Re: Politics in General
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:06 pm
Well given C4C doesn't have Owen Jones, Antifa, or Squawkbox trolls that flood your notifications whenever you say something, I'm inclined to agree.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
Well given C4C doesn't have Owen Jones, Antifa, or Squawkbox trolls that flood your notifications whenever you say something, I'm inclined to agree.
To the best of my knowledge, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins don't have accounts on here, and neither do any of their toxic followers, so I'm inclined to agree with you there.
Tell me again how c4c > Twitter.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:27 pm I don't use cis in the same way I don't have to announce myself as heterosexual.
I'm not sure I even understand this. If you were gay you'd have no obligation to "announce" yourself as gay either.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:27 pm I don't use cis in the same way I don't have to announce myself as heterosexual.
Definitely.Jennifer Steadman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:50 pm "can't" have conversations, "language police", etc - nuanced conversations depend on people as well as platforms!
I think this comes from all sides though. While some people are quick to just consider these people a load of freaks, others are too quick to yell "Bigot!"Trans people's risk of suicide doesn't stop conversations, it just encourages a sensitive and indeed nuanced approach to the topic, as with any other subject linked to MH struggles and the like. That means familiarising oneself with the basics of the subject, the basic questions and answers, and reading both personal accounts and experts in the field, before you have something to say about it (and think about how you express it). This doesn't shut down a conversation: if anything, it elevates it, because it pushes it beyond Page 1 basics and laziness into more thoughtful questions, answers and research.
Well yes, but I think the wider question is not just about whether Rowling has been accurate on every single point, but about whether what she's done makes her a nasty person or a bigot worthy of vilification. What's your opinion on that? And I don't mean to just give her a free pass - I'm not trying to imply that that's what should happen.JKR's post was widely criticised for some of the reasons I outlined in my previous post (and more) and these criticisms were freely available - I am surprised that you hadn't seen or looked into these.
I think this comes back to the point about language. Maybe she phrased this in a way that she knew was going to antagonise a lot of people but, JK Rowling aside, I think it's reasonable to discuss philosophically/linguistically/scientifically what we mean by the words "man" and "woman" and who gets to decide. Now I would never condone anyone going up to a trans-woman/man and saying "You are not a woman/man" but that doesn't mean they have to agree internally what the "best" definitions of these words are or that they have adhere to the "prescribed" definitions at all times in order to not be a bigot. We also have male/female - do we apply them in the same way?'People who menstruate'. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?
Cis (cisgender) is an adjective that just means 'identifying with the sex assigned at birth'. The public learns and adapts to new language all the time, so three letters should be easy enough to absorb. No-one can stop you using 'biological man/woman' if really you want to ('cis' is kinder to those of us with RSI of course), and in a medical capacity it is of course useful to be able to identify a natal man/woman to ensure nuanced but accurate healthcare assessments and research from professionals.
I'll include Graeme in here too. I think it's slightly different with "cis" because it's not a word that's "naturally" come into the language. It's a word that people are actively trying to get other people to use. Not that that is necessarily such a bad thing, but I think it can explain some of the resistance. Plus I think it's a horrible sounding word. Maybe because it's a bit like "cyst" - I don't know, but it does have an unpleasant feel to it, for me anyway. I think they could have put more thought into it. It's probably not too late to change it anyway, as it's unlikely to have caught on in the majority of households in the English speaking world.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:51 pm When the word "straight" came along in its sense meaning "not gay", was there any great objection to it? Did some heterosexual people "reject that label"? "cis" meaning "not trans" is just the same thing.
Well yes, this is bad. Obviously I don't agree with discrimination against trans/intersex people.The most important thing is this. Overnight, the Trump administration has removed trans people's protections within healthcare, allowing them to be discriminated against (note the usage of 'biological sex' by the Trump administration). Hungary's government ended legal recognition for trans and intersex people last month.
Languages all come with their own weird nuances and quirks and downright insanity, so yes you can make an argument for willed change rather than natural evolution. But there's always going to be obstacles to that as I touched on above.While there are new ideas to grapple with in regard to language - France sees your 'cis' question and raises you this, a language entirely dependent on the masculine/feminine binary - and possibly sense of self, it's worth keeping things in perspective. These are small fry compared to the trans community's concerns about their fundamental rights and safety, especially when hard-fought rights are being reversed.
Sure, I mean, you probably think I'm terrible for saying what I have done about this, but I'm certainly not anti-trans people or opposed to them having a full set of rights.I’m no expert, but this is a horribly oppressed and endangered group of people worldwide, to whom we should be sympathetic rather than defensive. The UK has better rights for the trans community than most, but there are those that seek to overturn them, and other countries set a worrying precedent for that right now. If we can make trans people a little more comfortable in a world that largely denies, dismisses and even despises them, it's worth doing imo, especially if it minimally inconveniences us to do so.
Cis- as a general prefix has meant the opposite of trans- for centuries, even if its popular use in the gender context is more recent. It seems like a perfectly appropriate term to me - it's got some prior etymology behind it, it has now caught on, and it's used in a non-pejorative way.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:35 pmI'll include Graeme in here too. I think it's slightly different with "cis" because it's not a word that's "naturally" come into the language. It's a word that people are actively trying to get other people to use. Not that that is necessarily such a bad thing, but I think it can explain some of the resistance. Plus I think it's a horrible sounding word. Maybe because it's a bit like "cyst" - I don't know, but it does have an unpleasant feel to it, for me anyway. I think they could have put more thought into it. It's probably not too late to change it anyway, as it's unlikely to have caught on in the majority of households in the English speaking world.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:51 pm When the word "straight" came along in its sense meaning "not gay", was there any great objection to it? Did some heterosexual people "reject that label"? "cis" meaning "not trans" is just the same thing.
It felt ridiculous to me, normally such an act would attract a fine or similar. However, I've no idea of the previous criminal history of the individual, and this often has a strong relevance to any sentence. Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:08 pm Even he had pissed on it just by chance (because it doesn't seem there was any intent) would this random chance deserve a prison sentence? I don't think so. And is culpability based on how far away you are from something (perhaps the inverse square law like with gravity)? Or is everyone who pisses in public now at risk of a two-week prison sentence?
Are you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:11 pm Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.
I wouldn't go that far, but I've little doubt that sentencing is more extreme in unusual/highly public circumstances. I'm not sure impartiality is so relevant in sentencing as it is in finding guilt or otherwise. When it comes down to it, judges are representing the will of the people (albeit in a very abstracted manner), so I think it's fair that sentencing takes public outrage into account.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:06 pmAre you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:11 pm Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.
I'm in way over my head here in terms of how the law works, but I believe the charge he was sentenced on was 'outraging public decency'. That charge seem to have some consideration of public outrage inherent within it. I have no idea how much, if any, sway this has on sentencing and haven't managed to wrap my head around this particular offense enough to form an opinion. Just pointing this out in case it is relevant (I suspect it might be but lack the legal nouse to confirm).Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:06 pmAre you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:11 pm Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.
Ian Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:10 pm I wouldn't go that far, but I've little doubt that sentencing is more extreme in unusual/highly public circumstances. I'm not sure impartiality is so relevant in sentencing as it is in finding guilt or otherwise. When it comes down to it, judges are representing the will of the people (albeit in a very abstracted manner), so I think it's fair that sentencing takes public outrage into account.
However, balance is needed too, and that's why there's the ability for apparently harsh sentences to be appealed. This gets us into the messy area of legal aid and the apparent gutting of the court system in England, but they're beyond my remit here.
Yes, it was outraging public decency so I suppose you could say that public outrage might have something to do with it. But actually it's public decency that's being outraged. And the more I think about it the more "outraging public decency" seems like three words just stuck together that doesn't actually mean anything as a phrase.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:33 pm I'm in way over my head here in terms of how the law works, but I believe the charge he was sentenced on was 'outraging public decency'. That charge seem to have some consideration of public outrage inherent within it. I have no idea how much, if any, sway this has on sentencing and haven't managed to wrap my head around this particular offense enough to form an opinion. Just pointing this out in case it is relevant (I suspect it might be but lack the legal nouse to confirm).
Obviously these laws are always slightly circular. What is outraging public decency? Well it's:Public decency is a level of behaviour which is generally acceptable to the public and is not obscene, disgusting or shocking for the observers.
Outraging public decency is an indictable common law offence which is punishable by unlimited imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. To be guilty of this offence:
you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting character, which outrages minimum standards of public decency as assessed by the jury;
the act must take place in a public place, or a place which is accessible to, or within view of, the public;
the act must take place in the actual presence of two or more persons who are capable of seeing it – it is irrelevant whether these people actually saw the act or were outraged by it.
Just the same thing with more words then.you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting character, which outrages minimum standards of public decency
Never forget to discount the previous history of the person - I've no idea if this has been made public. If he'd been convicted previously, then he's bound to fall foul of the general philosophy that if you didn't learn from last time, you'll get a more obvious punishment this time to see if you get the message. Whether that's a good way to do things is another question again.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:08 pm Plus anyway, regardless of the law, this whole thing was a joke. Intent is very important here for one thing, and the bad luck of pissing on a memorial should be irrelevant. And even if there was intent, no way should this involve prison.
I didn't know you could identify paedophiles by looks - that's handy.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:32 am At least that's what he told me.
He looked more like an alky than a paedo
So bad luck to compound stupidity and ignorance.Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:26 am I hadn't followed this story, but according to this report, he had no previous convictions, needed a pee, did not know the monument was there, so basically behaved in the same way as many lads on a night out.
Most examples of outraging public decency involve masturbating on the tube or similar, so on the face of it a jail sentence does seem disproportionate.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 66301.html
Regardless of the truth of the article's claim, anti Israeli state actions =/= anti-Semitism. Sure, you can argue that an anti-Semitic person might take indirect jabs like this to go under the radar, but bear in mind that this is doubly indirect since Long-Bailey only shared the article.In the article, Ms Peake discussed the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
She said: "The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd's neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services."
Racism is not about colour.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:55 am And Black Lives Matter's UK branch have just ruined everything they've done for the last three weeks by posting the notion Jews don't have a right to self-determination on their Twitter feed, including the rather stupid assertion that British politics is "gagged" when disputing it.
Can you link/quote the specific tweet?Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:55 am And Black Lives Matter's UK branch have just ruined everything they've done for the last three weeks by posting the notion Jews don't have a right to self-determination on their Twitter feed, including the rather stupid assertion that British politics is "gagged" when disputing it.
You must have breezed through university. Referencing is for chumps.
It's not exactly the same thing as distributing racist material to a Countdown forum, Callum.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:53 pmYou must have breezed through university. Referencing is for chumps.
I went to their Twitter page and found a few things about Israel/Palestine, and it was obvious to me that none of the tweets were going to explicitly say what you say they are saying - it would be down to interpretation. So I thought it might just be easier for you to link or quite.
So specifically what is bad about this tweet?Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:58 pm This was the tweet apparently.
"As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand beside our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE.”
(Sarcasm font) Shocking stuff. (End sarcasm font)
What is meant here exactly by self-determination?Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:23 pm British politics is not gagged of the right to criticise Zionism (Corbyn et al), but it ought to be. "Zionism" is the right of Jewish people of self-determination. Therefore, to deny the existence of Israel on the grounds of it being Zionist is antisemitic unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
So I'm guessing from all this that it's not most of the Tweet that you're objecting to, but just the bit about Zionism, which you equate with the Jewish people's right for self-determination, although the dictionary definition defines self-determination in terms of a country rather than a specific group of people within a country. On Zionism:The process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government.
This definition is more complex than what you have suggested, although obviously dictionary definitions aren't the beginning and end of it. In any case, it's over to you now Rhys to expand on your position. We've done most of your homework for you up to this point.A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
Feck. Wish I hadn't clicked on that. The dude is a "taxation is theft" libertarian. My YouTube recommendations are gonna be screwed.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:15 pm Worth a look.
How current times compare with medieval times.
A lot of baloney , but worth a watch
https://youtu.be/z2RujJ04vxY
I always browse the internet in incognito mode, apart from a few sites where I want to stay signed in. It helps with things like this.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:06 pmFeck. Wish I hadn't clicked on that. The dude is a "taxation is theft" libertarian. My YouTube recommendations are gonna be screwed.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:15 pm Worth a look.
How current times compare with medieval times.
A lot of baloney , but worth a watch
https://youtu.be/z2RujJ04vxY
Just seen this. It seems Rhys isn't the only one who feels BLM UK's tweets re: Israel/Palestine could be harmful to their reputation and, by association, the cause they are primarily promoting.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:23 pmI went to their Twitter page and found a few things about Israel/Palestine, and it was obvious to me that none of the tweets were going to explicitly say what you say they are saying - it would be down to interpretation. So I thought it might just be easier for you to link or quite.
So specifically what is bad about this tweet?Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:58 pm This was the tweet apparently.
"As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand beside our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE.”
(Sarcasm font) Shocking stuff. (End sarcasm font)
What is meant here exactly by self-determination?Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:23 pm British politics is not gagged of the right to criticise Zionism (Corbyn et al), but it ought to be. "Zionism" is the right of Jewish people of self-determination. Therefore, to deny the existence of Israel on the grounds of it being Zionist is antisemitic unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
Well, [urlhttps://www.lexico.com/definition/self-determination]Lexico[/url] defines as:
So I'm guessing from all this that it's not most of the Tweet that you're objecting to, but just the bit about Zionism, which you equate with the Jewish people's right for self-determination, although the dictionary definition defines self-determination in terms of a country rather than a specific group of people within a country. On Zionism:The process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government.
This definition is more complex than what you have suggested, although obviously dictionary definitions aren't the beginning and end of it. In any case, it's over to you now Rhys to expand on your position. We've done most of your homework for you up to this point.A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
OK, forget the country thing in this particular definition. He thinks that Jewish people have a right to determine their own statehood and form their own government, and that it's anti-Semitic to not think that. Really? Why Jewish people in particular? What about any group of people that get together?The process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government.
Well, I'm not actually denying the existence of Israel (it exists, right?), but sure, there's no reason why Muslims have a particular right to form their own country either.unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
(Some people think it's atheism. It isn't.)The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
Best save since Gordon Banks. Well done.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:08 pmWell, I'm not actually denying the existence of Israel (it exists, right?), but sure, there's no reason why Muslims have a particular right to form their own country either.unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
What does it mean to say no one? What if I say Free Palestine while also believing Muslims shouldn't have a particular right to form their own country. Am I misunderstanding what it means to say Free Palestine?Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:31 pmBest save since Gordon Banks. Well done.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:08 pmWell, I'm not actually denying the existence of Israel (it exists, right?), but sure, there's no reason why Muslims have a particular right to form their own country either.unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
The problem is no one who goes "mUh FrEe PaLeStiNe" believes this.
In what way does it not?Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:58 pm I mean, every argument on Israel could equally apply to Pakistan, but it doesn't.
if Wikipedia is accurate there are 17 current Tory mps who are male, in their 50s, and have been but are not currently a minister
Is he an influencer on social media ?Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:22 pm In other news, Mark Francois was very pro-Brexit wasn't he? Mark Francois indeed. Just felt like bringing him up for some reason.
I would assume the reason for the media giving the alleged rapist anonymity is to avoid jigsaw identification? Victims of rape and sexual offences get lifetime anonymity (unless they choose to waive it), and the press isn't allowed to do anything that can jeopardise that. That includes 'jigsaw identification' - i.e. providing scraps of information that can be pieced together to identify the person. So for example, if someone was convicted of molesting a child in their family, the newspaper reports would be able to say the name of the person and that they molested a child, but not say that they were a relation/what type of relation they were. Or you could say the family relation, but you then wouldn't be allowed to name the offender. You'd usually go for the former route though.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 pm A Tory MP has been arrested for rape, and not been suspended from the party. Apparently he's a former minister and in his 50s - can we narrow it down?
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of how this is being handled, but people don't normally get anonymity and would normally be suspended, so I'm just wondering what makes this case different.
Well, it worked out my actual job, so...Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:31 pm This is hilariously terrible. Apparently I should be a head chef, a chef, or a cake decorator. Yeah... no. https://beta.nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/
Whereas I (in the same general area) got recommended social care, and then nothing at all when I tried again.Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 pmWell, it worked out my actual job, so...Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:31 pm This is hilariously terrible. Apparently I should be a head chef, a chef, or a cake decorator. Yeah... no. https://beta.nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/
Update - about half of my company (who do roughly the same job as me) are getting told they are suited to professional sports, and, in particular, boxing.