A Political Thread

[j'nuh]

Politics and especially internet discourse has sadly become a game where two sides makes ugly, totemic representations of the other side. Brexiters became "racists", Remoaners became "undemocratic" and "unpatriotic", Momentum is a militant cult, Breitbart is entirely for neo-nazis etc. etc.

Which is why I take all of these feminist-hate videos with a pinch of salt. A youtube video, "Feminist rationally and calmly explains her POV" fairly obviously isn't going to get the same amount of views as "Feminist goes on man-hating rampage". If the only way you ever engage with feminists is by watching these videos, then it would be fairly natural to come to a negative view of feminists in general. Feminists typically aren't so homogeneous that you can characterise them on the basis of a few youtube videos.

One eye-opener for me was the "TERF wars". On the one hand, you had the TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) who believe transsexual females are men who castrate their penises in order to invade female safe spaces. (Which is obviously, utter ********.) On the other hand, you had most feminists. As far as I can tell, this kind of infighting in feminism is common because the goal of feminism is so abstract that every feminist has a different idea as to how to advance the cause. Hence them not being a particularly homogeneous group with clear views.

On the topic of political correctness, I like it. I think most British people already do adhere to political correctness without knowing it by that name. It's fairly common in the UK to keep to yourself. You don't have to like someone's lifestyle, just let them be. If you are gonna kick up a fuss about someone else's lifestyle, you may get called out, or worse people might tut at you. This isn't really anything different to PC.

(Side note, I do appreciate the irony that some of these alt-right people in America moan about PC, but also suggest Muslims shouldn't be allowed into the country because they don't share the country's values.)

 

[McTallshort]

Politics and especially internet discourse has sadly become a game where two sides makes ugly, totemic representations of the other side. Brexiters became "racists", Remoaners became "undemocratic" and "unpatriotic", Momentum is a militant cult, Breitbart is entirely for neo-nazis etc. etc.

Which is why I take all of these feminist-hate videos with a pinch of salt. A youtube video, "Feminist rationally and calmly explains her POV" fairly obviously isn't going to get the same amount of views as "Feminist goes on man-hating rampage". If the only way you ever engage with feminists is by watching these videos, then it would be fairly natural to come to a negative view of feminists in general. Feminists typically aren't so homogeneous that you can characterise them on the basis of a few youtube videos.

One eye-opener for me was the "TERF wars". On the one hand, you had the TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) who believe transsexual females are men who castrate their penises in order to invade female safe spaces. (Which is obviously, utter ********.) On the other hand, you had most feminists. As far as I can tell, this kind of infighting in feminism is common because the goal of feminism is so abstract that every feminist has a different idea as to how to advance the cause. Hence them not being a particularly homogeneous group with clear views.

On the topic of political correctness, I like it. I think most British people already do adhere to political correctness without knowing it by that name. It's fairly common in the UK to keep to yourself. You don't have to like someone's lifestyle, just let them be. If you are gonna kick up a fuss about someone else's lifestyle, you may get called out, or worse people might tut at you. This isn't really anything different to PC.

(Side note, I do appreciate the irony that some of these alt-right people in America moan about PC, but also suggest Muslims shouldn't be allowed into the country because they don't share the country's values.)

Similar to the irony that the liberal left who campaign so hard for womans/gay rights also campaign on behalf of a religion that is fundamentally against those rights.

 

[j'nuh]

Similar to the irony that the liberal left who campaign so hard for womans/gay rights also campaign on behalf of a religion that is fundamentally against those rights.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but I'll bite. Do you hold all Catholics responsible for Uganda, a Catholic country with the death penalty for homosexuality? Do you hold all Jewish people responsible for the actions of Israel against Palestine? Do you hold all atheists responsible for the actions of the Stalin and Mao regimes? I am generally against organised religion and its puppets in power, but uniquely holding Muslims accountable for their religion's crimes just doesn't seem right to me.

 

[McTallshort]

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but I'll bite. Do you hold all Catholics responsible for Uganda, a Catholic country with the death penalty for homosexuality? Do you hold all Jewish people responsible for the actions of Israel against Palestine? Do you hold all atheists responsible for the actions of the Stalin and Mao regimes? I am generally against organised religion and its puppets in power, but uniquely holding Muslims accountable for their religion's crimes just doesn't seem right to me.

They are not crimes though are they? If I was to start a religion today in the UK and it involved covering woman up, a ban on homosexuality, child genital mutilation and death threats to anyone who offended it what would be your response?

 

[ncurd]

They are not crimes though are they? If I was to start a religion today in the UK and it involved covering woman up, a ban on homosexuality, child genital mutilation and death threats to anyone who offended it what would be your response?

Well the radical elements of Christianity do your second (even non radicals on that one) and fourth points.

The third abhorrent and rightly illegal in this country (I believe).

The first I have a mixed opinion about, I'm against people being forced against their will to do that. But if your born to do it is it your will or instutionalised? There also level of covering up the Burka is problematic (not for security reasons) but I'm fine with the others (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24118241) after all its about modesty and I wish we had a bit more of it society especially when it comes to scantily clad 14/15 year old girls in public. After all we don't complain about some Sikh men who are required to wear a turban or .

I respect the rights of non radical Muslim's to practise their religion within the laws of this country. And the majority of them do.

To be clearer and back on point you're mixing up a woman's right to freedom with her freedom to choose Islam as her religion. Much like a woman can choose to be a traditional housewife. Sadly some people liberal side say they can't choose that but they are few and far between. Much like all radical elements of a group.

 

[j'nuh]

They are not crimes though are they? If I was to start a religion today in the UK and it involved covering woman up, a ban on homosexuality, child genital mutilation and death threats to anyone who offended it what would be your response?

I would think that the religion was wrong, and being the leader of the religion and propagating its views, I would think you were wrong. I'm for the freedom of speech, so I'd let you say it, but I would also call you out on it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove though, I have already said I'm mostly against religion.

Put it another way, do you think we should deport Texans and people from Alabama, for being gay-hating Christians? Why do Muslims have to pass a tolerance test that many Christians, Jews and even atheists would fail?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Well freedom of speech and freedom of religion means these groups should be allowed to think and say whatever they please. It is critical that the government ensures that everyone's economic and civil rights and freedoms are guaranteed and protected.

This means that laws need to be created that they cannot discriminate in the work place or perform those surgeries mentioned (is male circumcision included in this?) and that they are actually prosecuted when they do so.

I would think that we should have learned by now that banning religion is an action used by tyrannical governments.

Just cause I disagree with someone's opinion doesn't mean they don't get to express it. But I also have the right to say whatever I want about their religion and they should not be protected from criticism.

To sum up, I don't care what religions do as long as their beliefs do not influence the government.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

It's a tricky line TBH.

The case about the Irish Bakers a couple months ago shows it at what stage does your a right to exercise your religious beliefs become discrimination?
Same with gay marriage in Christianity and Islam.

 

[j'nuh]

It's a tricky line TBH.

The case about the Irish Bakers a couple months ago shows it at what stage does your a right to exercise your religious beliefs become discrimination?
Same with gay marriage in Christianity and Islam.

Might not work for other people and it's by no means a perfect solution, but I go by the rule of thumb that if you are providing a service or goods on the market, then you are obliged to serve people equally. The market is formed of an aggregate of providers and consumers based in a supply-and-demand system: there is a limit to the number of providers of a good or service based on the number of available consumers. For example, there are more consumers of food in the UK, than there are consumers of commutes from Nottingham to Sheffield, and so there are countless supermarkets, but only one or two public transport providers running the Sheffield-Nottingham line. If we allow private enterprise to withdraw their services from a particular kind of consumer, it's not too much of a big deal in the context of food, where e.g. gay people can just shop at another supermarket, but trying to commute between Nottingham and Sheffield is going to become very difficult if you are not allowed to use the train. So there is a fairly substantial reason to protect the right to consume at a company trading on the open market: I don't think that people who are refused service will always have other options.

 

[McTallshort]

If you live in Nottingham you wouldn't want to go to Sheffield....

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

It's a tricky line TBH.

The case about the Irish Bakers a couple months ago shows it at what stage does your a right to exercise your religious beliefs become discrimination?
Same with gay marriage in Christianity and Islam.

Denying someone service because of their sexuality is denying them their economic freedom of participating in the market.

Same could be said for refusing to buy from a gay person, except this would be next to impossible to prove that the sole reason they didn't buy the product was because the seller was guy.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Scotland will def be voting leave if they ever get another referendum on it.

 

[McTallshort]

Or the the SNP will keep having one until they do win

 

[j'nuh]

Scotland will def be voting leave if they ever get another referendum on it.

I dunno. It all depends on timing and context. If SNP push it too soon, then I think a lot of people will feel re-running the referendum is anti-democratic, and turn on it. The "Yes" side have quite a margin to overcome and polls still seem to give "No" the lead, in spite of Brexit.

The left/liberals/SNP need to get smarter about how they campaign towards having referendums. People don't like referendums, they get too ugly, turn people against one another, people feel bombarded with misinformation etc. It will get very ugly if there's a feeling that the referendum is being fought to overturn the public decision. If there's to be another referendum, it should be because the public wants it, and not because politicians are unhappy with what the public have said. So that being said, remainers should just get on with making leave work, whilst privately polling the country's desire for another referendum. If we plunge into a recession and 70% of the country turn on Brexit, then that's when liberals should start talking about another referendum. By taking a default unworkable position of remaining in the UK, those politicians are just making it harder for themselves to actually have any say on the process.

As for a referendum on exit terms... it's a ludicrous idea. What could the options in such a referendum possibly be? Does it mean that Labour, Lib Dems, Tories etc. all need to negotiate with the EU to come up with several proposals? Does it mean the Tories need to negotiate several different strategies so that there is more than one offering to the public?

My idea: leave the EU without changing anything, keeping all its laws, staying in the single-market, keeping the freedom of movement etc. It would be as if we were in the EU, but without being involved in the internal politics. Then have a general election with each party offering its take on what laws will be repealed and kept. Simple, and from May's perspective, it is the easiest thing in the world to do... because you don't even have to do anything.

I now realise I have taken a massive tangent from Scottish referendum to Brexit lol

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

So how about Castro then.

I find the split of opinions on him on social media quite interesting considering what he did during his time in charge.

Corbyn prob shouldn't of been as praising of Castro as he comes across.

 

[Superalexmarket]

Every dictatorship or absolutist monarchy is a bad thing, that's for sure.But... in a very simple analysis the situation of Cuba is far better now that when Castro took the power. Cuba has a life expectancy even better that the USA, a total free healthcare sistem based on prevention of disease, 100% of its population can write and read, a total free education sistem with people from all over the world studiing for free in cubans universities. And in the international world of diplomacy specialy in the cold war, this litlle caribean island, had a role preponderant in the world, only similar to the superpowers of that time.
If the revolution would never had happens maybe Cuba today would be like Haiti, an absolute desolated country more like hell than anything else.

 

[McTallshort]

Every dictatorship or absolutist monarchy is a bad thing, that's for sure.But... in a very simple analysis the situation of Cuba is far better now that when Castro took the power. Cuba has a life expectancy even better that the USA, a total free healthcare sistem based on prevention of disease, 100% of its population can write and read, a total free education sistem with people from all over the world studiing for free in cubans universities. And in the international world of diplomacy specialy in the cold war, this litlle caribean island, had a role preponderant in the world, only similar to the superpowers of that time.
If the revolution would never had happens maybe Cuba today would be like Haiti, an absolute desolated country more like hell than anything else.

Hard to disagree with any of that.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Let's just forget about the human rights aspect though shall we.

 

[McTallshort]

OK let's discuss it then.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Discuss what?

I acknowledge that he did some great things for Cuba and also Africa.

But he also destroyed any freedoms for the Cuban people, on his watch countless of potlicial prisoners where tortured and killed at one stage Cuba had the second most potlicial prisoners in the world only behind China.

- - - Updated - - -

Discuss what?

I acknowledge that he did some great things for Cuba and also Africa.

But he also destroyed any freedoms for the Cuban people, on his watch countless of potlicial prisoners where tortured and killed at one stage Cuba had the second most potlicial prisoners in the world only behind China.