Off Topic Politics Thread

[Onionman]

Performative anger and beyond is stopping Jews feeling comfortable in the UK at the moment so it hits a very raw nerve. I think context is important and so is awareness.

I'm specifically talking about your response to a pretty run of the mill statement about wanting a politician thrown off a bridge in a sack full of bricks. It's the sort of hyperbole said about politicians, TV presenters, football managers, etc, etc daily.

Acting deeply offended and saying you think the poster was being deadly serious is, at the very least, unusual.

I'll leave it now.

Vin

PS. In passing, I wonder if there's any chance of any post disagreeing with me not getting the thumbs up from Billy/Negative Creep. It's good to have fans.

 

[Saintjoey]

I'm specifically talking about your response to a pretty run of the mill statement about wanting a politician thrown off a bridge in a sack full of bricks. It's the sort of hyperbole said about politicians, TV presenters, football managers, etc, etc daily.

Acting deeply offended and saying you think the poster was being deadly serious is, at the very least, unusual.

I'll leave it now.

Vin

PS. In passing, I wonder if there's any chance of any post disagreeing with me not getting the thumbs up from Billy/Negative Creep. It's good to have fans.

And I’m saying that you have to apply context to comments and being decreed as a genocide merchant for disagreeing is, at best, lunacy.

Goodnight!

 

[Archers Road]

Interesting that the Sleaford Mods stopped a gig in Madrid the other day, because someone kept throwing a Palestinian flag at them. They didn’t halt the gig because they had a pro-Israeli view, but because this idiot just would not stop.

Anyhow, they’ve had to put out posts since that point explaining why they did it, and explaining that they were against the mass murders perpetrated by both Hamas and the IDF leaders.

So many of the responses to that post have been along the lines of “YOU NEED TO PICK A SIDE”, and for me, therein lies the problem. People are being asked to put aside such things as logic, understanding, and not least an understanding that this is significantly more complex than a Facebook or Not606 post, and to ‘pick a side’.

Welcome to 2023 everyone. It’s ridiculous.

Sums up how I feel about all wars, including the one in Ukraine. In war, every side is the wrong side, and I fail to see why I should be called upon to pick one.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

Sums up how I feel about all wars, including the one in Ukraine. In war, every side is the wrong side, and I fail to see why I should be called upon to pick one.

Agreed.

I sit back and wonder why whenever there is a disagreement over land, religion, race, oil etc, some people think the only way to settle it is death and destruction. The only way to ever get a solution is to sit down and talk about it.

 

[SaintsForTheWin]

I've been directly asked (off this forum) which side I support. And my response has been the same. I don't have a side - not one of the parties involved (for there are more than two) is coming out of this smelling of roses. The people who ask me seem surprised that I don't pick a side.

As you say, welcome to the.new world where you MUST have an opinion so people can pigeonhole you.

Vin

I go for the logical response too…..

I say, it will do the environment good when we’re all wiped out

 

[Onionman]

Sums up how I feel about all wars, including the one in Ukraine. In war, every side is the wrong side, and I fail to see why I should be called upon to pick one.

As you've brought up Ukraine, I'm interested once again to know what Ukraine should have done once Russian tanks were over the border and rolling down the road towards Kyiv?

I've asked you this probably half a dozen times and I'm not aware of your ever responding. You've avoided the question every single time, unless I've missed it (which is entirely possible).

Sometimes there is a right side. A blanket 'you mustn't fight even to defend yourself' leads to the logical consequence that might is right.

Vin

 

[Archers Road]

As you've brought up Ukraine, I'm interested once again to know what Ukraine should have done once Russian tanks were over the border and rolling down the road towards Kyiv?

I've asked you this probably half a dozen times and I'm not aware of your ever responding. You've avoided the question every single time, unless I've missed it (which is entirely possible).

Sometimes there is a right side. A blanket 'you mustn't fight even to defend yourself' leads to the logical consequence that might is right.

Vin

On another forum, I see people regularly asking the question “What should Israel have done after Hamas slaughtered 1400 innocent people, and carried off hundreds of hostages?”

In both instances the question, which if you’re honest you must admit is largely rhetorical, is put by way of a justification for war.

Perhaps there is no satisfactory answer, but the mind set which decrees that the observer must take sides, and having done so must supply the chosen side with weapons and active support, seems unhelpful in the extreme. Violence is always justified by the protagonists.

 

[saintlyhero]

Agreed.

I sit back and wonder why whenever there is a disagreement over land, religion, race, oil etc, some people think the only way to settle it is death and destruction. The only way to ever get a solution is to sit down and talk about it.

You’re reliant on both sides wanting a solution. Often the protagonists just want something and have no interest in sharing.

 

[Saintjoey]

On another forum, I see people regularly asking the question “What should Israel have done after Hamas slaughtered 1400 innocent people, and carried off hundreds of hostages?”

In both instances the question, which if you’re honest you must admit is largely rhetorical, is put by way of a justification for war.

Perhaps there is no satisfactory answer, but the mind set which decrees that the observer must take sides, and having done so must supply the chosen side with weapons and active support, seems unhelpful in the extreme. Violence is always justified by the protagonists.

Alternative actions is an interesting question and I'm still yet to really see a satisfactory answer (I'm not saying the current course of action is necessarily satisfactory either, by the way). The West has been firmly indoctrinated (rightly or wrongly but I suspect most of us would say rightly?) not to negotiate with terrorists. So what do you do?

Should they have pursued diplomatic means in the hope that their Arab neighbours would isolate Hamas and set them out as a pariah that doesn't speak for the region? Quite possibly but then there's Hezbollah, the IRGC and the Houthis too. Negotiation and appeasement is also riddled with risk given they've openly said they'll repeat 7th October again and again until Israel's "annihilation." Had they just sat back and allowed a second attack to happen, what then? That would be the grossest of governmental negligence.

It comes back to how can you negotiate with an organisation which is utterly sworn to your destruction?

 

[Osvaldorama]

We differ on some of the details but I'm in a similar position. I'd say if left to right was a 180 Deg semicircle, I'm probably about 5 Deg right.

Economically.
I think private enterprise is a good thing. It's (to a good extent) efficient, generates wealth and leads to better standards of living. At the same time, I understand the head start I've had and I think we need a good, strong welfare state for the people whom capitalism fails. I'm happy (as I've previously posted) to pay taxes if I see it being spent well. I also put immigration under 'economic views', largely because pretty much every single study carried out suggests that immigration is economically beneficial. Apart from the social aspects of immigration, that benefit leads me to, in general, support it.

Socially.
I'm a radical liberal. People are individuals; let them do what the hell they want. If people want to demonstrate peacefully, let them. If someone wants to be called a woman or a man, call them a woman or a man. If two (or more) people want to do something with their naughty bits with consent, it's no business of mine. If a woman doesn't want to host a foetus, who am I to tell her not to? If a fellow human being has different colour skin from me, deal with them as a fellow human being. And if someone is fleeing war or persecution, give them solace and help.

So, overall, I'm around the middle, notwithstanding being called 'woke' on a regular basis on here.

For many years, One Nation Tories probably reflected my views best. Unfortunately the Tory Pary has slumped rightwards. The Labour Party slumped leftwards for several years but is now capturing centrists like me. (I say that in the knowledge that 'centrist' is a term of abuse for those on the far left - I've been pretty violently attacked for it on social media).

Anyway, that's my tupenn'orth.

Vin

You fall into the classic liberal ideological mistake of thinking that everyone is as kind & virtuous as you.

Social rules are extremely important, because once they start weakening you will start to see a huge erosion across all of society. Whilst in general I see myself as fairly socially liberal as well, I draw the line much earlier than you do because it is obvious to me that society will decline if there are no standards to adhere to.

Once social standards decline, you see a rise in crime and then eventually a rise in violence. Many of the silent rules of society which we all follow start to breakdown as we move from a high-trust society to a low trust society. In fact, radical liberal ideals can ONLY exist in a society that is already safe, clean and efficient.

Radical liberalism is the start of the breakdown of a society as it moves from what is productive and helpful to one that is narcissistic and focused purely on pleasure.

This was as evident at the end of the Roman Empire, as it was in Weimar Germany and we are seeing the signs today.

The end of an empire, the end of a fiat currency always seems to lead to forms of social degeneracy. They go hand in hand.

 

[Osvaldorama]

I go for the logical response too…..

I say, it will do the environment good when we’re all wiped out

I ****ing detest this anti-human attitude.

What a complete crock of ****.

Humans are innovative, creative and brilliant. human consciousness is a marvel and must be protected at all costs. You climate hysterics annoy the **** out of me with this ****

 

[Archers Road]

Alternative actions is an interesting question and I'm still yet to really see a satisfactory answer (I'm not saying the current course of action is necessarily satisfactory either, by the way). The West has been firmly indoctrinated (rightly or wrongly but I suspect most of us would say rightly?) not to negotiate with terrorists. So what do you do?

Should they have pursued diplomatic means in the hope that their Arab neighbours would isolate Hamas and set them out as a pariah that doesn't speak for the region? Quite possibly but then there's Hezbollah, the IRGC and the Houthis too. Negotiation and appeasement is also riddled with risk given they've openly said they'll repeat 7th October again and again until Israel's "annihilation." Had they just sat back and allowed a second attack to happen, what then? That would be the grossest of governmental negligence.

It comes back to how can you negotiate with an organisation which is utterly sworn to your destruction?

Throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher repeated in her strident tones, when questioned about the IRA, that “One does not negotiate with terrorists”. Turns out that the whole of that time, representatives of her government were indeed negotiating with the IRA, and the fruits of those ongoing negotiations led eventually to the Good Friday agreement.

 

[Osvaldorama]

You’re reliant on both sides wanting a solution. Often the protagonists just want something and have no interest in sharing.

There is also the “prisoners dilemma” that nation states face.

If you use purely game theory, completely wiping out your opponent is always preferable to peace.

Because of this, even when you achieve peace with another nation, you can never fully relax as there is always a chance they will seek to dominate you. (Yes this still applies even in the modern world)

 

[SaintsForTheWin]

I ****ing detest this anti-human attitude.

What a complete crock of ****.

Humans are innovative, creative and brilliant. human consciousness is a marvel and must be protected at all costs. You climate hysterics annoy the **** out of me with this ****

You’re just an angry man

 

[Osvaldorama]

You’re just an angry man

No. I get so angry when I see nonsense about humans being inherently bad. It’s bullshit propaganda

 

[SaintsForTheWin]

No. I get so angry when I see nonsense about humans being inherently bad. It’s bullshit propaganda

And football and lefties and ….

now add environmentalists and probably vegans

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

And football and lefties and ….

now add environmentalists and probably vegans

**I get 'slightly' annoyed about them

On the Peter Crouch podcast this week he brought it up. You go into a restaurant and everyone is subjected to the "have you got any allergies or is anyone a vegan" question. Surely if you are vegan or allergic to shellfish or nuts, you will mention it...why ask 8 people around a table.

 

[StJabbo1]

Alternative actions is an interesting question and I'm still yet to really see a satisfactory answer (I'm not saying the current course of action is necessarily satisfactory either, by the way). The West has been firmly indoctrinated (rightly or wrongly but I suspect most of us would say rightly?) not to negotiate with terrorists. So what do you do?

Should they have pursued diplomatic means in the hope that their Arab neighbours would isolate Hamas and set them out as a pariah that doesn't speak for the region? Quite possibly but then there's Hezbollah, the IRGC and the Houthis too. Negotiation and appeasement is also riddled with risk given they've openly said they'll repeat 7th October again and again until Israel's "annihilation." Had they just sat back and allowed a second attack to happen, what then? That would be the grossest of governmental negligence.

It comes back to how can you negotiate with an organisation which is utterly sworn to your destruction?

Look at the history of initially secret negotiations with the IRA, a terrorist organisation, that led to the good Friday agreement. Something many thought impossible during the worst if the troubles. Of course it's a different set of circumstances with more parties involved with different agendas but dialogue must take place to end the current atrocities and move to a lasting peace. Hope not hate.

 

[StJabbo1]

And football and lefties and ….

now add environmentalists and probably vegans

Don't forget bearded kaftan wearing woke Guardian readers. David Attenborough, Chris Packham and a host of climate scientists and naturalists conspiring worldwide. Anyone with an electric vehicle or councils introducing LEZs and pedestrianisation of towns and cities. There are more of course apologies to any I left out.

 

[SaintsForTheWin]

**I get 'slightly' annoyed about them

On the Peter Crouch podcast this week he brought it up. You go into a restaurant and everyone is subjected to the "have you got any allergies or is anyone a vegan" question. Surely if you are vegan or allergic to shellfish or nuts, you will mention it...why ask 8 people around a table.

To avoid being sued. A sad world we live in now where the first point of call is to cover your own back.