[Siderite]

Daws isn’t a manager. The problem is who else would come with the situation as it is? Maybe with new owners, but when is that going to happen?

[Siderite]

Good to see Kherson return to Ukrainian hands. The Russians are really embarrassing themselves in this war. A bigger humiliation than the winter war. Hopefully this boosts support for Ukraine, as they reclaim everything wrongfully taken from them for some perverse Russian nationalist agenda.

https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1591048091209121792

On a side note, it’s interesting that the pro-Ukrainian sovereignty and freedom Ukrainians associate this with the EU. I am not begrudging complaints about rules of such; I am aware there are reasonable criticisms of this. However, it would be nice if Brexiters stop with the EU is tyranny hyperbole. For those whose freedoms are genuinely threatened by autocracy it is clearly seen as not being such.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

A new owner.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sharp_Shooter24

[Siderite]

Never said it was that much. I was just making a sardonic response to it.

[Siderite]

The basics are clear, yet you made an obvious error in understanding. Ok.

In internet speak capitals are shouting or people trying to make out these points mean anything. It says as little capitalised or not.

[Siderite]

I didn’t say that. You have history of mixing stuff like that with critique, along with referring to everyone else in vague terms, which could group anyone responding.

Like I said, I don’t know why you think I’ll respond to your capital letters of truth when you are unable to even grasp the basics, as demonstrated above, history of bad faith debating and raking over old coals to fuel your obsession and ego.

[Siderite]

Oh, so you admit it’s not about protests now. Your previous response suggested otherwise. I don’t think putting a journalist in custody was the right response.

[Siderite]

I did say I am not getting into the same old circular argument, so I don’t know why you think I’ll bother debating. I have already stated that it’s pointless debating with you, because there’s no chance I’ll be accurately represented. And, no, critiquing you here is not a personal attack. I am not obliged to think you are a good faith debater.

The evidence has been given time and time again, there is nothing to be gained from doing it once more. Suffice to say, if you’re conflating weather and climate there’s little hope of it ever being productive. If you can’t understand that, as you seemingly do not, then there’s no hope of me being able to have a representative debate. There is not a chance you will think about it and maybe understand why your comparison is balderdash, because then you’d be in error (which never happens).*

*Before the playground response that I am like this, I am often wrong and have admitted so previously.

[Siderite]

Criticising Bucks = personal attacks.

Bucks criticising others in the same manner = Valid criticism.

2 users thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights, Heath

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

Nobody has any issue with people protesting, in fact the complete opposite. But nobody has the right to stop people from carrying out their legitimate day-to-day life or business, which is what we’re seeing with the ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests.

And journalists don’t have a right to cover the situation? That is the situation being alluded to, not the protests.

[Siderite]

Well, those results do upset the narrative.

Of course it’s not ideal (from my perspective) that it’s close, especially given how I view the current Republicans to be a damaging party to democracy and women’s rights. However, these are the best midterms for a sitting president for quite some time and the losses are nowhere near as severe as the ‘very measured’ people were predicting based on their narrative about Dems losing touch with the salt of the Earth common man.

There have been some historic gains for the Democrats. Michigan’s state house is now in Democrat control for the first time in 40 years. Republicans have made very little progress in their promised red wave, from those ‘very measured’ pundits with their fingers on the pulse of what the ‘common man’ truly feels against the metropolitan liberal elite. Red wave? More like red puddle.

This is the second time they have got it wrong, they were assuring us that Biden would likely lose the presidency in 2020, they were assuring us that the Democrats would struggle more in the midterms because they are out of touch with woke issues and whatnot. The likely truth is that while this current mob of Republicans have some ardent fans, their conduct in democracy and on abortion has motivated many more to vote against them. They are significant in number and can’t be written off as some elitist fringe. They are enough for Democrats to do better than the self-assured pundits predict.

Moreover, with Trump and DeSantis potentially locked into battle for the 2024 Republican nomination, things could get ugly. DeSantis has some momentum and has carried votes in Florida, but doesn’t have the charisma or cultishness of Trump, who is unlikely to step aside without a fight. 2024 could (emphasis on could) be a bitter civil dispute between candidates, which could cause a huge rift. DeSantis is polling quite well and may be a harder opponent for Trump than his previous Republican opponents.

None of this means I think everything is rosy or foregone for the Democrats by a long stretch. However, with the narrative failing to come to fruition twice now for the ‘very measured’ pundits, I’d hope there’s some self-reflection and less of the simple interpretation of “Democrats need to win over the Trump supporters and nothing else needs to be done” narrative which has plagued US political discourse for too long. This should be an indicator to Republicans that they need to look at their own party to win over those motivated to vote against them.

Fat chance of this happening. The usual suspects will still groan on, as if it’s only the Democrats who need to address concerns, as if it’s only them with agency.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Huckleberry Hound, TwoWrights

[Siderite]

Jesus wasn’t a socialist; the ideology wasn’t present then. Christians would say they are following in Christ’s ideal through charity. They’d believe they’re helping through more capitalist means (not saying Jesus is a capitalist either), even if you think they’re mistaken.

[Siderite]

The Republicans aren’t too keen on preserving the life of the mother, as recent cases show.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

…to kill their own child ?

Whoosh

[Siderite]

Well, we do know the ‘genuine Christians’ don’t care about democratic rights.

[Siderite]

I do feel discomfort here. I can see where you are coming from, in that there are those who seem to hold some horrid opinions and are attracted to these parties without consideration or empathy for others. However, and it’s a large however (for Bucks or anyone wanting to seize on my second sentence for evidence I am someone out to get them), I find it too judgemental. Surely it’s possible to see that those Christians who do can do so out of what they see as good intentions and they think this is the path to betterment for all. It is possible for someone to hold different opinions in good intent, but be mistaken or deluded (not delusional!).

Sure, there are some who may well be small minded and bigoted. Often the defenders against this position ignore many who are and pretend everyone is approaching their right wing stance in good intent. However, this is too broad and discounts many Christians who aren’t the jingoistic and bigoted types. In my opinion at least.

[Siderite]

Bucks often quotes polling data when it suits him.

Contrary to popular opinion among some, polling data isn’t that unreflective. It’s tough in tight races, but Trump and Brexit were all within the margin of possibility. It’s here when careful consideration must be made. When there are huge gaps it’s unlikely to be drastic, so any Tory hoping that the current -25 gap between Labour and Tory is false because “we can’t trust polls” or whatever else (I know party voting intention isn’t the focus of this thread) is only deluding themselves. Just as Corbynites were when Labour was suffering massively under his leadership, and it’s just as laughable and pitiable to see such desperate arguments from others.

I trust polls more than ‘gut feelings’ of the very ‘measured’ people.

[Siderite]

I think he said it was an interview with BBC radio 4 at the time.

[Siderite]

Some of the environmentalist claims about planet ending are ludicrous. However, what matters is the scientific literature, not XR claims, for the science, and the predictions made by Hanson and others are what’s been witnessed. The consequences are stark for humanity, but not planet ending. That should be enough for action.

That’s all I will say, because I am not getting sucked into an endless debate, with little attempt to represent it honestly.

Also, by saying simplistic above, I am not arguing that things like domestic abuse and education weren’t detrimental. It’s that the choice was between two options with negative outcomes and I am sceptical of claims about high excess deaths coming from other means besides covid. Deaths are quite high now in covid waves. I don’t think it’s the lockdowns causing them.

[Siderite]

Abuse = Me disagreeing with you or telling you to stop twisting my words. At most some sarcasm, and we can’t have that, because we can’t have us lesser mortals poking fun at the great one.

The fact you acknowledge that the first lockdown was necessary kinda undermines your point before, because that is demonstrably contradictory.

I think your post is still too simplistic, but I can’t be bothered to go into why, because you’d just carry on twisting and gaslighting, as you always do. You have had enough chances and I am bored of it.

I don’t know why you’re trying to shoehorn your other obsession in, except for trying to reel in a pointless debate where you can twist words, deliberately antagonise and gaslight, before playing the victim again.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

2 users thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

I seem to remember you doing a mea culpa over lockdowns. Now you have switched again.

It may be that lockdowns could be judged to be worse than the alternative. However, we weren’t privileged with hindsight and a lot of the arguments against them from the time were not great. Suffice to say, I can see arguments for both sides, but will go easy due to the unprecedented nature of it. No point going into this with you though, because there’s no chance you’d respect my opinion or understand a complex argument. It would just be twisted to me saying lockdowns are perfect or something to suit your agenda against anyone to the left of you.

[Siderite]

It’s just a fluff piece on a few famous men using their position to highlight an issue. If William was famous for something else this piece would likely still be run.

[Siderite]

Try img photoaddress.com /img, using square brackets on the imgs.

[Siderite]

I wonder how long Musk will last in his vanity stint.

[Siderite]

What makes them a woman? Because they say they are? Ludicrous. The law says transgender people have a right to be treated fairly and can access some female spaces post-GRA. Transactivists claim trans women are women based on what they say, hence anyone saying they are a gender are that gender. This creates obvious issues, because sex is reality, and anyone arguing otherwise is bonkers. It affects women, who have been historically oppressed by men, but we have to pretend they’re more privileged than some men to avoid hurt feelings. It’s ridiculous.

Women have a right to single sexed spaces Why is it bigoted because some men have hurt feelings? Why isn’t it bigoted of you to not care about women being placed at greater risk? You have shown no care about that. The only risk of single sex spaces remaining are hurt feelings from trans identified men. The risk for women is an increase in sexual harassment and assault*, as figures show in gender neutral spaces (which allowing men in effectively does) and girls skipping toilets in school.

*None of this means I think every or the majority are sexual predators.

MRA = men’s rights activist/activism. Your arguments, as most transactivist arguments, sound exactly like theirs. Everything is about the ‘rights’ of males and women’s concerns are ‘dogwhistles’ and how it’s ‘demonising’ to acknowledge that men pose a risk to women. There’s no care or thought as to women, everything is ‘bigoted’ because men might have hurt feelings or be critiqued.

There’s a reason why suffragists saw single spaced toilets as a secondary goal of theirs. There’s a reason why Oxfam and Amnesty International campaign for women’s toilets in other countries (e.g. India). It’s because this makes women safer and reduces sexual crimes against them. It’s because men pose a risk to women, and the idea the risk dissipates the moment a man says they identify as a woman is laughable. No-one can seriously think that the risk to women can only come from men who identify as men, and that something as spurious as claimed identity changes this risk.

I am losing no sleep over being called a bigot for not caring about a lesser worry in an obvious conflict in rights claims. One of which is very spurious indeed.

[Siderite]

Oh, I guess that makes it ok then. So long as some men are less likely than other men, we can just tear up safeguards.

Women are a victimised group too, by men (including from those who identify as women). Why is it progressive to ignore their concerns in favour of trans identified men? They have a lot more to lose from letting go of their spaces. But, who cares? Male feelings are at stake.

The idea that I am ‘demonising’ men because I point out they pose a risk to women is a right wing, MRA argument.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

They are promoted because they think people are interested.

[Siderite]

Police states went a lot further than that.

[Author]

Posts