Kern wrote:
Cras wrote:
Lib Dems standing aside for Dominic Grieve, interestingly.
More of this kind of thing, please. From everyone.
Ok. I'm standing aside for him too.
DavPaz wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Satsuma wrote:
Weird, mine recommended voting Labour.
Me too.
Me, too.
Me too, too.
It recommended lib dems to me.
Unsurprising as Labour are essentially dead here, LDs have come consistently second and gained council control last council election.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Mine too, but I think Four Candle’s advice is generally very sound. Those sorts of sites are generally well shared on occasions such as these and would be a very efficient way of swaying votes to prompt the user to vote tactically ‘wrongly’.
But on the other hand, it's equally easy to efficiently spread rumours that a site cannot be trusted, and thus should be ignored. Even if it's actually giving reasonable advice.
I also saw tweets about this site that said "it only ever says LibDem and should not be used." Based on a few datapoints in this thread, the first part of that statement isn't true, which puts the second part into doubt.
I do’t think anybody is saying don’t trust and use these sites because they are untrustworthy, but try your best to do some research into the one(s) you use. ‘Try to be sure this site works in a transparent and accurate way’ works for both yours and Four Candles’ scenarios.
DavPaz wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Satsuma wrote:
Weird, mine recommended voting Labour.
Me too.
Me, too.
Me too, too.
Also: me.
I'm not sure how such sites work, to be honest. I'd have thought it would be a simple check on the last few results for the constituency, and (if it's currently a Tory seat) recommend whichever non-Tory party is averaging most votes? Easy enough to find that data and check it yourself (I knew before I tried it that Labour were miles ahead of Lib Dems here, which is a shame in a way, as despite being a Labour member, I really like the LD candidate here). So yes, I don't think there's anything magic about these sites, so if you don't trust them, it's easy to check.
The site I posted the link to is by Best for Britain. While their CEO, Naomi Smith, is a Lib Dem, if you listen to her speaking (either at protest events, or frequently on the Remainiacs podcast), it's pretty clear that her passion is for remain/referendum, rather than party politics. So I find it difficult to believe that that site is deliberately shilling for the Lib Dems. (Which of course doesn't rule out broken algorithms - using such a site is always going to be an act of faith.) I posted it mostly just to make the case for organised tactical voting, particularly in this election (which, given how often GEs seem to be coming along these days, is understandably, and forgivably, going to be basically a single-issue election, despite what Corbyn and Johnson might say about getting on with other stuff, once in a generation opportunities, etc.).
TL;DR: if in doubt, do your own research about tactical voting.
The site I posted the link to is by Best for Britain. While their CEO, Naomi Smith, is a Lib Dem, if you listen to her speaking (either at protest events, or frequently on the Remainiacs podcast), it's pretty clear that her passion is for remain/referendum, rather than party politics. So I find it difficult to believe that that site is deliberately shilling for the Lib Dems. (Which of course doesn't rule out broken algorithms - using such a site is always going to be an act of faith.) I posted it mostly just to make the case for organised tactical voting, particularly in this election (which, given how often GEs seem to be coming along these days, is understandably, and forgivably, going to be basically a single-issue election, despite what Corbyn and Johnson might say about getting on with other stuff, once in a generation opportunities, etc.).
TL;DR: if in doubt, do your own research about tactical voting.
Kern wrote:
Cras wrote:
Lib Dems standing aside for Dominic Grieve, interestingly.
More of this kind of thing, please. From everyone.
Except (as seems worryingly likely) the Brexit Party, for the more rabidly Brexity Tories. Less of that, please.
Best for Britain are publishing their research - it seems based on more recent polling, so they're saying it isn't just the last few elections, but (at times) showing the shift towards remaining, which then favours the Lib Dems. And Ian Dunt posted a "FFS" to some of the wilder conspiracy claims.
Tweet of the Day:
https://twitter.com/SocialHistoryOx/sta ... 3316395009
https://twitter.com/SocialHistoryOx/sta ... 3316395009
Setting in train a series of events that had a very disturbing consequence for one innocent 20th century Oxfordshire pig. https://t.co/9DFUhNOY2m
— Jonathan Healey (@SocialHistoryOx) November 1, 2019
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/1 ... ng-a-sewer
There's a deep truth about conservatism here. Not all conservatives think this way, sure. But it's far from uncommon. The belief that society is a meritocracy, that people succeed based on effort, that luck and privilege do not exist; hence that the poor are deserving of their lot because they have failed to apply themselves and the rich are morally superior because they did.
Quote:
Jacob Rees-Mogg claimed people with "common sense" would not have followed official instructions to stay in their home during the Grenfell fire. He looked at LBC presenter Nick Ferrari and noted: "I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building." In other words: People like us wouldn't be so stupid. Only the poor are that stupid.
Soon afterwards, the Tory MP Andrew Bridgen seemed to corroborate that assessment. Radio 4 presenter Evan Davis put to him the following proposition: "He is, in effect, saying 'I wouldn't have died because I would have been cleverer than the people who took the fire brigade's advice'."
There was a long pause, and finally, having thought about it, Bridgen answered: "But we want very clever people running the country, don't we, Evan?"
And suddenly a whole other world of private conversations opened up, which you never had the poverty of imagination to think possible. One in which Conservatives would sit together and loftily dismiss the reasons for Grenfell, and confide in each other that the real reason so many people burned to death was because they were too stupid to leave. This, after all, is where Conservatism goes when it is unchecked by moderation or its better instincts. It starts by harbouring thoughts that the poor are poor because they deserve it. And ends by harbouring the thought that they are dead because they deserve it.
Soon afterwards, the Tory MP Andrew Bridgen seemed to corroborate that assessment. Radio 4 presenter Evan Davis put to him the following proposition: "He is, in effect, saying 'I wouldn't have died because I would have been cleverer than the people who took the fire brigade's advice'."
There was a long pause, and finally, having thought about it, Bridgen answered: "But we want very clever people running the country, don't we, Evan?"
And suddenly a whole other world of private conversations opened up, which you never had the poverty of imagination to think possible. One in which Conservatives would sit together and loftily dismiss the reasons for Grenfell, and confide in each other that the real reason so many people burned to death was because they were too stupid to leave. This, after all, is where Conservatism goes when it is unchecked by moderation or its better instincts. It starts by harbouring thoughts that the poor are poor because they deserve it. And ends by harbouring the thought that they are dead because they deserve it.
There's a deep truth about conservatism here. Not all conservatives think this way, sure. But it's far from uncommon. The belief that society is a meritocracy, that people succeed based on effort, that luck and privilege do not exist; hence that the poor are deserving of their lot because they have failed to apply themselves and the rich are morally superior because they did.
Completely ignoring privilege, natch.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
There's a deep truth about conservatism here. Not all conservatives think this way, sure. But it's far from uncommon. The belief that society is a meritocracy, that people succeed based on effort, that luck and privilege do not exist; hence that the poor are deserving of their lot because they have failed to apply themselves and the rich are morally superior because they did.
It's a larger part of why the US is suck a fucking shitshow in my opinion because the above pretty much describes the fabled 'American Dream' that they take so seriously. It's all well and good to think that with hard work people can make something of themselves; but the terrible corollary of that is that if you're not successful it can only be because you're lazy and/or stupid. This is a problem attitude everywhere of course--as you point out with the above UK example--but it seems especially fucking pernicious in the US because of this 'land of opportunity' horseshit that they're indoctrinated in from birth.
Victory narrative, right? The same reason sports stars are so often disappointingly right-wing. "I worked hard, and I achieved success. Therefore, working hard brings success. Therefore, lack of success..."
Bamba wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
There's a deep truth about conservatism here. Not all conservatives think this way, sure. But it's far from uncommon. The belief that society is a meritocracy, that people succeed based on effort, that luck and privilege do not exist; hence that the poor are deserving of their lot because they have failed to apply themselves and the rich are morally superior because they did.
It's a larger part of why the US is suck a fucking shitshow in my opinion because the above pretty much describes the fabled 'American Dream' that they take so seriously. It's all well and good to think that with hard work people can make something of themselves; but the terrible corollary of that is that if you're not successful it can only be because you're lazy and/or stupid. This is a problem attitude everywhere of course--as you point out with the above UK example--but it seems especially fucking pernicious in the US because of this 'land of opportunity' horseshit that they're indoctrinated in from birth.
Totally agree, and the American Dream, and whatever our version of it, is a load of bollocks that needs debunking. One thing about the US that really made me challenge my prejudices, though, is that they don't (in the main) look down on people, or judge them, by what they do. I realised I do that pretty routinely. That lack of judgment, at least, is the good side of believing everyone can succeed, people should work, work is good, blah blah etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-5 ... ssion=true
I wouldn't ever get tested for Huntingdons, as the only outcome of a positive test would be to book a single flight to Switzerland.
I don't know, though, about this. It seems really tricky.
I wouldn't ever get tested for Huntingdons, as the only outcome of a positive test would be to book a single flight to Switzerland.
I don't know, though, about this. It seems really tricky.
She's suing the trust for not telling her that her dad had Huntington's when he asked them not to.
She asked her doctors not to tell her (pregnant) sister that their dad had Huntington's.
Um.
She asked her doctors not to tell her (pregnant) sister that their dad had Huntington's.
Um.
what a weird court case
my friends husband was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder resulting in degenerative motor function and brain issues
they already had 3 kids at the time he was diagnosed
she and I have had some chats about her ponderings about having the kids tested or not. Knowing they carry the gene vs not knowing. Potentially telling the kids at 18 and letting them decide to get tested or not. Do you want to burden them with that choice? You can't not tell the. etc etc.
awful dilemmas
my friends husband was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder resulting in degenerative motor function and brain issues
they already had 3 kids at the time he was diagnosed
she and I have had some chats about her ponderings about having the kids tested or not. Knowing they carry the gene vs not knowing. Potentially telling the kids at 18 and letting them decide to get tested or not. Do you want to burden them with that choice? You can't not tell the. etc etc.
awful dilemmas
Worth noting that if it's something that one of the spit tests will pick up they may at some point in their lives find out for themselves (Huntington's isn't)
I do also think there is the situation where :
They did not know - had kids and may have unwittingly passed on the gene - there is nothing they can do about that
They are in a position for the kids to know about it and then make the decision that they may pass the gene or not - so can be forewarned.
I get that this is probably more down to individuals but I'd like to know that *before* I had kids.
They did not know - had kids and may have unwittingly passed on the gene - there is nothing they can do about that
They are in a position for the kids to know about it and then make the decision that they may pass the gene or not - so can be forewarned.
I get that this is probably more down to individuals but I'd like to know that *before* I had kids.
miki wrote:
what a weird court case
my friends husband was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder resulting in degenerative motor function and brain issues
they already had 3 kids at the time he was diagnosed
she and I have had some chats about her ponderings about having the kids tested or not. Knowing they carry the gene vs not knowing. Potentially telling the kids at 18 and letting them decide to get tested or not. Do you want to burden them with that choice? You can't not tell the. etc etc.
awful dilemmas
my friends husband was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder resulting in degenerative motor function and brain issues
they already had 3 kids at the time he was diagnosed
she and I have had some chats about her ponderings about having the kids tested or not. Knowing they carry the gene vs not knowing. Potentially telling the kids at 18 and letting them decide to get tested or not. Do you want to burden them with that choice? You can't not tell the. etc etc.
awful dilemmas
The Grimlet is a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis, and we've been telling him that since he could understand what we meant. To not do so would be horrifically unethical of us, IMO.
Grim... wrote:
The Grimlet is a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis, and we've been telling him that since he could understand what we meant. To not do so would be horrifically unethical of us, IMO.
What does this mean long term? Greater chance of his kids getting it?
It's passed on recessively, so both parents have to have a CF gene to get a kid with the illness. If Mrs Grimlet is also a carrier there's a 1/4 chance of their kid having CF. If Mrs Grimlet actually has CF it becomes 3/4.
How did you come to know about it?
Mrs Grim... has Cystic Fibrosis, so it wasn't much of a stretch 
CF is one that an spit kit test will tell you about, which is good.
Grim... wrote:
If Mrs Grimlet is also a carrier there's a 1/4 chance of their kid having CF.
But a 100% chance of their kids being carriers, is that right?
Cras wrote:
Grim... wrote:
If Mrs Grimlet is also a carrier there's a 1/4 chance of their kid having CF.
But a 100% chance of their kids being carriers, is that right?
My biology/stats knowledge says 75% but I could be wrong there.
It's 100%, because both the dominant and the recessive gene from the mother will carry the CF mutation, meaning the child is going to get it from her whatever.
Just seen Bercow do a trailer for Sky News. He could have done better for his inevitable selling-out.
Kern wrote:
Just seen Bercow do a trailer for Sky News. He could have done better for his inevitable selling-out.
I'm guessing Sky agreed not to ask any questions about the bullying allegations, unlike the BBC
Yes, the allegations are pretty serious and do cast a shadow over his time.
I'm reminded of why I try never to get involved with political arguments on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/HughEaston/status/1 ... 7882024961
https://twitter.com/HughEaston/status/1 ... 7882024961
True. Look at what happened a while ago in Germany after a certain antisemitic socialist leader gained power...
— Hugh Easton (@HughEaston) November 29, 2019
Considering one of their other tweets about Labour suggests 'hundreds if not thousands of their supporters gang raping underage girls', I doubt you'd get through to them anyway.
Hitler wasn't a socialist.
DavPaz wrote:
Hitler wasn't a socialist.
Indeed, I tried. As devilman says though, clearly someone who is never going to see sense.
GazChap wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
Hitler wasn't a socialist.
Indeed, I tried. As devilman says though, clearly someone who is never going to see sense.
I have now read your efforts to educate. You tried harder than I would. Nazis were about as socialist as the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic.
But they literally had socialist in their name. You idiots
He also killed his dog, putting him on a par with Jeremy Thorpe.
I mean, literally the first line of Niemoller’s poem is:
“First they came for the socialists...”
“First they came for the socialists...”
I recently started playing a variant of "The Game" (sorry) called "Hitler" where you see if you can go a day without either thinking of him or coming across any reference to him. It's surprisingly tricky.
Kern wrote:
I recently started playing a variant of "The Game" (sorry) called "Hitler" where you see if you can go a day without either thinking of him or coming across any reference to him. It's surprisingly tricky.
Well, today it is
Kern wrote:
I recently started playing a variant of "The Game" (sorry) called "Hitler" where you see if you can go a day without either thinking of him or coming across any reference to him. It's surprisingly tricky.
Is it? I mean, I guess it’s more difficult in today’s political climate with everyone calling each other nazis all day, but I don’t think my thoughts usually turn to him!
I’ll be aware of it now you’ve said that!
For avoidance of doubt, I don't particularly want to be thinking of Hitler every day. But wander into a book shop or library, turn on the TV, or check gaming web pages and sooner or later he'll appear, like an annoying ex.
Kern wrote:
I don't particularly want to be thinking of Hitler every day.
Roy Wood went DARK for his follow up.
Findus Fop wrote:
Kern wrote:
I don't particularly want to be thinking of Hitler every day.
Roy Wood went DARK for his follow up.
Kern wrote:
I recently started playing a variant of "The Game" (sorry) called "Hitler" where you see if you can go a day without either thinking of him or coming across any reference to him. It's surprisingly tricky.
Godwin's game...
He's back!
https://twitter.com/HughEaston/status/1 ... 2668235776
Prompting this reply:
https://twitter.com/gazchap/status/1201551404621545478
https://twitter.com/HughEaston/status/1 ... 2668235776
Their party literally had socialist in the name, their political strategist (Strasser) and propagandist (Goebbels) were socialists, and Hitler himself espoused socialism.https://t.co/1PKiJMNKKp
— Hugh Easton (@HughEaston) December 2, 2019
But hey, as Goebbels said, repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
Prompting this reply:
https://twitter.com/gazchap/status/1201551404621545478
Ah, you've bested me with your link to Quora (FFS). Clearly, my citation of the Encyclopedia-fucking-Britannica is not trustworthy enough, so let's pay attention to some random opinion on Quora, from someone who refers to themselves as a "non-Aryan".
— Gareth Griffiths (@gazchap) December 2, 2019
Top job!
DavPaz wrote:
Kern wrote:
I recently started playing a variant of "The Game" (sorry) called "Hitler" where you see if you can go a day without either thinking of him or coming across any reference to him. It's surprisingly tricky.
Well, today it is
I also just lost Whamageddon.
Do the rules of Whamaggedon also mean you have ‘lost’ if you actively play the song on your Christmas playlist?
GazChap wrote:
He's back!
https://twitter.com/HughEaston/status/1 ... 2668235776
Prompting this reply:
https://twitter.com/gazchap/status/1201551404621545478
https://twitter.com/HughEaston/status/1 ... 2668235776
Their party literally had socialist in the name, their political strategist (Strasser) and propagandist (Goebbels) were socialists, and Hitler himself espoused socialism.https://t.co/1PKiJMNKKp
— Hugh Easton (@HughEaston) December 2, 2019
But hey, as Goebbels said, repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
Prompting this reply:
https://twitter.com/gazchap/status/1201551404621545478
Ah, you've bested me with your link to Quora (FFS). Clearly, my citation of the Encyclopedia-fucking-Britannica is not trustworthy enough, so let's pay attention to some random opinion on Quora, from someone who refers to themselves as a "non-Aryan".
— Gareth Griffiths (@gazchap) December 2, 2019
Top job!
You know, it's almost as if political labels are essentially meaningless and it's better to probe people's actions, beliefs, ethics, and backgrounds rather than trying to fit everything into neat little boxes.
Page 259 of 288 [ 14352 posts ]