|
|
Post by realmadkid on Dec 26, 2021 23:27:04 GMT
I totally understand why you hate socialism. Because it's espoused by an annoying wanker with purple hair, shit tattoos, ridiculous piercings and who has never worked a day in they/them's life. Here is the truth: I hate them too. But that's not it. How many of you reading this grew up in a council house? How many can say we are still here because of the NHS? And how many of you just want your children to inhabit a world that seemed much fairer (equitable) in the 70s? We are all different on here, but I find it hard to believe that anyone wants to see billionaires get richer, the poor get poorer and the next generation to have it so much tougher. Don't worry about what's happening in Chile, worry about what's happening about 200 miles away. Interesting post. I grew up in a council house. I am still here despite the NHS, not because of it. The NHS is no longer fit for purpose in my opinion. It has become a two-tier system now that is only interested in treating those people who are willing to submit to invasive procedures and is turning away those who believe that their own bodies are sacrosanct. These actions are completely contrary to the disability equality laws and the international Nuremburg code. Our basic human rights are either being totally ignored - or in some cases ruthlessly stripped from us. Speaking personally, I don't hate socialism as such. I think its stated aims are admirable - ie. the idea of a more equitable society. Unfortunately however, and being blunt without trying to be patronising, I think that these ideals are being used as a tool to con people into embracing what is actually communism - and not what they refer to as 'socialism' and which is actually a thinly disguised stepping stone to where we are very quickly being dragged - and that is Chinese style communism complete with its insidious social credit system and ultimately complete totalitarian control. Socialism in other words, is used as a trap to deceive. There is no intention whatsoever of those who hold all the power in this world to relinquish that power and that ideal will never be achieved through the ballot box in my view. I have said several times on here that I am neither left nor right in my political views. I hold some views that could be described as 'left' and some that could be construed as 'right' and I believe that if everyone is honest with him or herself that this is true of them too, to a greater or lesser degree. We are falsely being polarised in order to set up a 'divide and conquer' situation. The distinguished historian and researcher Dr Anthony Sutton, said several years ago that the right / left paradigm is a Hegelian trap to divide and conquer societies and polarise opinions to create conflict as a distraction from what is really going on in the world. The Hegelian Dialectic is used all the time by the 'powers that shouldn't be' and is otherwise known as 'thesis + antithesis = synthesis' or sometimes 'problem, reaction, solution.' In other words, firstly create a problem, wait for the public reaction and a demand to 'do something about it' and then apply the solution that they wanted to see implemented in the first place. Q.E.D. No-one wants billionaires to get richer and the poor get poorer, (except billionaires) but what is needed is a total top-down reform of the way the world works - not socialism, communism, liberalism, conservatism, fascism or any other 'ism' for that matter. These are all tools of oppression of the people. I don't pretend to have a solution per se, which you could argue is a total cop out - and I'd have to agree with that summation, but I do believe that its none of the above. For what its worth, I am only interested in the truth and have no particular 'axe to grind' on any topic. ...and just as a footnote I strongly believe in the maxim "I may not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it." |
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Dec 27, 2021 11:20:00 GMT
I totally understand why you hate socialism. Because it's espoused by an annoying wanker with purple hair, shit tattoos, ridiculous piercings and who has never worked a day in they/them's life. Here is the truth: I hate them too. But that's not it. How many of you reading this grew up in a council house? How many can say we are still here because of the NHS? And how many of you just want your children to inhabit a world that seemed much fairer (equitable) in the 70s?We are all different on here, but I find it hard to believe that anyone wants to see billionaires get richer, the poor get poorer and the next generation to have it so much tougher. Don't worry about what's happening in Chile, worry about what's happening about 200 miles away. The opportunities seem much more equitable now IMO than they've probably ever been. The opportunities to go into higher education, including universities are open to a much broader pool of people than it seemed to be when I left school. Theres never been as many BAME in our universities ( its actually a disproportionately high amount compared to the overall population ) I think of my kids and their mates, kids ive known since they were very little in many cases, and the opportunities they have now mean they are all over the place in their early twenties. Spread all over the country ( and one or two abroad ) doing jobs that I dont think even existed when I was that age in lots of cases. Me and my mates pretty much all got jobs in and around where we grew up. Home owning is an issue, I do agree with that. Property has become extremely expensive, possibly because of our population living longer, more independent lives, so the pool of houses is restricted. And young people expectations have never been as big. What they consider an acceptable first home is id say somewhat better than what I did and certainly more than what my parents generation did. Home ownership is a very British obsession. We are probably moving more towards a renting mentality like other countries have much more than we do. The rich still pay vastly more both in amount and proportion of income to keep things like the NHS and other tax funded services going, even though theyre less likely to use them. yes there are a very small number of incredibly wealthy billionaires around but hasn't that always been the case? With the internet isn't it just the case that people are now more aware of them and who they are and how they get their wealth? |
|
|
|
Post by Wilsonwilson on Dec 27, 2021 11:52:34 GMT
Are we going to ignore the elephant in the room, with regards to property prices then?
Birth rates to UK mothers are under 2.0 and life expectancy is falling. Demand comes from elsewhere, quite literally.
My town is being destroyed as a government area to build flats everywhere for the up to 1,000 or more, who rock up on the Kent coast every day, looking for life of free milk and honey.
That's at least 500 flats a day needing building as very few ever get returned and this lot just get queue jumped over indigenous housing needs.
Tried booking a room in a hotel of late? You'd be amazed just how many are booked up by the government.
It's mid December and they're still being picked up and trafficked in by the RNLI and Patel's Border Farce Taxi Service.
We'll be well over 27,000 Gimmedats crossing the Channel in boats, that the authorities know of. Many more land on the beaches and flee long before the authorities turn up.
Then add on those who come in on lorries and other ports and you can at least double that figure.
Until we put the lid on the honey jar, it will only keep growing at an exponential rate.
Life sitting on your arse on benefits in the UK is a far higher standard of living than they see in their own 7th century sh1t holes.
This news has long since got back to their won countries and the swarm is growing and heading our way.
Apparently being concerned of a swarm of fighting age Muslim males, with a hatred for us and our way of life, other than the benefits system, makes me a racist, according to those who live a life, not affected directly by the swarm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2021 12:44:27 GMT
I totally understand why you hate socialism. Because it's espoused by an annoying wanker with purple hair, shit tattoos, ridiculous piercings and who has never worked a day in they/them's life. Here is the truth: I hate them too. But that's not it. How many of you reading this grew up in a council house? How many can say we are still here because of the NHS? And how many of you just want your children to inhabit a world that seemed much fairer (equitable) in the 70s?We are all different on here, but I find it hard to believe that anyone wants to see billionaires get richer, the poor get poorer and the next generation to have it so much tougher. Don't worry about what's happening in Chile, worry about what's happening about 200 miles away. The opportunities seem much more equitable now IMO than they've probably ever been. The opportunities to go into higher education, including universities are open to a much broader pool of people than it seemed to be when I left school. Theres never been as many BAME in our universities ( its actually a disproportionately high amount compared to the overall population ) I think of my kids and their mates, kids ive known since they were very little in many cases, and the opportunities they have now mean they are all over the place in their early twenties. Spread all over the country ( and one or two abroad ) doing jobs that I dont think even existed when I was that age in lots of cases. Me and my mates pretty much all got jobs in and around where we grew up. Home owning is an issue, I do agree with that. Property has become extremely expensive, possibly because of our population living longer, more independent lives, so the pool of houses is restricted. And young people expectations have never been as big. What they consider an acceptable first home is id say somewhat better than what I did and certainly more than what my parents generation did. Home ownership is a very British obsession. We are probably moving more towards a renting mentality like other countries have much more than we do. The rich still pay vastly more both in amount and proportion of income to keep things like the NHS and other tax funded services going, even though theyre less likely to use them. yes there are a very small number of incredibly wealthy billionaires around but hasn't that always been the case? With the internet isn't it just the case that people are now more aware of them and who they are and how they get their wealth? I'll be absolutely honest, I was so drunk when I wrote that that I didn't even recognise that I was the author when I read it today. And I am now so hungover that I can't even think to answer your points - as valid as they are. Sorry. Work is the scourge of the drinking classes |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Dec 27, 2021 13:15:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Dec 27, 2021 15:59:26 GMT
Cancel culture is not just annoying. It's dangerous.
If that person you disagree with is wrong, by having the conversation you can expose how wrong they are.
If that person you disagree with is right, you have no business silencing them, and you might learn something.
Different people have different perspectives & different approaches to a range of issues. When you arrogantly decide that somebody's view (or even question) is invalid, you create animosity & division where there needn't be any. Cancel culture is arrogance, narcissism & nihilism rolled into one. It needs killing.
|
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Dec 27, 2021 19:42:42 GMT
Cancel culture is not just annoying. It's dangerous. If that person you disagree with is wrong, by having the conversation you can expose how wrong they are. If that person you disagree with is right, you have no business silencing them, and you might learn something. Different people have different perspectives & different approaches to a range of issues. When you arrogantly decide that somebody's view (or even question) is invalid, you create animosity & division where there needn't be any. Cancel culture is arrogance, narcissism & nihilism rolled into one. It needs killing. Agreed, but it is surprising how many people offer tacit if not direct support for cancel culture. A certain admin at DATM first claimed that it didn't exist, then that it was unimportant, and then that it only affected those who were irrelevant, anyway. He dismissed Rowan Atkinson, John Cleese, and Dave Chapelle, among others, as belonging to the latter category. Here is the top 5 list of excuses for cancel culture that I heard on DATM. 1. He's an idiot/prick/racist anyway. 2. He's past it, so his opinions are no longer relevant. 3. There have to be limits to free speech (a moot point, as there already are laws regarding slander and incitement, etc.) 4. In the case of JK Rowling, I often heard nonsense like: Well you can still buy her books, and she's already wealthy, so what does it matter.
5. Feelings are no less important than facts, or words to this effect. |
|
|
|
Post by captainblack on Dec 28, 2021 8:20:16 GMT
I totally understand why you hate socialism. Because it's espoused by an annoying wanker with purple hair, shit tattoos, ridiculous piercings and who has never worked a day in they/them's life. Here is the truth: I hate them too. But that's not it. How many of you reading this grew up in a council house? How many can say we are still here because of the NHS? And how many of you just want your children to inhabit a world that seemed much fairer (equitable) in the 70s?We are all different on here, but I find it hard to believe that anyone wants to see billionaires get richer, the poor get poorer and the next generation to have it so much tougher. Don't worry about what's happening in Chile, worry about what's happening about 200 miles away. The opportunities seem much more equitable now IMO than they've probably ever been. The opportunities to go into higher education, including universities are open to a much broader pool of people than it seemed to be when I left school. Theres never been as many BAME in our universities ( its actually a disproportionately high amount compared to the overall population ) I think of my kids and their mates, kids ive known since they were very little in many cases, and the opportunities they have now mean they are all over the place in their early twenties. Spread all over the country ( and one or two abroad ) doing jobs that I dont think even existed when I was that age in lots of cases. Me and my mates pretty much all got jobs in and around where we grew up. Home owning is an issue, I do agree with that. Property has become extremely expensive, possibly because of our population living longer, more independent lives, so the pool of houses is restricted. And young people expectations have never been as big. What they consider an acceptable first home is id say somewhat better than what I did and certainly more than what my parents generation did. Home ownership is a very British obsession. We are probably moving more towards a renting mentality like other countries have much more than we do. The rich still pay vastly more both in amount and proportion of income to keep things like the NHS and other tax funded services going, even though theyre less likely to use them. yes there are a very small number of incredibly wealthy billionaires around but hasn't that always been the case? With the internet isn't it just the case that people are now more aware of them and who they are and how they get their wealth? I agree that renting is likely to become more normal in the near future , but only because the cost of housing is becoming more restrictive due to the high prices. What does concern me is the extremely high cost of renting property in this country , no doubt because we have a lack of housing , but also blatant profiteering. I tend to vote Labour as I see them as being generally fairer to the majority of the population , unlike the Tories who I find want to pander to more wealthy individuals . I have no animosity for wealthy people but firmly believe they should pay more into society , If I was loaded I certainly would not mind paying a higher percentage of my wealth in taxes . |
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Dec 28, 2021 8:59:53 GMT
I'd be interested to know, in people's real, everyday lives, how widespread cancel culture really is. It seems to me that there's a danger of doing the exact opposite of what we want (& I think most of us do want) a situation where protection of rights, liberties & free speech go hand-in-hand with a tolerant & fair society.
I often find myself in the sort of conversation where someone will say something & follow it up with "But you can't say that anymore." So, of course, I want to reply with "But you just did." I can then ignore them, talk about something else, argue with them or agree with them. It's unlikely that anyone will get arrested for this or cancelled in any practical way. Free speech in action.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are issues that probably primarily affect how people in public life behave, & to some degree people working in public sector institutions (although I've never yet been asked directly about my personal pronoun choice for example). That's not always for the better, I agree. But, to give an example, I have had a lot of really interesting discussions of late about trans issues. I am still trying to work out what I think about this, but as we speak I have a raft of worries & concerns & not much in the way of answers about how to deal with it. But personally, I'd say 90 or more % of people I talk to are discussing the issues in a similar way.
If we see cancel culture as an absolute problem & not a relative one, which I think is what the Government are doing to a degree, we just create another straw man that they can use to harm democracy & create intolerance. I get a strong feeling that some of these fires are being stoked to distract attention from what is happening in Government rather than tackling a problem which exists in the daily life of most of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by chedtippington on Dec 28, 2021 10:07:35 GMT
Why have the msm cancelled Gary glitter amd not Michael Jackson? I think I know
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Dec 28, 2021 10:46:56 GMT
Why have the msm cancelled Gary glitter amd not Michael Jackson? I think I know I would say that the obvious answer is that one of them is a convicted child abuser & the other one isn't. A fairer comparison might be with Jimmy Savile who of course died without ever being convicted of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by chedtippington on Dec 28, 2021 13:27:16 GMT
Why have the msm cancelled Gary glitter amd not Michael Jackson? I think I know I would say that the obvious answer is that one of them is a convicted child abuser & the other one isn't. A fairer comparison might be with Jimmy Savile who of course died without ever being convicted of anything. Ok .. why have the msm cancelled Jim Saville and Rofl Harris but not Michael Jacko |
|
|
|
Post by frankiesleftpeg on Dec 28, 2021 16:00:49 GMT
Why have the msm cancelled Gary glitter amd not Michael Jackson? I think I know I would say that the obvious answer is that one of them is a convicted child abuser & the other one isn't. A fairer comparison might be with Jimmy Savile who of course died without ever being convicted of anything. The only reason Michael Jackson isn't a convicted child abuser is because he paid his accuser(s) off, which he later admitted. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Dec 28, 2021 16:09:27 GMT
I would say that the obvious answer is that one of them is a convicted child abuser & the other one isn't. A fairer comparison might be with Jimmy Savile who of course died without ever being convicted of anything. Ok .. why have the msm cancelled Jim Saville and Rofl Harris but not Michael Jacko Advocates of cancel culture are more interested in canceling and labeling political views, not so much perversions. There is obviously good reason that certain celebrities are talked about in hushed tones, if at all, but there have long been laws against their activities. Conservative (with a small 'c') opinions in respect of LGTBQ, Islam, and Cultural Marxism are generally labelled as this or that phobic and or far right. It's the creeping censorship sponsored by the perpetually offended that concerns me. The recent high court ruling against non-crime hate-crimes is a massive victory for common sense, but there is a long way to go. A lot of comedy acts admit to censoring themselves for fear of a pile on leading to cancellation, and lines are still being edited out of classic comedies. |
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Dec 29, 2021 7:58:59 GMT
Of the names mentioned, this is what I think is probably think lies behind how they have been treated;
Glitter: Convicted & imprisoned
Savile: Never convicted but the weight of evidence that followed his death strongly suggests that he was a pervert.
Jackson: He is, I think, very different from the above. Most obviously, that he was the only one who was actually put on trial & found NOT guilty. Regardless of what people might think about his guilt (& I'm not going to deny that I certainly have my suspicions about him) his countless millions of fans were able to effectively move on & say he didn't do it. Out of that comes another key difference. Having been found not guilty, the people who made vast profits from his music could continue to do that, including long after his death. And they did. Unless the royalties from Two Little Boys were in the billions, I think we have an obvious motive there not to cancel him.
|
|
