The most important discussion to face /leftybritpol/ yet continues.
So far we have uncovered that, yes, Hitler was in fact a racist.
> “The racist is immunized against all dangers: One may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a racist and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I’ve been found out".”
a conclusion from the previous thread:
>>2282432>When I say 'everyone is racist' I mean it is a label you can stick on anyone at any time for any reason.but you cannot even qualify what "racism" is because you do not believe in its particular claim. you will not say that hitler was racist, for example. this disavowal of the term is just superstition in reverse, as i say. you are giving power to the word so much that you will not even evoke its name, like how jews are forbidden from speaking the name of God.
>>2282440>everyone can be called racistas kant says, "honesty is the best policy, but honesty is better than policy"
the way you get ahead of accusations is self-admission. if someone accuses you of racism, its probably better to admit to it than to deny it, because when you lie, you dont just appear as racist, but a liar. the witch-hunt puts you in a defenseless position, remember? you can watch old oswald moseley interviews for example, where he is trying to rehabilitate fascism of all things, by sanitising his past. if hitler survived the war, he'd probably claim to not be anti-semitic for the sake of approval (the same way neo-nazis deny the holocaust; in psychoanalytic terms, this is the right inhabiting a leftist superego). deny this privilege of your enemies, by affirming opposition to the hegemony instead. if you shall be a witch, die with a bit of pride.
>>2282445or the corner shop as the "paki shop"?
i remember my grandfather claiming the term "paki" was purely technical, referring to the pakistani peoples. of course, he was also a high tory who like hitler, but thats a different story…
>>2282457oh, the great effort of those extra syllables!
as i said before, there is a distinction between denotation and connotation. "paki" has been connoted with racial ignorance, so has become generally socially unacceptable. it may denote a particular ethnic group, but this is within a larger context. to be ignorant of this would be as if wearing a swastika armband in the public of a western city, then defending it as a "buddhist symbol". one must either be an idiot or a liar to do as such. now, the denotatum as such is neutral, but gains a particular content by its connotation.
>>2282499>sure, but im sure there is a general education in japan we are ignorant of also.Yeah and these dumb dumbs must not know that either.
LMAO, I can't imagine life as a dum-dum. Your country is still occupied by America, and you have no conception of when or how it started. It must be scary being a dum-dum, but maybe they're too dumb to feel fear.
I guess kinda like a 1984 reality, but they live in it because they're literally too stupid to read a fucking wikipedia article even.
Anyone who sees more state capitalism as somehow a win for the left needs to give their head a wobble.
It's an absolute joke that this is what people will satisfied with as an alternative to private ownership.
I HATE CAPITALISM.
So it's no longer managed by a private corporation…
Now it's owned by the state, who continues to run it under the exact same a capitalist model, with the goal of maximising profits for the government, at the workers' expense.
The workers are still employees, they don't own the network to any extent, they don't have any say in how it is managed, decision making comes from the same top down system, all revenue goes directly to the state.
No change to a model of operation where the networks actually aim to achieve the best service for the customer, rather there is still the same old focus on profit over utility.
Any surplus value generated isn't reinvested in the service any more that before, it isn't used to improve worker conditions or reduce worker hours, rather now it just goes straight to the government pocket rather than to a private corporation.
No collective ownership, no self-management, no democratic planning.
I am the last leftist alive and I am going insane.
>>2282508>Anyone who sees more state capitalism as somehow a win for the left needs to give their head a wobble.TIL Lenin needs to give his head a wobble.
>Now it's owned by the state, who continues to run it under the exact same a capitalist model, with the goal of maximising profits for the government, at the workers' expense.That's because the state isn't run by communists.
>The workers are still employees, they don't own the network to any extent, they don't have any say in how it is managed, decision making comes from the same top down system, all revenue goes directly to the state.Why should a small slice of workers get to profit off THE ENTIRE RAIL NETWORK or OWN the entire rail network? It should belong to EVERYONE not just a minuscule group of workers. This is where your retarded ultra-leftism reveals itself to be actually more regressive than social democracy because you would elevate and privilege a small group of workers over the welfare of workers in society at large. This is the exact logic that led to the CIA-funded Solidarity Trade Union network demanding increased wages for themselves at the expense of everyone else.
>No change to a model of operation where the networks actually aim to achieve the best service for the customer, rather there is still the same old focus on profit over utility.Again this is simply because the state is run by neoliberals like Starmer rather than committed communists. This has nothing to do with ownership or forms of ownership and everything to do with the actual people in power.
>Any surplus value generated isn't reinvested in the service any more that before, it isn't used to improve worker conditions or reduce worker hours, rather now it just goes straight to the government pocket rather than to a private corporation.Constant reduction of worker hours lowers productivity and hinders efficiency which then causes negative effects for the rest of society. There's a certain point at where gains in improving working conditions ceases to be helpful or socially beneficial and it's just throwing more benefits onto people who are already wealthy and spoiled. Again this just proves that your "leftism" is the "leftism" of labor aristocracy and not communism. Why shouldn't surplus value go for example into boosting the healthcare service which is close to collapse, rather than privileging a narrow minority of rail workers? Your "leftism" is just a disguise and cover for wrecking, sabotage, and failure.
>>2282551What about your energy production and transportation? Pretty crazy to let China own that.
>The CIC has a 10.5 per cent stake in National Grid’s gas distribution network after the gas and electricity company agreed to sell a majority stake in its gas pipe network in 2016. The CIC also holds an 8.7 per cent share of Thames Water. Damn, they even own the damn river.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-steel-china-infrastructure-uk-b2732877.html >>2282471you started strong and then imploded.
"trans rights" is a statement in favour of giving transgender people the general rights enjoyed by ordinary members of society, which they're often excluded from.
this isn't galaxy brain high-theory shit. you have a codified right to be treated within a certain time on the NHS.
>Patients have a right to start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks of referral or request an offer of alternative providers that can start their treatment sooner. The NHS must take all reasonable steps to meet patients' requestsyour first appointment at a gender clinic - not your actual treatment,
your first appointment where they will not do anything has a waiting list that is multiple years long. "trans rights" in this case is just the radical suggestion that perhaps people with this particular medical problem ought to actually be treated by what is, after all, our medical system.
it's not just that, of course, but you're being purposefully obtuse when you go WhAt RiGhTs DoNt ThEy HaVe???, you want the answer to be complicated nonsense rather than a simple, practical: to see a doctor and to not have judges legislate against you by fiat.
>>2282587>"trans rights" is a statement in favour of giving transgender people the general rights enjoyed by ordinary members of society, which they're often excluded from.right, so in the first instance, it is a universal claim. "trans rights" are full and equal civil rights.
>you want the answer to be complicated nonsenseno, no. i want the opposite. asking the negative: "what rights do they lack?" is a reasonable question, which is rarely ever answered, because what i assume, is that "trans rights" generally means "trans privilege", or equity over equality.
>to see a doctor and to not have judges legislate against youokay, and what would that entail, practically?
>>2282595It practically entails exactly what it says on the box. The NHS should actually offer treatment for gender dysphoria, which it currently basically does not. The judiciary shouldn't tendentiously interpret laws in ways they clearly were not intended, in the interest of screwing people over. (The recent ruling effectively invalidates the GRA2004, which was passed because the ECHR considered the then status quo to violate human rights)
The current situation is ridiculous. If you want antidepressants the GP hands them over in 5 minutes. In a number of first world countries, transgender healthcare operates on the idea of informed consent: you go to the GP and ask for HRT, the GP tells you that it'll bounce your risk of blood clots to the female level (if male to female) or make you go bald when you're old (if female to male), you sign a thing saying you understand that. Boom, done. 15 minute appointment and very cheap.
The UK on the other thing gatekeeps the whole system for no good reason. You have to be seen by a gender clinic, which is where the big bottleneck is. There is no good reason for this, except (unspokenly) to make the process of transitioning more difficult.
Moreover, the NHS actively throws existing norms out the window when dealing with trans healthcare and only trans healthcare. Want to go private in a shared care agreement with the NHS? Lol, no. Are you under 18? Well, don't worry, gillick competence - the legal standard to which all other medical treatments are held - doesn't apply to puberty blockers or HRT.
Improving trans healthcare would save the NHS time and money. Unfortunately, our ruling class have decided that whatever the cost, it's a small price to pay to fuck over transgender people.
The demand of an obscure minority for equality sometimes looks like a demand for special privileges, but in this case it's the person with toothache having the "privilege" of getting a root canal instead of being left to suffer.
>>2282626You'll call it trans privilege, but there's a fairly easy answer: apply the EA2010 as intended and find that anti-transgender prejudice is "not worthy of respect in a democratic society", as is generally found for prejudice against other groups.
(A lower court correctly found this, but the supreme court subsequently decided it was a legitimately held philosophical belief worthy of respect)
No new legislation is required. Treating them in accordance with the rules as they actually exist rather than playing Calvinball to screw them over because our press and our ruling class don't like 'em.
>>2282628so basically, you want more direct provision of drugs? the hypocrisy is in giving people SSRIs easily but not HRT. the inequality is based in this?
>>2282631dont we already have impartiality laws?
>>2282638so you want transgender people to be given the status of protection, the same as other minorities?
from the equality act of 2010:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents"gender reassignment" is already a "protected characteristic" for which discrimination against is unlawful - so what are the stipulations that this category has not been protected? you mention different courts, yet this legislation has not been revised or overturned. is your suggestion that the state simply denies protection based in arbitrary unlawfulness?
>>2282639The delays suggest incompetence of the kind common in the NHS, the active hostility to people who try to improve things for themselves (by going private for example), and the refusal to follow international best practice (which would remove the delays and cut the whole thing down to a GP appointment) suggests malice.
There is no actual justification for throwing the principle of gillick competence away when it comes to trans healthcare. It's not schizo to notice that. It's not schizo to remember that as recently as 2017, there was a cross party consensus on improving the lot of transgender people, and that since then we've suddenly changed course in an incredibly anomalous way. (Conservatives are doing it everywhere, yeah, but our
libs are almost universally onboard)
>>2282648In a sense, though that's more like a practical example than "why"
The "why" is that international best practice is to do things by informed consent, while what we do in practice is to all-but deny treatment using an outdated style of treatment full of unnecessary bottlenecks.
>>2282672It is not clear to me how you could get the idea it's about wanting more market: I want the NHS to do what a normal healthcare system would do. When other healthcare systems have found a cheaper and easier way to get better healthcare outcomes more quickly, why would you keep doing things the old way?
Failing that change, I want it to at least do what it claims it is supposed to do: give people their stupid bottleneck appointment within 18 weeks. Make every reasonable accomodation.
I have the deranged notion that the NHS should actually provide treatment for a health condition.
>>2282681I am not sure why you adopt the framing of "demands"
I make no demands. For a demand to be meaningful, one must be able to impose consequences for failing to comply with the demand. I have merely set out the most obvious case of a right in law being ignored egregiously.
>>2282978Retarded conspiracy. Estradiol is a comically cheap generic drug (some people make it in the bath!) and transgender people are vanishingly rare. You could multiply the number of them a thousandfold and still not make any money.
This is a "why make billions when you can make thousands?" tier idea.
>>2282441by 'qualify' do you mean 'define'?
I don't need to define it in order to trash its definition do I? i can say something is broken without offering a replacement. I will (and have already) offer a replacement.
>>2283097Britain was successful-ish 1945-79, the only time it has ever been a nation. That nation called its railway "British Railways"
Calling it Great British Railways betrays a deep insecurity. Great nations let their greatness speak for them. Worse yet, it's an artificial attempt to prop Britain up - the idea being that Britain's problem is a lack of pride, rather than holing itself beneath the waterline to transition from nation to financial fraud center circa Thatcher.
As always, everyone should read David Edgerton.
>>2283095in the witch hunt, you have no defence. you are presumed guilty and cannot prove your innocence. it is not a rule which applies in all cases, only in the most irrational. now, i use the example of racism to say that oswald mosely himself denied being a racist, and his supporters do the same. a literal doctrinal fascist will deny being labeled a "fascist" for sake of his reputation. my perspective is that there is power in honesty. in logical terms, a negative defense transforms into a positive affirmation. once you claim the power of the curse, you become impervious to its charm. think of the recent case of shiloh hendrix in the US. the curse against her was the accusation of racism, and in her admission to it, she didnt just lose stigma, but was celebrated by other racists. if she instead denied it and was apologising, she would be subject to the mercy of her accusers. this is how power works. thats why i admit to being racist myself, and why, conversely, the most racist people constantly deny it. this is pure repression, as in my example here:
>>2282471the counter-example of a baseless accusation being admitted to does not apply. those who are called "racist" are typically racist. where theres smoke, theres fire. but so what? its not a crime to be racist, only to be racially aggressive.
>>2283085>by 'qualify' do you mean 'define'?yes, in effect.
>I don't need to define it in order to trash its definition do I? i can say something is broken without offering a replacement. I will (and have already) offer a replacement.what is that replacement? whats incorrect about the established definition of "racism"? i define racism as "racial prejudice" or "racial discrimination".
>>2283612> it is not a rule which applies in all caseswell that's fucking handy isn't it.
The verrry original point to all of this was how the bbc can get away with what would otherwise be considered libel and defamation. I've cited a counter example to support this.
>what is the replacementgetting really tiresome having to repeat points, but my closest practical definition would be 'unfounded discrimination'. If you are looking for a personal trainer, you'd likely not hire someone in a wheelchair. This is discrimination, but it is founded and reasonable. This of course inevitable leads to it just being a subjective opinion, which ultimately what the word 'racism' is. Like you say, it's a witch hunt.
Picrel is Ricky Jones and those 'counter protest remarks' (for which I cannot find any ther transcript for on the internet) as follows:
>women and children using those trains just doing their summer holidays.
>They are disgusting nazi fascists and we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all" >>2283614Because you all spend your time arguing with one obsessive /pol/ack who is a pet of the jannies.
You make the General it becomes. Want it to be better? just ignore the faggot.
>>2283633>the bbc can get away with what would otherwise be considered libel and defamationif thats the case, then they can be sued, no?
>unfounded discriminationthis is a universal claim; racism is a particular claim. complete your proposition: unfounded discrimination - against a particular race.
and cant someone be racist while also having rational grounds for such discrimination? why does it have to be "unfounded" to you?
>This of course inevitable leads to it just being a subjective opinionopinions also have their conditional terms. if someone is accused of racism there must be a "reason".
>which ultimately what the word 'racism' is.i disagree. you cant even say that hitler was racist, so you have no grounds to disqualify the term. you are just afraid of this curse word, like a shadow is repelled by the sun. you are in effect, claiming that racism does not exist, to protect your racist goons.
>>2283640>racismI disagree with the entire premise of the word.
I don't think there is even a practical definition for what a 'race' is.
>complete your propositionI don't see why discrimination based on 'skin colour' (a physical attribute) should be considered any different to any other physical attribute, e.g height. And before you say it, I really don't think big baz is weighing up the trials and tribulations of centuries of cultural dynamics when he calls someone a black bastard.
>if thats the case, then they can be sued, no?forgive me if I'm not content with basing my morality with what some fucking lawyer decides is 'actionable'.
It's all just a mallet that can be reached for to silence a dissenter, when it's convenient of course.
>>2283648>I disagree with the entire premise of the word.right, so you dont believe that racism exists.
just say it.
>>2283656Let me put it into a context with a statement:
>I do not agree with halal slaughter, I think it is unnecessarily cruel. Boom. There are 100% people who would begin waving their racism sticks at me for saying that. Why is that? It is a reasoned opinion, and technically does not pertain to any specific race.
>>2283659well that is a cultural disagreement falsely posed as racism, as you say. for example, if we imagine someone claiming that they dislike christianity, there is less offense taken, but the substance of the claim is equal. its only when we grant special treatment that the claim is given a particular status, which is unfair in a secular society.
however, if someone said they dislike islam because it is arabic, a source of racial/ethnic disagreement is concerned. however, if the reverse is postulated, "i hate english people", it is the same, but granted a different status. there are unfair double standards of racism, but they are still the same act.
>>2283661why cant human nature be racist?
>>2283666>The term 'racism' comes from a place of control and suppressiononly if you let it dominate you, which you have allowed. you cant even type the word without quotation marks. pure cowardice. its a fucking word, why give it so much power. to cleanse yourself of this fear, just say out loud, "i am racist". it'll be a weight off your shoulders.
>>2283667brace for impact.
>>2283673>why give it so much powerwhere to even begin with that
>just say out loud into a mirrorI would tell staunch contrarians to do the same over bregshit, except use the phrase
>My opinion is not worth more than anyone else's >>2283675>where to even begin with thatright, so you are scared of the word. thats why you are constantly exorcising it. you even deny hitler was racist. pathetic behaviour.
>I would tell staunch contrarians to do the same over bregshityes i agree. we should all perform self-criticism. lets all be honest with ourselves. will you participate?
>>2283683>I don't see it as a self criticism though?yes, because you are egostical. youve never said a wrong word have you? this is why im glad i grew up catholic, so i have a bit of shame. maybe its asking too much for a confession of sins in this day and age.
>I don't lie to myselfeveryone lies to themself
>i am entitled to my opinion.and opinions must be backed up by reasons
>>2283689Ok chief, here you go.
I concede that I do lie to myself about some things.
:D
doesn't change the point.
>and opinions must be backed up by reasonsDo they? If I were go out into the garden on a lovely fresh summer morning looking to taking in a lungful of fresh air, only to be met with a gag-inducing miasma of the neighbours cooking a curry again because that's all they fucking cook every day. Is that a reason to not like living next door to them?
>>2283692>doesn't change the point.of course it does.
>if i dont like [X] because of [Y], is that a reason?yes.
if you merely said,
i dont like [X]… because [X], this is unreasonable (that is, it lacks reasoning).
now, the reasons given may be contested, but they still stand as an argument.
>>2283697no it doesn't change the point. I do not say things that i do not believe are true.
I don't go out into the garden and mid-gag tell myself that this is fine and progressive because I'm scared of being called a racist.
>>2283702>I do not say things that i do not believe are true.i think you say things to protect your reputation. talking to you is like talking to a politician. its maddening.
>I don't go out into the garden and mid-gag tell myself that this is fine and progressive because I'm scared of being called a racist.why would you have to? this is what i mean. reactionaries must preconceive their repression to even have a sense of identity. its like any minority who constantly claims the system is against them. notice how in all cases there are problems without solutions.
>>2283726Why would i have to?
Because the blue haired harpies would descend upon me for being a 'gammon' or 'racist' or whatever the slur de jour is. Chud these days isn't it.
Man, that takes me back. Gammon. Now that should have been considered racist, but because might is right, it was fine to use.
>>2283731>the blue haired harpies would descend upon me for being a 'gammon' or 'racist' or whatever the slur de jour is. just for finding displeasure in curry?
these days, you cant even say you dislike curry.
>Now that should have been considered racist, but because might is right, it was fine to use.no, youre right. proper hate crime, innit.
>>2283735>proper hate crime, innityeah just casually dismiss it mate. That's fine.
Let me guess, you can't be 'racist' to white people.
>>2283735>these days, you cant even say you dislike curry.*inhales*
I DON'T LIKE SMELLING SOME MANKY CURRY IN THE MORNING
Hey! I feel better already. Being honest about my feelings is great!
>>2283741>yeah just casually dismiss it mateif someone called you a gammon, do you think they should be arrested?
>Let me guess, you can't be 'racist' to white people.of course you can. "karen" is clearly a slur against white women. but so what? i thought you types wanted free speech.
>>2283750>but so what? but so…. fucking… what
There we have it. It's my duty to turn a blind eye. To take one on the chin.
>>2283752PEOPLE SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO FIX THEIR OWN COUNTRY
IF WE DON'T HAVE BORDERS, THEN WE DON'T PAY TAXES
i'm on a roll here!
>>2283769I will go to jail if I speak my mind. Regardless of how well reasoned I am. Or at the very least be a pariah.
Hey your skin resembles the colour of [***] sp I will refer to you by that.
>>2283552There is nothing to take pride in. To have national spirit and pride Britain would need to be a nation. Again, I can't recommend Edgerton enough.
>>2283557My problem is not with the word "great", my problem is with the insecure need to stick it before "British" to imply British greatness.
GWR almost proves the point: A single railway line may call itself great. That may, for historically contingent reasons, expand into a larger company. "We're the greatest railway" is an appropriate if tonally outdated boast. It's nonsense, however, to have the whole national network under that label - "great" only works comparatively! (And if you're comparing it to old BR by implying BR wasn't great, that's the old British insecurity at it again!)
>>2283773>There is nothing to take pride in.Peter is that you?
>my problem is with the insecure need to stick it before "British" Let's cut the crap. You are a slathering libshit who is triggered by the mere concept of national pride.
>>2283771so there are double standards. i agree.
if a basic proposition of fairness is equal treatment, then we must abide by this stipulation, that no equal parties ought to possess preferential treatment. however, there are natural inequalities, which we may call "disabilities". a disabled person has the legitimate claim to preferential treatment. if certain minoriry groups feel that they are owed a claim for more than what is granted to majorities, then they admit to an inequality, and so a form of social disability. if this is highlighted, such that person [X] is lesser than [Y] in some capacity, then we have formalised relations, and established the rule of double standards. if alternatively, there is no natural inferiority, then there should be no double standard in legal practice. of course, legal and civil matters may differ. it is better to be hated than to be arrested.
>>2283776No I am not. Read Edgerton, you blathering retard. You can't even keep your metaphors consistent: one minute I'm Peter Hitchens, the next I'm a lib.
A proud nation expresses that pride by running a national railway network competently, not by giving it a twee name. They don't call it "Great Japan Railways" or "Great French Railways", do they?
>B-but the third rate wordplay on the name of the islandYes, that's what a proud nation does isn't it?
twer japes in the naming of key national infrastructure. Why, we should write to British Airways and ask them why they hate Britain!
they do, but that's another story >>2283254It's that everything to do with modern British politics is controlled entirely by focus grouping and insane out of touch grifter PR-agencies. Honestly almost EVERYTHING mainstream about the UK these days, comes off as this bizarre fake corporate London facade run through 20 advertising and PR firms.
Even the way Politicians stand, move, talk here is so fucking unnatural and weird.
You know exactly how "Great British Railways" was chosen, like you can invision the board room meeting between the 30 PR firms that came up with that name in your mind. "Great" is there, in the same way a fucking supermarket slogan is chosen like "Fresh".
>>2284019Because we stick it on everything so it looks tacky. Why the fuck do they make cushions with the flag on it? Weird 1960s kitsch cringe for a flag that - while a good
flag - isn't exactly pretty.
I feel no outrage at the saltire, the dragon, or at. George's cross.
>>2284012Why is it that Japanese nationalism is embodied in LARPing an actual tradition, while "British" nationalism is embodied in subpar corporate branding exercises?
I'll give my theory: because post-Meiji Japan is a successful nation building exercise, and losing WW2 showed their ruling class that they're vulnerable, keeping them on their toes, while Britain only really had to nationbuild after WW2 (meaning our "nation" always amounted to a handful of nationalised industries and a mythos about WW2) and our ruling classes never particularly cared for the exercise. They have never known vulnerability. They are complacent.
>>2284041>subpar corporate branding exercises?I think that is unfair. As I've said before there is a cultural precedent, albeit a romanticised one, with Portillo's railway journeys programme, and there is an historic one too with GWR. I think you are being overly fragile about this.
It's interesting to me how knowledge and skill are stored in culture, and Japanese culture is a prime example of this. It's baffling to me that people think you can just dump one culture into another with no ill effect.
>>2284066Naming the national railway company after a TV show (shall we perhaps rename BA "come fly with British Airways"?) and a single route that said company operates, when it already had a perfectly good name (British Railways) that was extinguished by what we now recognise to have been a short sighted political decision, is not a particularly convincing precedent. It would be contrived even in an alt history where the only aim was to wank off the GWR.
>>2283825 has it right.
>>2284041Outside of Royal bootlicking, the UK really doesn't celebrate anything historically about itself. Which is pretty wild as it's absolutely one of the "main characters" of history.
I saw a comment on plebbit the other day that pointed out that you get more celebration of UK traditional culture, arthurian legend etc from America, than you actually get in the UK.
We don't even have Ren Faires.
>>2284071I'm pretty sure they had spin teams in the past. And why not name it after something that resonates? Portillo is the david attenborough of railways after all. lol
Do you have any thoughts on the 'cultural brain' theory I was talking about? I think it is an poignant considering we seem to have forgotten how to build a house, a far cry from all of the Victorian era marvels of stone.
>>2284087it's not just limited to industry, because of course international collaberation is not a bad thing necessarily. But at a fundemental level.
Britishness is forming an orderly queue. Where did that come from? Where might it go? And under what circumstance?
You are a reflection of your upbringing and surroundings and if that is getting merked in maccy d's, then that is now our new culture.
>>2284252ruben amorim is not a white
ruben amorim is not british
ruben amorim is not a man
try again, CIA
>>2284907no-one is a fascist.
Fascism is something that happens after someone is given power.
i live in liverpool and just saw the headlines about the attack. i was coming out of the city centre around 4pm yesterday and was on the bus for 2 hours. shows how congested it is due to blocked roads. there were police lined up everywhere, so this shouldnt have been a surprise to anyone. the dickhead was clearly either an idiot or malicious. just glad that he didnt do more harm. 27 people taken into hospital. 2 seriously injured, 4 seriously ill.
>>2284331lets just be grateful your family wasnt a victim in this.
>>2284926>Hitler became a fascist dictatorno, no. i never mentioned hitler being a fascist dictator; i asked whether hitler was a "national socialist" before the year of 1933?
>>2284930>Considering the definition I posted, it being characterised by a dictatorial leaderokay, so what would you call someone who believed in the political doctrine of fascism?
>>2284935>i asked whether hitler was a "national socialist" before the year of 1933?I'm not going to change the subject, thanks
>political doctrine of fascismfascsim isn't a political doctrine, it's what a leader does when they abuse their power.
Hier starmer's suppression of #BumBoyGate by misusing his contacts at the yard could be seen as an example of fascism
>>2284934>nazi and fascism are two different wordsyet you equate them by saying this:
>>2284926>Hitler became a fascist dictatorso in practice, there is no difference?
>>2284938>I'm not going to change the subject, thanksso you refuse to answer the simplest of questions? this makes you either a coward, a liar or an idiot. pick one.
>fascsim isn't a political doctrine, it's what a leader does when they abuse their power.🤣 so were the roman emporers fascists?
>>2284941> were the roman emporers fascistsyes
putin is a fascist
kim jun uno extreme is a fascist
that toothy jacinda bird was a fascist
the fact that zelensky has bypassed an election to his favour indeed makes him a fascist
>>2284939are you aware that the term "fascism" was coined by italian thinkers in the 1920s to describe their political philosophy of "totalitarianism" (a term they also seem to have invented to describe themselves)? the term "national socialism" actually predates "fascism", as we may see in rudolf jung's "Der Nationale Sozialismus", published in 1918. these are not abstract ideas, but historically-situated ideologies which still exist today.
the alternative you propose in saying:
>fascsim isn't a political doctrine, it's what a leader does when they abuse their power.makes you equivalent with the politically correct mob that you hate
>>2284950was hitler a nazi before the year 1933? any GCSE student would breeze past this one. come on, fella.
>>2284970no, i am responding to him. are you the retard who offered eco instead of ᴉuᴉlossnW?
>>2284966you equate national socialism and fascism here:
>>2284926>Hitler became a fascist dictatorthen you say:
>>2284938>fascsim isn't a political doctrine, it's what a leader does when they abuse their power. >>2284975>fascism isn’t dictatorial rule.according to you, fascism is when "machismo".
his definition is still better, despite all odds.
>>2284974>you equate national socialism and fascism here: >>2284926 (Youyou mean in the judeopaedia article?
It vaguely references some tenets of national socialism as part of the definition, I don't understand how you've concluded that as being equal to.
Sometimes the fascist dictator is all for an ethnostate, see kim jungo curtains for uno, other times the dictator may not have any interest in that see putin
>>2285050>you mean in the judeopaedia article?you directly. read your own post:
>>2284926>Hitler became a fascist dictatoryou say it right there. you do not dispute this definition and even apply it to roman emporers, inferring that fascism existed before fascism was founded - just like our friend here:
>>2284984proving, as i have stated, how you reproduce idiotic, politically correct logic. instead, i offer an historical understanding of fascism, which is rejected. you are thus submitting to the wikipedia article for your knowledge.
>I don't understand how you've concluded that as being equal to.i never equated them. you did. but lets repeat skme questions for the sake of clarity:
(1) was hitler a fascist dictator? (as you have said)
then the follow-up which you are too afraid to answer:
(2) was hitler a nazi before 1933?
>>2285186It's fairly astounding how incompetent they are. I'm entirely convinced I, or pretty much anyone picked at random, could run a better right-wing bribe-taking Labour government than Starmer/McSweeney. Even sticking to the stupid fiscal rules (which Labour will no doubt breach at some point), even
without actually fixing anything, I think it would be easy to outdo them. It's easy to talk about them as evil people, but so much worse than their evil is their stupidity and incompetence.
>>2285210or at least explain how this
>Hitler became a fascist dictator when he was given support and therefore power by the German people.is equating 'national socialism' with 'fascism'. I can't see it myself. Kier starmer was given support and therefore power by the U.K democratic system. ? Is that nazism as well? fucking hell.
>>2285210you cant even answer two basic questions:
(1) was hitler a fascist dictator?
(2) was hitler a nazi before 1933?
>dudeand youre talking like a yank as well. fucks sake.
>>2285216>equating 'national socialism' with 'fascism'.you call hitler a fascist; hitler was also a nazi. therefore hitler acting as a nazi was also a fascist. if not, explain the fault in my reasoning.
>is starmer a nazi as well?this is where you lack logic. there are conditional equalities; a bag can be blue - therefore, a bag is blue, but blueness does not comprise all bags. an equaluty of kinds then is conditional. in your hitler example you see that he was both a nazi and a fascist, yet not all fascists are nazis. to you, this applies to keir. he is a fascist, but not a nazi. the equation is conditional, thus. think of it in terms of a venn diagram.
>>2285226>you cant even answer two basic questions:1) yes
2) I'm not going to change the subject to nazism and speculating who is or was and when part of what ideology, I'm just not going to do it. Please take that as my final position, otherwise this is going to get nasty. Thank you.
>>2285226>explain the fault in my reasoning.I'm a man
I'm a carpenter
your 'logic':
when I'm sawing a piece of wood, that means I am a man.
The fault in your logic is that women can saw pieces of wood as well.
>>2285228>I'm not going to change the subject to nazism and speculating who is or wasso you literally cannot say that adolf hitler was a nazi? you dont see how stupid you look?
>otherwise this is going to get nasty.how would it get nasty? we dont know each other. the only thing you threaten is to further humiliate yourself.
>>2285251>your 'logic': when I'm sawing a piece of wood, that means I am a man.no, no. remember when i stressed the notion of "condition"? this in aristotelian logic pertains to "qualification", or the process whereby one quality is determined in the nature of another. i used the example of a blue bag. we agree that it partakes in both the quality of being a bag and being blue. yet, to be a bag is not to be blue, and to be blue is not to be a bag. this is why i gave the geometrics of a venn diagram to make my point - or do you not understand venn diagrams? your example of "i am a man who is a carpenter" has the same conditions. the quality of masculinity and carpentry are implied in yourself, yet in each category of masculinity and carpentry, each are excluded in themselves.
>>2285121>>2285144They all are. Britain first go marching around with crosses nowadays (it's very strange considering White Britain's increasing secularism).
Here is a preacher Tommy is apparently tied with:
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2025/05/rikki-doolan-quits-ukip/ >>2285320The whole religion LARP is rather odd for the UK in particular.
According the latest census data, the irreligious outnumber Christians across England, Wales and Scotland.
Northern Ireland is the only region with more Christians than non-believers.
Scotland goes even further though, with an outright majority of the population having no faith.
Yet everywhere they go these types always moaning about how this is a Christian country, seemingly ignorant of the facts.
I highly doubt any of that crowd attend a church more than just for weddings, funerals and maybe the odd Christmas.
>>2285371the amish also
and mennonites
its interesting how much holiness and sin coexists in america
>>2285348>Yet everywhere they go these types always moaning about how this is a Christian country, seemingly ignorant of the facts.>I highly doubt any of that crowd attend a church more than just for weddings, funerals and maybe the odd Christmas.It's an American import, as
>>2285370 says. They are trying to adapt Christian Nationalism to a British context, despite the fact that this country has never had "Christian Unity". We have had a Hindu (Sunak) and Jewish (Starmer*) prime minister before we have had a catholic one.
*((actually real, his wife are jewish and his children raised such;he claims he isn't but under jewish law he is considered as such. I doubt he practices at all mind))
>>2285348tbh even the organized religions are a bit of a joke
i'm sure someone'll be along to tell me it's all historically progressive and therefore a marxist should endorse it, but this is a
joke country when it comes to traditions. our royal family are on the throne because the bourgeoisie decided they didn't like the bloke who was king
by grace of god, so they booted them and brought in a dutchman. our parliament is supreme because we hated catholics so much we decided to lop the king's head off. our national church exists because our king couldn't stop having divorces and got pound signs in his eyes looking at how much dosh the monasteries had stashed away.
maybe it is all historically progressive to take power from the pope and the king and give it to bourgeois hucksters and mates of our (newly imported) royals, but on any kind of "wait what did the rules say at the time?" reading, this is a country built on perpetual, ridiculous, insulting fraud. you can roll your eyes a bit as the Japanese go "oh, our emperor's descended from the Sun, and we can record back to long before written records" and imagine themselves as the
victims of WW2, but it's nothing compared to what Britain tries to get past you.
So the same film company that made this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXvaWz4gpTc and some interesting documentaries on British Communism was given support by the BBC to make a documentary about the Gaza Strip, it was all greenlit and everything, but now it's on ice by the BBC. The BBC is refuses to televise it.
>>2285412Yes, and he was based for it
Nowerdays I understand that charlie the second and the other stuarts were massive faggots
>>2286778Where on earth is this schizo posting from? The British Council is a tool of soft power sure but literally every state does this, and it was very active in the USSR in a positive light (hence why Soviet citizens who spoke English did so with a british accent). This is weird bizarre slander, and for what reason? I have never heard of this dude until now.
Also citing Russian occupation forces in Ukraine as a fucking reliable source is insane.
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/an-island-of-strangers
>It might not be nice to point this out, it might not be politically correct, but the Saxons really don’t belong here. Even after all this time, fifteen hundred years of this great bunch of lads tactically chundering all over Arthur’s kingdom, they’re still uncomfortable in the land. Like their thing with the weather. The Saxons will not stop complaining about the weather. The springs are too grey. The summers are too mild. It’s literally all they talk about, how endlessly disappointed they are by this country’s weather, and how desperate they are to briefly fly off somewhere else. Well, not to be rude, but if you hate it so much, then what the fuck are you doing here? If you wanted a long, hot, dry summer, and a fairytale winter where it always snows on Christmas, you should have stayed in the marshes of the Elbe where you came from. Why would you come to an island with such a witchy, mystic climate, silver curtains of rain, fog, weather that changes unpredictably several times a day—and then jump on the first RyanAir to Marbella? Why didn’t you join up with the Visigoths instead? You had a choice. >>2290082they still do it up here in the norf
>>2290040yes
>>2291127They won't do shit, just like leftists won't do shit no matter how bad housing gets and likewise no matter how bad demographic change gets.
If they were going to do shit they would have done it years ago when there was less migrants. They didn't.
>>2289332Most of the left will just cover their eyes and ears and pretend it's always been like this or this is actually some form of cultural enrichment.
Getting leftists to acknowledge most ethnicites have strong ingroup biases and outgroup hostility and many aspects of BAME culture are just outright sociopathic and insanely antisocial is like pulling teeth.
As someone from a minority ethnic group, I will straight up say, the moment it became popular, black youth culture literally fucked our community in the ass, it's made so many of the teens and young adults fucking sociopathic, thin skinned, narcissistic psychos and crime and stabbings and murder have skyrocketed.
Its ridiculous that the left pretend this isn't an issue at all, despite Socialism and Communism as values are completely antognistic to shitlib cultural relativistic ideals. Studies don't even back up this "diversity is strength" duuur narrative.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335924797_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Reviewhttps://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.xMy favourite is when most fellow leftists claim this is actually the result of "poverty" or they are "lower working class" instantly implying if you become poor, or lower-working class, you will instantly just become an antisocial, narcissistic fuckhead. Love how most of the left will throw Working class people under the bus to avoid acknolwedging ethnic cultural/ingroup bias issues.
>"Waah this is /pol/, this is racism"Nope, it isn't. I'm not saying "throw out the darkies", but the left should be promoting an evolved, socialist culture, that everyone should adhere too. One of the demands of the left, frankly, that migration should be paired with strict civic reeducation, and that ethnic enclaves are broken the fuck up. Do people think the USSR or China would have allowed what is happening now in London, Birmingham etc to happen?
>>2291768well the playbook is always this:
(1) its not happening
(2) if it is happening, why is that bad?
(3) it is happening, and its good, actually
hysterics can often seem foolish by being so ahead of the curve; conspiracy theories often become fact in the long run. we must take a longer view of history as far as it regards this progressive structure however. everything which becomes instantiated into civilisation is at one time led by unpopular minorities, who eventually become mainstream majorities. christians at one time were persecuted, but ended up ruling rome. germ theory and hygeine was a persecuted idea, which eventually became gospel. LGBT folks were arrested for simply existing, now a third of people partake in this ontological crime. the black youf culture of the US has become a global industry of hip hop. this is simply the crooked path of history. now, i dont believe that we will be ruled by the tribal kangz of londonistan any time soon, but the attitude will be entered into the state - my guess is by some sort of two-tier domination, like with mao's red guard. samuel francis speaks on the notion of "anarcho-tyranny" where the state wilfully permits crime in most cases, but massively targets the inocuous. thefts are not even investigated, yet police raid your home for an offensive tweet. this is a type of fascist justice, where crime becomes the law itself. these roaming gangs of youfs i suspect, will be protected and become enforcers of intimidation - a bit like we see in "a clockwork orange". cops are thugs, so stick together with all the birds of the same feather.
so mote it be.
>>2291768>Getting leftists to acknowledge most ethnicites have strong ingroup biases and outgroup hostilityLeftists don't have much problem noticing this or pointing it out. The issue is they don't do anything in particular about it out of lazyness or because they think it would hand it to the right. Very stupid stance still.
>>2291781This tbh. I am not fond of islamists at all (even "moderates" ones) but the European Califate meme is a larp for antisocial muslim diasporoids as well as tool for our zionist politicians to justify everything from austerity measures to stripping civil rights from various demographic/expand the surveillance state.
>>2291606because the purpose of a journalist isn't to get answers.
it sets up a perfect system: if a politician you like answers one question, you accept the answer and ignore that he skipped the hard one. if one you dislike does the same, you attack him for not answering the question. if he answers both, you pick his weaker answer, or insist that he was deflecting from one question by answering the other.
>>2291768your demand is stupid in the context of contemporary britain (where any push to civic re-education is both contradictory - to integrate into
what? there is no nation to integrate to - and ultimately just a cudgel to be deployed arbitrarily. "sorry, your historiography of the battle of hastings in your "life in contemporary britain" citizenship paper was a bit dated, you're not integrated, get on the boat…") and a socialist britain is so distant that it amounts to fantasizing about how vanilla coke will be the default flavor once we nationalise the bastards.
>>2283662>human natureHow about you stop believing in such spooks such as a fixed eternal human nature?
1000 years ago it was considered "human nature" to always follow your feudal lord.
>>2292014>to integrate into what? there is no nation to integrate to Society should be enforcing values of standard common descency, social norms etc. Litter is a major one. Every day I see people standing within 5 meters of bins, and just throw their rubbish right onto the ground.
Go to a popular park on with on a good sunny day and it looks like this.
It genuinely feels like social norms have completely and totally collapsed, I've noticed that people have no problem taking up entire paths now just standing there blocking everyone, people shove past or just walk right into you, people on the tube, busses playing loud music on their phones/speakers. BAME areas just ghettoize and honestly, my area now has fucking wetmarkets with rats and all sorts running around.
Note it's not only immigrants or whatever, the collapse in social norms is widespread, across everyone. Atomization is more obvious than ever.
Yes, obviously part is a result of the collapse of the state, poverty, privatization, but the way things have gotten, in such short time, is absurd.
How the Government has not launched a single fucking anti-litter campaign is beyond me. Literally from my window right now I can spot probably around 50 pieces of litter, just on the footpath in front of my building.
The collapse of social norms is a very real thing, and the left needs to get off it's ass and this is a major easy win for any Left winger. Communism is a civic ideology. We should be gatekeeping from antisocial, anticivic freaks and pushing for enforced strict civic standards.
>>2292478>human nature to follow feudal lordread aristotle. there are natural slaves and masters. for some, servility comes much more naturally than others. some are ruled by passions and so cannot rule themselves, ergo, they are dependent beings. a child, for example, is a natural slave, which is why they are rightfully taken as property by their parents. the wage work people perform today would be considered slave labour in ancient athens, so aristotle would consider us a slave society, and he would be right. the ancient virtue of odium, or leisure, is also lost, even to masters. we are all slaves to each other; a defective democracy. so servility comes naturally to slaves, the same way there are animals which can be domesticated, and others which cant. your pathology is a universalism in reverse, while i am a pluralist. there are many natures to different humans, while you say there is either one or none.
>>2293550>"There is no such thing (as "society")! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first." - margaret thatcher, 1987https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-4/neoliberalism-more-recent-times/margaret-thatcher-theres-no-such-thing-as-society >>2293563>read aristotle. there are natural slaves and masters.read the bible you elitist FAGGOT
adam and eve were EQUALS in the Garden of Eden.
>>2293648paul communicates the inequality of genders based on their separate creations here:
>For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [1 Cor 7-10]also here:
>Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. [1 Tim 11-15] >>2293648<adam and eve were EQUALS in the Garden of EdenNo they weren't, that was Adam & Lilith. Eve was a
feminized clone of Adam grown from his rib, akin to re-growing a carrot/turnip/potato back from it's stalk.
>>2294017the creation of male and female in genesis 1 is different from genesis 2, correct. the primordial androgyne is actually Christ as we read in revelation;
>And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. [1 rev 13]"paps" meaning (female) breasts - μαστός
alpha and omega
>>2294040and what is that?
>>2293984>PaulI don't care for Paul at all given that half of what he says is contradicted by the rest of the Bible. Women should not speak? The Bible is literally full of stories of women who ended up at the top of the hierarchy whether it be religious (Huldah), political (Esther), judicial (Deborah), economic (Abigail) and military (Jael).
There's also this from Acts 2:17:
<And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.==And your daughters shall prophesy=
Religious instruction is also intended to be provided by women. Fucking moronic American and tradcath LARPers are stupid.
>>2294072>I don't care for Paulso you dont believe in the nicene council?
>half of what he says is contradicted by the rest of the BibleChrist also came to make a new covenant by opposing the pharisees and their old law.
>Women should not speak?in church.
>Fucking moronic American and tradcath LARPers are stupid.thats not very holy language now, is it? also, what is "tradcath" about paul? paul is often seen as a protestant figure. tradcaths worship vain theologians like aquinas, or pagans like the "church fathers".
>>2295462>why are people always like this?they aren't
why do people post 40 minute videos instead of posting a timestamp, or simply buy an ad? One of life's mysteries
>>2295465>they arentask ANY critic of democracy what their problem is, and theyll say its because its not "actually" democratic. its this sort of paradoxical nonsense.
>gen z hate democracyor.. they want democracy? the conclusion to the video is this entire sentiment. the breakdown of democracy is "real" democracy… if only these people read rousseau, or even a figure they claim to respect - curtis yarvin, who sees that we do not live in any sort of democracy, but an oligarchy.
>>2295874no? democracy comes from the root words "demos" (the peoole; citizens) and "kratia" (to rule) - so docracy refers to "the rule of the people", which can either be direct or indirect. i brought up rousseau since his idea of "general will" is intrinsically democratic, whilst also having the appearance of an undemocratic process. this is due to the nature of "the social contract", which is where real legitimacy comes from. plato refers to popular government as "tyranny" (dictatorship) for example, which is an inversion of monarchy. this is expressly offsetting power to a leadership which acts on behalf of the people - in marxism, this is the "vanguard", or organised minority (or "inner party"). this form of "representation" is an indirect mode of democracy. the idea of yours; of "input" from the public is only historically situated in private or exclusive means, as "direct democracy". alain de benoist gives example of how the captain of a ship was decided by direct democracy.
>>2295882>Is it fair to assume that people who have a problem with democracy are really pissed off at bourgeois democracy?yes, thats my point. but this isnt exclusive to the left, but also on the right. when people prefer market solutions, what they want is to "vote" with their "dollar". we are democratic beings, which is why criticising democracy is always paradoxical. whenever people criticise democracy, its always because theres not enough democracy.
>>2295904So what you meant was people have a problem with indirect democracy. Even though I would still call selecting a leader as having an input n decision making.
I still think you are off your head.
>>2295910>So what you meant was people have a problem with indirect democracyno. we dont live in a democracy. empirically, nothing the people want is put into law or effect. power is segregated from the general will, which means that these are revolutionary conditions. the system uses a democratic "process" to mask undemocratic ends. thinking that we live in a democracy is like thinking that a magician really makes bunnies come out of top hats. when people criticise "democracy" therefore, they are criticising a lack of democracy. the paradox is only possible in confusing appearance for essence.
>I still think you are off your head.why?
>>2295913what was that? brexit?
and how did that turn out? #boriswave
Love how the entire British media is in entire meltdown over the guy burning a Quran in front a mosque being found guilty of a hate crime, but then literally, these same fucking media faggots will call for capital punishment if someone even mentions Gaza within 10 miles of a goddamn Synagogue.
r/UKpolitics reaciton was great, in one thread, literally mass crying about "the return of Blasphemy laws", "What has Britain become when we can't criticize religion!?", then literally 5 threads down, they had a thread where 90% of the same people, were calling for Anti-Genocide protestors and orgs to be charged for antisemitism and terrorism charges. The sheer, complete inability to have any fucking self awareness or ideological consistancy, is actually shocking. These people don't care about "blasphemy laws" they are just pissed muslims got away with successfully using lawfare, that their side have been using relentlessly since 2017.
>>2295913the last democratic-ish election was 2017
the only democratic-ish referendum worth caring about
if you're not irish was 2014
brexit was a farcical conflict between two factions of an undemocratic elite and most of the "commie faggots" who had a "meltdown" were lexiteers finally getting to cum themselves at having a point of differentiation with the libs that would make rightists like them. (didn't happen, natch.)
>>2297428we dont have a "corrupt" democracy - we simply lack a democracy. think of any issue the general public is concerned with, compared to how it is handled. if the people had any say, we would see some improvement.
>>2297426we havent even properly left the EU yet. its bloody pathetic, mate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9v28r7vlxo>The UK and the EU have struck a deal that covers fishing, trade, defence, energy and strengthening ties in a number of policy areas still up for negotiation. A key part of the deal involves giving European fishing boats a further 12 years of access to British waters in exchange for easing some trade frictions. It marks the biggest reboot since the UK officially left the EU in 2020 and comes after years of disagreements over Brexit. how much money was given to mccann's parents (who killed maddie), and how was the money spent?
>Kate and Gerry McCann have used the £1million Find Madeleine fund to pay their mortgage, it was revealed yesterday.https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/row-as-mccanns-use-ps1million-madeleine-fund-to-pay-their-mortgage-6682901.htmlhow much has been spent on the madeleine mccann case in police resources?
>Expenditure as at 30th September 2022 was £12,944,155.https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2023/may-2023/funding-on-the-madeleine-mccann-case/time to dig all this evil back up, i suppose.
>>2297495women generally vote to the left of men.
(the UK used to be anomalous here: they used to lean more tory, back when unions were relevant.)
>>2297548share whatever right-wing blogpost you got this from. i want to read it.
>>2297427>I don't want 'land redistribution to landless farm workers', I want the consolidation of inefficient, wasteful small farmer plots into large agribusiness. Drive all these reactionary vestigial classes into extinction and advance the march of proletarianisation of the development of the productive forces.With class forces arrayed how they are right now… You think the imperialist bourgeoisie are going expand the productive forces…for what? To advance class consciousness?
Or do you think they'll consolidate land, put solar panels (that don't produce energy) on them, let the land go fallow (like demanding farming land go back to 10 percent "wilding") whilst retarding technical development and the productive forces?
What do you think imperialist bourgeoisie do when they turf off the small holding farmers that actually make a living off producing food?
Why on earth would Monopolies unleash the forces of production. When have they ever done this in history
<Nevertheless, like all monopoly, it inevitably engenders a tendency of stagnation and decay. Since monopoly prices are established, even temporarily, the motive cause of technical and, consequently, of all other progress disappears to a certain extent and, further, the economic possibility arises of deliberately retarding technical progresshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm >>2298250> put solar panels (that don't produce energy) on themBrainlet detected.
>Why on earth would Monopolies unleash the forces of production. When have they ever done this in historyFunny, because the smol business farming petit-bourgeoisie fucking LOVE enclosure,which was literally this.
>>2298250He who fears capitalist monopoly and seeks vainly to preserve reactionary petty-proprietorship fears to advance the socialism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360You
WILL be taxed into bankruptcy
You
WILL be proletarianised
You
WON'T continue your shitty inefficent farm vanity project/tax avoidance scheme
You
WON'T stand in the way of the breakdown of the capitalist mode of production
Your farm
WILL be consoldiated towards the greater general regulation of economic life
>>2298250>Why on earth would Monopolies unleash the forces of production. When have they ever done this in historyliterally every single asian capitalist developmentalist state?
(admittedly, almost invariably under conditions of dictatorship where a guy with a gun says "look buddy, export cars and microchips or you get the wall")
>>2298319>the strengthening of private monopoly is the weakening of capitalyou dont see the self-evident absurdity of your statement?
>its reactionary to support small business but progressive to support big businessis this marxist theory? its no different from the strategy of the bourgeoisie.
>>2297427the farmland in my town is bring sold to build houses. is this productive efficiency or another debt trap? how's your rent looking these days?
>>2298982right, so you want big business to own all small business, and then magically… communism!
sounds like youve been scammed.
>>2299422the SNP remain, ultimately, the best relevant party in the UK (Greens maybe taking the crown in future, but their TERF wing hasn't self-purged like the SNP's and -
independent of trans issues - TERFs are a massive fucking liability. One of those weird demographic things.)
as always, this is a condemnation of britain and not praise for the SNP. (perhaps the most interesting party in all of modern electoralism, but nobody cares. suffice to say, the current contradiction is that they've been Liz Truss level incompetent in ways that nobody has caught because they're focused on distractions, and they're still going to win the next election because all their opponents are even worse.)
>>2300081https://www.gov.uk/government/news/what-support-is-available-for-my-small-business>up to £25,000 start-up loanhttps://www.find-government-grants.service.gov.uk/grants>grants from between £1,000-30,000https://www.british-business-bank.co.uk/finance-options/debt-finance/growth-guarantee-scheme>GGS means loans for UK businesses with facility up to £2m. the lender (banks) are 70% secured by government. borrower is 100% liable for debt.so, its just loans which protect lenders.
https://www.corporate-welfare-watch.org.uk/>corporate welfare informationhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake>Guardian’s analysis reveals that hidden subsidies, direct grants and tax breaks to big business amount to £3,500 a year given by each UK householdwho is being given more help here? its almost like in a freer market, big businesses would be forced to downsize. is keeping these companies on life support "progress"?
>>2300182im currently homeless. live in a tent under a bridge. got cautioned once by police for trespassing. if it happens again, im going in the slammer. im 26 now but i first became homeless at 18. i called up the council and thet sorted me out with a hostel; i would suggest that. the cost for a private shelter is a pisstake. luckily, my expenses were covered by housing benefit.
so i would suggest calling the council and seeing what they can do.
>>2300214 You bear a significant share of the responsibility for the current toxicity on the forum.
If you could think and empathize like an adult before speaking, it might not solve all of leftypol's problems, but it would at least resolve a considerable portion of them.
>>2300209>secretkind of dumb. incredibly hard to do and you're more likely to be dragged out in the middle of the night.
When you have your notice up it's even often preferable to phone the police yourslelf because at least you can do it in a preferable manner rather than some neigbour phoning in a burglary or break and entry.
>>2301544Sources btw; RCP:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1jA6Re-QIcTNwHxb8J31syB_DRxDMxlpsSWP:
https://socialistworker.co.uk/swp-meetings/On the RCP, their growth is primarily focused in towns with universities/colleges, but that also means they are organising trotskyist groups in places with little far left (or even socialist) activity, like Bury St. Edmunds. I am not saying this to shill for them, I find them an interesting entity.
>>2301815Even on an anonymous forum posting through the I would never admit to knowing such people.
Shame.
>>2301815>I didn't think the RCP was doing so well right now, I know a group of people who all defected to the CPB, and then split from the CPB over trans stuff and are now doing anti-revisionist larp without being properly organized.They appear to be continuing to grow but also apparently their turnover is the same as any student org. Or so i have been told.
RCP → CPB is a wild movement tho. Where is this group based?
>>2302105RCP and CPB don't seem all that different, both like Cuba and sometimes the DPRK. Both disavow Stalin and Mao. The only difference is that the CPB is full of old conservatives and they run Governance of China reading groups (and I'm pretty sure the RCP critically support China anyway), whilst RCP is a sex cult. Revisionism and that kind of Trotskkkyism aren't meaningfully different.
What I do think is interesting is the SWP. What is up with that party? They are not even really Marxists. Most of the members I talk to are literally just liberals who don't even want communism. Like what makes people join, is it just that they have optics because they hand out placards? I get why they exist in like the long term trotskyist / labour splitter movement kind of way but idk why anyone would be a member, they don't even do Lenin larp like the RCP.
>>2302164>>2302164>RCP and CPB don't seem all that different… both disavow Stalin and Mao. That isn't true. Both are pro-Mao (at least in terms of Maoist theory), and while the CPB line is
officially to have "criticisms of Stalin" almost every CPB member i've met is favourable to Stalin.The YCL openly have a chant: "Ho Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Stalin!". What is wild for me is more the groups demographics, since the CPB is mostly working class small c conservatives and the RCP tends to be students.
>What I do think is interesting is the SWP. What is up with that party? They are not even really Marxists. Most of the members I talk to are literally just liberals who don't even want communism. Like what makes people join, is it just that they have optics because they hand out placards? I get why they exist in like the long term trotskyist / labour splitter movement kind of way but idk why anyone would be a member, they don't even do Lenin larp like the RCP.They have organisational inertia. Through their front organisations they can tap into (an increasingly small) group of people involved in various "Liberation Struggles" (this isnt minimalising the struggles themselves just them grouping them all together crudely). They are
really targeting trans people atm for example. Their real thing though is that they are effective parasites. They strip activists and the radicalised out of organic movements (Palestine, LGBT, Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism) towards their fronts or the party itself by giving them a coherent view of the world. They mostly burn through these sorts and move onto the next lot.
>>2303059The biggest problem with the RCP, as with all Trot orgs, is that 99% of their membership is teenage university students from middle class backgrounds, and 99% of them will quit the party once they graduate and want a comfortable office job.
That may be a good structure to sell the maximum quantity of newspapers, but it's not good for preparing to fight a revolutionary war against the British state.
To be fair if the revolution happened tomorrow every single "Communist" party in this country would prove to be largely ineffective in their current state.
>>2303137the idea of a communist party in current conditions is itself a meme.
unless class consciousness is raised, there is no need for a party. parties will defend their existence by claiming their function is to raise class consciousness, but as Mr. Cybersyn himself taught us: the purpose of a system is what it does.
there is no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do. the existence of the problem that parties purport to wish to solve simply confirms their failure to solve it - forgivable if they were founded last week with a new strategy, perhaps, but unforgivable when some of the fuckers can track their legacy back through a hundred years of achieving nothing.
if they were going to achieve something they'd have done it by now. perhaps instead of taping bird feathers to our wings and hurling ourselves from towers, a new strategy is needed, an organizational form capable of producing some kind of tangible results beyond rape crises and typo-ridden reprints of all-time classic articles like "who was rosa luxemburg?"
>>2303158 (me)
For example I would take one of these over a series of lectures n marxism in relation to China/The Gender Question/Whatever
>>2303158>immense seed.An immense seed of what you stupid fucking cretin. The history of the reform acts for Labor in this country were fought and won on the basis of union organisation, which both Marx and Lenin condemned within Britain as counter revolutionary.
Read an actual history book and not political pamphlets you've foraged from the Anarchist Library online.
>>2303147Oh yeah, so what kind of organization would that be? Don't complain about parties not doing anything when you are a wishy washy anarchist who doesn't do anything yourself. Leninism produces results. The real issue is that people are still stuck in the 20th century rather than accepting Maoist theories. Anyway 'action' on its own might be useful but its not the end goal. The end goal is defeating capitalism and that will require a very disciplined force who will get their hands very dirty. You have a childish view of socialism.
>>2303158>>2303161You know the WUN also does the kind of educational work you are complaining about as well… rather than whining about how parties have failed why don't you go and make an organisation like the WUN yourself. But just to let you know despite the WUN not requiring you to be any specific ideology and has anarchists in, most people in it, and all the most active people, are all MLs.
>>2303255It's not anarchism to believe you've got to start with achievable goals and a sensible structure to achieve them - Christ, if anything it's managerialism! Set targets! Make someone accountable for achieving them! Fire them if they fail! Have someone check if the targets actually line up with achieving the final goal!
It is impossible to succeed if you regard intermediate goals as distractions from the end goal. You cannot just skip to the fun part at the end. This is true whether your aim is running a bake sale, starting an electoral party, or overthrowing capitalism.
>>2303278I am well aware, I just regard it all as posturing. If I appoint all my friends to a central committee in discord that doesn't magically imbue my LARP with the spirit of Stalin or mean we're getting anything done outside of Minecraft.
(Whether the average org could run a Minecraft server, frankly, I doubt)
>>2303198>An immense seed of what you stupid fucking cretin.The actual movement comrade.
>>2303255>You know the WUN also does the kind of educational work you are complaining about as well…Well Plaid Gommindinow do that more than WUN.
>rather than whining about how parties have failed why don't you go and make an organisation like the WUN yourself. Lord knows I am fucking trying comrade. However it is hard to organise people around class, even when you can its on a purely materialist basis (i.e: I am a worker/tenant and I need help against my boss/landlord). People organise around identity; more people go to an international womens day march (even when it is lead by radicals and anti-imperialists) than an international workers day one. WUN, and their comrades the CYM, organise fundamentality around national identity politics. That simply is not possible in a progressive way in England. The only people capable of doing that sorta did it in the 2010s with the "Jake Hanrehan Left"; and all of them have demobilised into NGOs now .I continue to grind away in the trade union, cooperative, and environmentalist movements with the forlorn hope that we can rengineer a socialist movement based on class, ecology, and culture.
>>2304199Yeah tbh the communist movement in England looks so dead. Maybe you could try joining the AIF? Like they are literally a Communist Party of the Philipines / NPA foreign front org which is extremely based, though I have issues with their ideological line and they are fundementally just not a party or anything like one. I don't think there is much in the way of revolutionary potential there.
Other than that I heard about an online book club called 'The Little Red Book Club' which lots of frustrated English communists are in. Maybe they are going to make a proper org themselves. I'm not sure how well they will do though. From the little I know about them it seems they might replicate the failiures of the CPB-ML and CPGB-ML. You could try joining though.
>>2304199>The actual movement comradeThe same one you implied that couldn't run a Minecraft server for you and your sad friends?
Despite the fact that the WSWS runs the largest international news site online?
Do come back later
>>2303593>Yes but at least they physically interacted. They probably also had a meal together after or during also.Why do things have to be an either or? I wasn't
>>2303296 suggesting you have a minecraft only group or online only, it's just a nice way to increase interaction in the group. You could just have a discord or twitter space instead, but I don't think a casual game would be a bad choice either.
>>2305431Near 100 MP internal revolt isn't a show; Abbot was in as much a weather vane when her office penned the MorningStarOnline article a few weeks ago.
If anything it seems like the political divisions will begin to form within Labour on at least two fronts; those who buy into the faux-ideology Starmer offers, and a general opposition to the breach-head of cuts threatened as members react to the rise of Reform and their potential electotal loss with dropping support from their constitutents.
The reversal on the winter fuel payment cuts may in as much be a sign of this; there's discord within the party but for now Starmer has a grip on things. Should the UK enter a recession, that'll all change.
>>2305468They still haven't put down the Corbynites successfully; the moment party members get a sense that Starmer is unelectable they'll sense blood in the water and change tact. Reform are now their biggest threat, as there's cross party support among both the Labour and Conservative electoral base for what Farage is promising and the threat of losing part of their core voters could push the party into further peril as they're in the unlikeable position of actually being in government; they would have to deliver change on a shorter timescale and scale up or scale back the funds from the treasury and subsequently budget cuts in order to win these people back (to their own starting position no less).
The entire ship is barely afloat, and the only reason it hasn't sunk is because of a defeated opposition within the house. Labour's main threat at the moment is itself.
>>2305484I just find them personally distasteful. The subtext to this nonsense is that they are posho cunts going 'oh, let's go to mcdonalds to experience food like the poors. maybe we'll get a bit of excitement seeing some roughians'.
Sickening.
>>2305507You have absolutely no idea what the implied class and contextual social relations are and those that are in play if your perception of that video and that individuals response is one of unjustified disdain.
The absolute privilege of wealth you need to be engulfed by to be blind to this perception on a Marxist imageboard no less is astounding. Unironically stop posting you fucking moron.
>>2305540oh, so you dont care about class after all?
>>2305542all these vain words to infer that innocent women should be attacked for going out at night.
>>2305561what does marx say about going to mcdonalds?
>>2305562and so she should have been attacked?
>>2305559educate me, since youre clearly an intellectual
>>2305571>McDonald'sHe says you get what you pay for
>Educate meFuck off and read the manifesto you cretin
>>2305571this is really something that needs to be set straight as it affects a LOT of issues.
It's not about "what you deserve" it's acknowledging that your actions invite fate.
If I flick a bear in the nuts, I am likely going to get eaten by a bear. That's why I don't do that, it's not that I would deserve to get eaten, it's just what would likely happen as a result.
>>2305576>He says you get what you pay for?source?
>manifestoso if i read the manifesto, he'll say that attacking innocent civilians is justified?
>>2305583If I deo fentanyl, and ignore police commands…
bladya blady blip blip bloop you get the idea
>>2305584>source?The Manifesto, start there
>Innocent civilians Welcome to the game
>>2305578and you are..?
>>2305583>if you provoke a wild animalso who's the human being and wild animal in this analogy?
>>2305590We can change the analogy to literally anything. Pick a situation.
I don't ride a motorbike because….
I don't smoke because….
I don't go to the beach without suncream because….
>>2305589can you give me a chapter in the manifesto where marx talks about getting attacked by strangers?
>>2305592are you a gangster, then?
>>2305595right, so what youre saying is that there are dangerous people in society who we should stay away from. i get it, mate.
>>2305602>Attacking strangersStart with the metaphor of the "icy water of egotistical calculation" - it should be something you're very familiar with
>Are you a gangster thenCompared to you we're nippers obviously
>>2305608what was the offence these women committed which deserves them being physically assaulted? your defense is endless, so your justification should be simple.
>>2305611what does communist literature have to do with the matter at hand?
>>2305616oh, so filming drama with the prestense of public security is the crime? they should "know better"?
>>2305625>your defense is endless,Just like your stupidity
>What does…God knows mate, you tell me
>Oh, soLook up what a discourse is
Then look up Speech act theory
Then look up the Manifesto and go and fucking read it you stupid fucking cunt. The people in this thread have actually read Marx and can see through you like a window into that miserable pile of shit you call a brain.
>>2305625You are essentially displacing the antagonism of your own class anxieties by attempting to deal with the fact that a) violence happens and b) there is an ethical relativism to it.
If you'd like to understand that statement, again, fuck off and read the Manifesto. You. Dumb. Cunt.
>>2305633so you cant explain your own position? doesnt that forfeit what youve been saying?
>read the communist manifesto (1848)and then i will understand why innocent women should be attacked in public for filming an altercation? or are they not innocent?
>>2305635what is the relativity of violence which is justified in the case of these women being attacked? is this self-defence?
>>2305637what are the class dynamics? are the women factory owners, and these young gentleman at the door are seizing the means of production?
>>2305644>InnocentThis one word has betrayed your entire 'position'.
Fuck off and read the manifesto you stupid fucking cretin.
>>2305649you already said you dont care about class, so your comments are irrelevant
>>2305648what are the class dynamics of the video? are the gentleman outside returning from a hard day's work?
>>2305651why are they so poor?
>>2305647whats the issue with the word "innocence"?
>>2305661That sounds like the 11th thesis.
Now you're getting it!
>>2305670>PunishmentBut my dear K (for that is who you shall be now), that's a term of absolutism with reference to an episteme in which neither of us agree!
Because you see K, one of us has read the Manifesto and the other hasn't!
>>2305678Hilariously, this world view implies that you've never really been the subject of physical or social symbolic violence which is inherent to the world in any low waged position.
What a life you must lead, K!
>>2305665so these young men outside the mcdonalds are poor, because i asked why they are poor? it seems rather paradoxical, no? surely, they must exist in a state of poverty prior to my inquiry, and so i cannot be the cause.
>>2305678what is the relative ethic behind the proposed violence against these women?
>>2305687Screencaped this post. Apparently rich people go around cheffing up McDonald's workers, and violence does indeed happen in gentrified neighbourhoods.
You're so insulated from the real world it's impossible to have a conversation with you about this issue.
>Violence against womenAh but that's both a generalisation and an idealised position! Had you read the fucking Manifesto like most cunts on this site you wouldn't need someone to spoon-feed and baby sit you through this basic argument everybody else has already been able to see through: chiefly, that there ulterior disparities in the social position and the relations between those individuals, and that your generalisation into one of meaningless platituted (violence against women) is itself a form of sexism which is perpetrated by bourgeois socialists and feminists alike.
So you see K, fuck off and read the fucking manifesto.
>>2305696>violence against womenthat would be a universal claim. i make a particular claim:
<violence against THESE womenperhaps you misread my post.
also, you seem to not be able to justify yourself in any capacity. perhaps this means yoir position is "unjustifiable"?
>>2305706And what did I say
>>2305707You think we're having some metaphysical argument on the ethics of violence. Enjoy your coddled little world you sad decrepit little cretin.
When you feel like you want to enter the real world, start with the Manifesto.
>>2305707help me understand. what are the class positions of the fellows in the video, and why does this bear its relative importance to context?
>>2305712ah, another refusal to justify oneself. i think the case is clear.
>>2305720They are proles you dumb fucking cunt, they are proles whose existence is determined by the social realities of bourgeois society. There is an ethical relativism that is invisible to you because you have never acquainted yourself with this fact which most people, by brute force of fact of entering into the world of employment, have to countenance.
Read the fucking manifesto you stupid fucking cunt.
>>2305733so there is no class dynamic after all? its "symbolic exploitation"?
>calling them "young gentleman" is racisthowso?
>>2305740In no way are those two things contradictory.
This conversation ends here, K. You deserve the world you live in, because as you would be right to point out, who deserves anything?
>>2305791>JustificationHa, no you were not. You were told there is no inherent justification to violence outside of relative social contexts and that, if you could infer this fact, you would understand what was happening in that video and why those two cunts who seem to believe they're on a holiday to the Cotswolds deserve a fucking smack - and the reasons why this opinion might arise.
You're an autistic moron who can't see their own sexist and implicitly racist positions in the world. If you actually care about your own sad metaphilsophical world view, read the Manifesto and then every other introductory text given to those who wish to learn about history through Marx.
>>2305836>that those women don't deserve to be slappedso you backtrack on your own statements?
>they're just playing with fucking firelike how the example of a wild animal was used previously?
>gang violencewhere is the gang violence? you mean those proles outside the door?
>>2305836Icy waters indeed being a rather explicit reference to the system of social exploitation is at work in driving that entire incident, and why it is an expression of class domination and how those two women are if anything scum for thinking they should take out their phones and film a fucking assault for tiktok.
You are a literal white knight.
>>2305848For social media?
You tell me.
>>2305847i see you are an adept in avoiding answering questions which expose your hypocrisy
>>2305852so it is ethically wrong to film an assault to post on social media?
>>2305857>so it is ethically wrong to film an assault to post on social media?And our autistic little mind can't comprehend, again, the material disposition of ethical relativism so you think once again we're locked in some deep combat about the nature of truth by trying to draw out logical analytic statements.
Which is deeply ironic, because you're doing so on a Marxist imageboard.
>>2305874i would prefer a yes or a no.
you say these women are "scum" and "deserve a fucking slap", but cant say that theyre "wrong"? why not?
>>2305886And you're a racist who doesn't even know it.
"These young gentleman", you absolute fucking clown.
>>2305892They're individuals mate, not women. Nobody cares what they between their legs.
Perhaps they felt their only defence in that situation was to film, but that'd be a blatant lie because they're seen eating and not trying to call the police.
Nazis who come here at least try to engage with the points made whilst being faceatious, you're just fucking stupid
>>2305902theyre not women? are they men or non-binary, then?
>>2305903does marx explain how my comments are racist?
>>2305911so my comments are racist because "icy waters"? doesnt seem to follow.
>>2305910is that a yes or no? you have claimed that the person recording are NOT women, so what is their gender identity?
>>2306142X Kendi*
What a joke you are, when you don't even understand your own prejudices and ignorance and need someone to unveil them to you on a site where you're contesting the right of a poster to vent about the stupidity of two vapid morons because they happen to be women.
>>2306142to say "theyre not women" is to purposefully invoke their gender identity, by denying their womanhood. if they are not women, they are either men or non-binary. in any case, they would be transgender. lets rephrase the question then:
why are the "two cunts" and "scum" who happen to be transgender "deserve a fucking slap"?
>>2306164It isn't to deny their gender or sex you credulous fucking moron, read the post.
They are labourers in the concrete. This is a Marxist imageboard, and the subjectivity of their being is an objective distinction which can only be regarded in the context of Capitalist society - hence here they are viewed as what they are, Proles.
Again, you're thick as shit because you've taken to heart a turn of phrase because of your own stupid self identification with their existence. It's an irony that in the same fashion in which they are literally reproducing the social relations of their own domination you do so as well by attempting to defend them.
Read a fucking book you miserable clown.
>>2306176Because they are unconsciously reproducing the same set of social relations which sustain the unacknowledged racial prejudices of morons who refer with all the condescension of a white male to black gangs as "young gentleman".
You literally fucking disgust me; whereas racists openly acknowledge their prejudices, you have set up a guise for yours based on your own neuroticism and veil your racism like all good samaritans as an act of charity. The Nazis that visit here are at least useful in that they are obvious, yours is just insidious and a product of whoever or whatever you are.
>>2306176Yo spell it out for you on a point of praxis, they are class traitors. They are engaging in a form of self-exploitation by videoing the event and uploading it to social media.
Most people would call it clout chasing.
>>2306195>not whats writtenyour claim is that they were being racist. what they did was record people barging into a mcdonalds. what am i missing?
>>2306201what in the video betrayed the working class?
>>2306205The video itself is a participation in a mode of existence which sees individuals as sources of profit and as a means to wealth.
Perhaps mate, this has something to do with the icy water of egotistical calculation.
>>2306207oh, so the "two cunts" in the video who are apparently "scum" and "deserve a fucking slap" are not racist? why do they deserve to be slapped then?
>>2306211>The video itself is a participation in a mode of existence which sees individuals as sources of profit and as a means to wealth.how?
>>2306231Uploading it to social media is an act of consumption. They deserve a slap because they think gang violence is funny. Which is a "figure of speech".
Are we noting this down?
>>2306234>Uploading it to social media is an act of consumptionokay, so "commodity consumption" makes one be deserving of a "fucking slap"?
>They deserve a slap because they think gang violence is funny.so what we saw in the video was "gang violence"?
>>2306241did you forget to answer my questions or are you refusing to follow up on your own logic again?
>>2306237so if you mock gang violence, you deserve to be a victim of gang violence?
>>2306285i presume "yes", since that is part of the reason cited. she uploaded a video, which, according to a marxist scholar in the thread, amounts to "commodity consumption"; this is added to her mockery of "gang violence" for which she deserves to be a victim. apparently, this is not proper grounds however, so we are only left with "commodity consumption" as a justification currently. so, consuming commodities apparently makes you a "miserable cunt", "scum" and deserving of "a fucking slap". of course, this is only by the logic of the various marxist intellectuals in the thread, not by my own lack of wit. i only ask questions, and receive such enlightened answers.
>>2306309there are two claims here;
(1) the filming party is acting irrationally
(2) they are "scum" and "deserve a fucking slap"
is only one of these a correct judgement, or both?
>>2306318>Two claims>Filming party is acting irrationally Not the claim but crack on, you're trying to hide the fact that we've had a conversation about ethical relativism.
And in your case, both are true
>>2306325Pro-tip: they're not actually scum, and that was a bit of playful banter.
You however….
>>2306333oh, so theyre not actually scum. so you revoke a claim made against them. here are some other claims:
- they are "two cunts"
- they "deserve a fucking slap"
do you also repeal these?
>>2306338following from your previous reply using the same emoji, i will interpret this as a "yes" (but please correct me if i am mistaken). does this mean that to you, they in fact, do NOT "deserve a fucking slap"?
>>2306341>>2306340okay, so we have a contradiction of claims. can we please give a clarification in the aubsequent posts, please? here are the current claims:
- they are "scum"
- they are "miserable cunts"
- they are "shit for brains"
- they are "two cunts"
- they "deserve a fucking slap"
what is the verdict on these judgements?
>>2306347And you're trying to intentionally be funny as a way to cope.
See you in the next thread! (or this one, who knows! (Not you!))
Head of the BBC Tim Davie (who is also a former Tory MP candidate) has stated that the BBC will change both its news coverage and drama programming to appeal to Reform UK voters, in order to gain their "trust".
The Director-General has openly stated he will push political bias in support of Reform UK in the BBCs programming.
The era of the BBC even claiming they are balanced is now officially over. Not that they ever were balanced, lmao.
Remember to cancel your TV licence.
Also source:
https://bylinetimes.com/2025/06/09/bbc-news-tim-davie-robbie-gibb-reform-voters-nigel-farage-trust/NEW THREAD
>>2307088NEW THREAD
>>2307088NEW THREAD
>>2307088Unique IPs: 151