offer. It's a threat disguised as a bribe.

  24. 1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

    It's more about the rights of those wrongly convicted than those who are obviously very guilty of vile things...............

    Perhaps we could bring back the stocks for MP's that break the rules or laws?

    I realise that! I'm just referencing the quick mentality.

    I'd pay good money to pelt corrupt politicians with rotten fruit.

×
×
  • Create New...