Be Excellent To Each Other

Will they still make "i"?

The i will still exist. It has been bought by Johnston Press for 25 meeeellion Pounds.

http://gu.com/p/4gh6a

What a shitshow of cronyism and cynical bribery politics. You can't possibly tell me with a straight face that those are the councils worst affected by the welfare cuts.

Meanwhile



http://www.frankfield.co.uk/latest-news ... ?p=1021194

Technically they wanted another Con/Lib coalition, but yeah, I can't imagine it pleased their core readership.

Nice.

Agreed. Makes you sick, doesn't it?

As I said at the Cottage, politicians are dicks by default, nepotism and cynicism is rife. At least in the old days there would have been at least some attempt to dress this up, but now? Shit. Does anyone bat an eyelid at this - or even care beyond the apathy of The X Factor or some "box set" or other...? If 2 million people on the streets pre-Iraq made not one whit of difference, what chance would getting miffed about "mere" stuff like this have? Yeah, call me a tired, cynical old bastard - and you'd be right - but y'know, "meh" etc. It ain't changing.

For me, the best we can hope for is, notwithstanding shit like this, at least run the economy right - to give the rest of us at least a chance to make good. Back in 2008/9, Cavey inc. very nearly went down the tubes (and would've done were it not for a very lucky, large contract that could not be pulled, which saw us through the worst times). Now, whatever you or anyone else protests to the contrary, in the face of all evidence and third party appraisals from the likes of the IMF etc., the economic weather in the UK at least - in stark contrast to many other places - gives SMEs like us at least *a chance*. That's what we (i.e. business) vote Tory for, notwithstanding there are many, many things that I/we loathe and would do different, and feel like a good scrub after coming out of the voting booth.

With you and your ilk, it truly seems to me that you vote/think the way you do because it "feels right", even though the outcomes - time and again - point otherwise. Consider the alternative to this Tory administration that you loathe so completely and fervently (and the sort of antics like this, which we both deplore). That alternative: Labour.

Tell me, was there ever a more useless, more inept, more cynical administration in the UK? I mean, do I have to spell out, yet again, not only the catastrophic economic and legacy failures and missed opportunities of where we were in 1997 and where we ended up in 2008/10? And please, since we're being really honest with each other, don't give me all that "it was the world wot dunnit guv" bullshit; we all know just how big a chunk "London" (The City) was, and still is, in respect of the total that is this [finance/banking] "world" - and whose job it was to properly regulate and ameliorate risks from this very large chunk of this "world". (Then there are, of course, the countless other billions pissed away on failed projects, public sector pay rises, foreign wars off the back of lies etc., but we've done many of these to death too).

I suppose one acid test was Margaret Thatcher and her recent death. A divisive figure, certainly; the very mention of her name seems to send people like you, etc. into paroxisms of hatred, however bizarre that is to me, as someone who was there in 1979 and remembers, first hand, how utterly hopeless your average Brit felt at that time as against a backdrop of union shits metaphorically slashing the seats and doing us all down in one final act of mindless and endlessly stupid political and economic vandalism. I have to remember that for many of you guys this is simply unimaginable; I remind myself the same thing when listening to that animated little twerp Owen Jones who looks about 18 and three-quarters. Late 1970s Bankrupt Britain might as well have been on a different planet to today's UK, for all its problems.

When Thatcher died, notwithstanding all the terrible things that people like you say she did to ordinary folk; yet it was these ordinary rank and file Brits, not Lords and Ladies, who lined those streets. Yes there were bonfires in Scotland (I'd expect nothing less; just look at their so-called 'grievomax' chip-on-shoulder politics now, makes Greece's political arena look like Finland's), but no-one is ever going to tell me that many people - myself included - did not revere her for what we think and know she did, pulling us back from Labour's/the Union's precipice where no-one else would, nor could.

So then, who will mourn Blair's death when it comes? Hah! Thatcher is/was divisive, but he's surely universally reviled and utterly loathed. There he is, Labour's "most successful" leader of all time, who never had to make so much as a fraction of one percent of the kind of decisions that Thatcher had to do back in 1979. He had it all: and just look what he did with it, says it ALL. Be careful what you wish for and be mindful of the alternatives, eh; grass greener, much? (As for Brown, well, he might not be hated as much but pretty much everyone agrees he was absolutely hopeless).

So yeah, anyway. Where am I going with this; dunno really, I guess I'm saying shit like this is going to happen either way, so we might as well have economic competency with it, to at least give ordinary schmucks like you and me half a chance? From where I'm standing there is no moral high ground here, because politics/political parties stink.

It's pretty amazing he's still doing the "don't like the Tories? You must be an uncritical supporter of Blair/Brown/Corbyn/Owen Jones" schtick.

How long have you had that saved to your desktop waiting for the perfect moment to drop it in?

Sigh, whatever, troll. *goes to user control panel*

Saw it on Twitter this very morning and (obviously) immediately did a search for posts containing the word 'bad' written by LoneWolves. I'm only human.

Stop joining in the dogpile!

We prefer the term huperson, actually.

(My phone wanted to change that to hypersonic, and wanted to let it)

Pfft, you are bad (sorry, goodly challenged) at etymology. Man (mann) used to refer to both male and female in Old English (hence mankind, man the ramparts, etc). Wer (m) and wif (f) were the gender pronouns at the time.

But they aren't anymore, those words were the defined by people who were oppressing thousands of people. To continue to use the words of a people such as that shows a complete disregard to the struggles the oppressed underwent at the time and still undergo in an attempt to free themselves from the bonds of items such as "gender pronouns"!

But I am talking dispassionately about words as they appear in the dictionary. This is fine.

Except, of course, when it's not.

Which is somewhat arbitrary.

That isn't for you to decide!

I think this is three layers of irony now and my head is going to explode

Arbitary punishments are the best punishments.

Okay, Scalia!

So are arbitary rules.

Peter Tatchell in the Telegraph:



I suppose it's possible he said something once that was miscontrued, although the NUS has presented zero evidence of this. But given that it's Peter Tatchell, a man who once had a bullet posted through his letterbox as a threat because of his outspoken stance on gay rights, it doesn't sound very likely does it?

I think he's on to something here:

Please remember that the LGBT community is a coalition, and not all members will agree on everything. Just because Tatchell is a seasoned campaigner for "gay rights" doesn't mean what he does is good for everyone (in fact there's a joke that the BT in LGBT is silent), despite his motives and intentions.

From what I can see on this occasion it was Fran's decision alone as her event and the union wasn't even involved. From what I've been reading about it, the issue is that Tatchell seems to have been aligning with TERFs on Twitter for a while, and speaking over trans people on their issues. I need to do some more research though.

Or possibly Cowling's being an idiot, of course. Tatchell's history certainly buys him a substantial amount of benefit of my doubt.

Fucking hell, TERFs? Something else I have to Google.

This privilege is fucking *heavy*

This.

It's what I've been saying for years; this ludicrous race to be yet more left-wing, right on, "on message" and PC etc. than the next person is now getting to the stage where clearly it's total nuts and lost its way. I can accept the line can be a little fuzzy and hard to place, but when the likes of Peter Tatchell - a man who has earned his stripes in any meaningful sense - is denounced as a "racist" and "transphobic" (and moreover, *denied a platform to speak*), then it's high time to call "time". Honestly? I think this is a hipster thing most of the time now?

Too. Many. People. Taking. Offence. This, in part, ties into the whole "Twitter generation" and "pile-on" discussion; people need to get fucking real and press Ctrl-Alt-Del here FFS.

To be clear, Tatchell wasn't denied a platform to speak. He had a fellow speaker refuse to speak alongside him, which is a very different thing. That's surely been going on since as long as public speaking has existed and doesn't feel to me like a ridiculous way to express your severe disagreement with someone's position.

true, but you can hardly put your point across if you are not there.

Also:
...we both know that somewhere, someone who reads the Daily Mail has used this exact sentence to defend their use of, say, "poofter" or "nigger" or some similar slur. I know you're not on that side of that line. Any maybe we live in a special golden age where the conflict between free expression of ideas and people not using language to hurt others because they're dicks is perfectly in balance. But that seems unlikely, to me.

Oh come now Doc. As it says in the very piece you've quoted, refusing to appear unless someone else is barred is closing down debate whichever way you slice it.There's not much point turning up to a debate if all your fellow speakers have flounced; it also *is* ridiculous to even refuse to share a platform with a man who has inarguably been a champion and campaigner for these very same minority groups, and has risked life and limb so to do.



Well yeah, I'm not on that side of the line, not by a million miles - and nor is hardly anyone else, least of all Peter Tatchell FFS. That's the point.

Look, you know where I'm coming from in all of this; I'm not trying to piss anyone off here but I make no bones about how utterly ridiculous I find most of this, and I'm sorry but that isn't because I'm some straight white dude who doesn't give a stuff about minorities/minority concerns, nor does it make me a bad person - but simply an utterly bemused and increasingly bewildered member of the human race. I think a lot of these people need to step back from their browsers and re-engage with actual *people*.

In the end though he did speak at the event. So the story here, unless there was widespread outrage at this outcome, seems to be one person having an extreme reaction to someone else.

So, public bodies are going to be prevented from considering ethics in their suppliers when awarding contracts for products or services

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 74006.html

I struggle a bit with this. It's very plainly aimed at Israel, and improving relations with a nation that has an extremely dubious human rights record by banning boycotts. This is a bad thing. On the other hand, this legislation would also seem to forbid a strongly religious council from, for example, refusing to contract with a supplier who strongly and publicly supports gay rights. I'm not sure what to think.

Sure, but the difference is: if we're invited to speak, and you speak and I flounce, it's *my* side of the argument that's not presented, most likely to my detriment. If I force you not to speak, it's *your* side that no-one has heard. Those are very different outcomes.

Yes, I get that, but what if the person flouncing (on pain of someone not being allowed to speak) is key to the debate, e.g. the Chair or organiser, or what some or all other participants do the same? The debate itself is crippled or doesn't happen at all, so the (desired) end result is the same, it is a de facto barring.

I'm not saying people should be forced to speak at debates or anywhere else against their will, but equally I feel that criticism may well be due and anything that stifles debate is not a good thing in my book at least.

"Does your dad buy Jaffa oranges?"

"Yes"

"He's buying nukes for israel bro, he's a jew"

Yes, I agree that could be problematic but only if it happened en masse and there is little evidence of that (that I am aware of, at least.) It's not like Greer or Tatchell or anyone else the NUS has taken a dislike to is having difficulty promulgating their ideas right now, nor are they likely to anytime soon, so I don't see cause for grave concern. I think the NUS is probably being foolish, but the young often grow out of foolishness.

Well, unless you're prepared to go as far as "my belief in free speech is so great that I don't believe you have the freedom not to speak" then I don't see a neat answer here. Some speakers will continue to attempt to hold venues hostage, and they may or may not succeed. People will judge the speakers on their merits and make the call about who they think is being the bigger dick -- and maybe, sometimes, "no-platforming" will seem like a reasonable thing to have done. There are doubtless people who we are, on the whole, better off just ignoring. Not everyone is a special snowflake who deserves equal attention.

I guess I have more confidence in the free economic market of ideas than you do. I don't see this recent hype about "no-platforming" as a significant stifling force. I merely think it's a bit silly when taken to extremes, but then again, what isn't?

No, personally, I definitely think there is an observable trend at play; an increasing intolerance and "othering"; this clamour among certain quarters to be more left wing/right on than others etc., and your OP tends to lend some credence to this. For me, it's all very McCarthyite I must say.

I'm inclined to agree with Cavesterooni. It could be on the increase but it could just be getting more coverage. It sits uncomfortably with me, in the main.

I think it sits uncomfortably with me because someone's beliefs and principles are negatively impacting another person.

Did you just quote yourself?

Yes. Otherwise if I were to edit so done might not pick up the later bit. I do it often. Sometimes I disagree with myself.

I think this sort of thing might be true at university debating clubs or whatever the fuck but in the press or places like Facebook i.e. as far as most actual people are concerned, I've heard more people spouting more shitty horrible views lately than at any time I can really remember.

That's just trolling/trolls though, surely? (your final point obv.)

I suppose from my side of things, I don't normally bother thinking about the likes of Twitter/Facebook and peoples' antics there (and purposely stay away). Trolls gonna be trolls, twitter gonna be twitter what do you expect etc., whereas I am much more concerned when mainstream, more cerebral places of debate and vigorous discussion are potentially compromised? If university campuses can't be hotbeds of contentious, vigorous and yes, controversial platforms for debate (and all the potential for offence this entails) then for me at least, these are sad, misguided times. You can throw the baby out with the bathwater, yeah?

One person's troll is another person's 'voice of reason', though.

My followers are all bots so I can spout as much bollocks as I want without a soul in the world reading it.

Yeah, very true.