picklish

Just got one, not fully got my head round it, been making terrible russian drift phonk on it

He's a Tory. He's a centrist. He's an entryist. He's the establishment choice. He's all things to all men. He's a chameleon. He's the acceptable face of the left to middle England. He's a narc. He's a white Bill Clinton. He's an international man of mystery. He's a little Englander. I've occasionally thought that more devious and subversive techniques are required on the left in England to contend with Murdoch et al, but if anyone actually used them I wouldn't know how to recognise it. So while I think it's likely that he'll be a more plodding Cameron/Blair, with less arrogance and less vision, there remains a sliver of hope that his administration will introduce a few policies that will make life slightly less terrible than it currently is for people who are worse off than me. Let me write the battle bus slogan

Considering the vast distances of space, I'm leaning towards it being another species on our own planet who's dicking about in the flying saucers. Probably cephalopods knocking them up in the Mariana trench

From their mission statement Highest sustained growth in the G7. "Introducing clear fiscal rules with a new enhanced role for the Office of Budget Responsibility. " Not spending frivolously on The Poor's. Effectively austerity? "We will provide long-term, catalytic public investment to unlock private capital, and change regulations to remove barriers. We will make Britain the best place to start and grow a new business" i.e. sell public services / PFI and lower taxes for Amazon et al? "Making Brexit work by closing the holes in the government’s Brexit deal, cutting the red tape hampering some of our leading industries." Not clear what or how. Northern Ireland? Imports/Exports? other stuff seems reasonable, e.g. green prosperity, national wealth fund - but like many others, I think Starmer is almost as untrustworthy as Boris, and equally has no ideological beliefs, so I don't believe Labours positions aren't changeable, and that's before thinking about the execution of the plans

Is "you lot" Drakeford and Sarwar?

Labour fanboys who can't even bring themselves to admit it are the new shy Tories

There's no valid reasons for Russia invading. That's not the same as no reasons. Suggesting it's a solitary reason is also myopic, saying fear of NATO is as viable as the land grab. NATO isn't a club Russia can join. A lot of armchair generals on here seem to think that continuing the war indefinitely, or escalating it in order to push the Russians back to pre-2014 borders, is preferable to an uneasy truce, with a view to re-establishing these borders through political means. But that there's such existential danger by doing this is routinely ignored, the realpolitik is dismissed, and the sabre rattling continues

What are the alternatives to de-escalation? What are the likely outcomes? Russia gets forced back and becomes increasingly desperate, perhaps contemplates using nukes? Or Putin is removed and they completely capitulate? The West loses the will to continue supplying Ukraine and Russia advances? There's a sort of stalemate, where peace talks leave parts of Ukraine in Russian hands, and political will continues to try to get these returned, post Putin? Feels like only de-escalation is reasonable, if not now then when?

Hopefully this will signal boost my manifesto promise to abolish (it will be worded 'illegalise') banks and replace them with credit unions

Fullupsgoalsfield Nah I can't make it work

Jack Ross and Jim Goodwin jobshare

tbh I read it all for some reason and I don't /think/ I'm the void

The flip side of the mythical positive case for the union - the negative case for indy

Cheers for the link, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for. I see Indy as bottom-up anyway, so there's the responsibility of the grassroots to try force these ideas into the public sphere, when the govt won't re: detailed plans - I know that UKGov won't publish anything of the sort - but do you think that the Scottish govt should equally not do? I can see benefits to pointing out that UKgov won't answer these, but I'm not sure how it would convince soft no's if the Scottish govt don't do the same.

Right, but I mean just now, with the specific questions that are brought up by soft no's and don't knows, which writers give good, rational, answers that I can read? Not things from 9 years ago - but just now. We're post Brexit, post COVID, face multiple changes to our way of work, like working from home and increased automation, and have a European war happening - things have changed, we need better responses and a stronger vision. I agree the SNP leadership don't provide it. But who does?

Tactically, is it better to ignore the uncertainty about joining the EU or EFTA, and division of assets and debt - things which require another party (whether Westminster or EU) to agree to, or to make statements about that which can't be know for certain? Tactically, is it better to ignore demands on currency and pensions, or have thorough and clear outlines on these matters that might not be possible to stick to? Tactically is it better to say 'when you're doing up your house, you'll make it messy first, but the outcome will be worth it' or to say 'the UK is such a state that despite upheaval of indy, Scotland will rapidly improve standards of living, as well as democratic deficits'? I think there's other questions along these lines that the SNP don't seem to have a good consensus for how to approach, nor do the average indy supporter, and making decisions like this is necessary

But none of them are considering political upheaval in the same way. I think that the small c conservative voter base is extremely difficult to overcome, more so following Brexit, and even well thought out spiels about the sunlit uplands post-indy aren't going to be enough to assuage their fears. Who are the activists (or writers, journalists, trade unionists, academics etc) who have ideas to move things forward? I'm unsure of any - not to say they don't exist, but that I don't know them.

Don't fear the keeper

I'm not worried about people telling me my thinking is shit - I don't have a connection to either side, except knowing people who are very much one side or ther other, and despite reading tons on the situation, I'm none the wiser about a lot of aspects, so have at it, I won't get offended. I have got more questions, but right now I have to work

I've wondered if legislating for a 3rd sex would help defuse the tensions - it would allow 'woman' to remain as a protected characteristic, but also give a clear status on rights for trans/non-binary and intersex folk. It'd obviously be a bit of a fudge as I think neither side would be completely happy, neither would workplaces and business if it cost money, but I don't know if it'd be worse than the situation now. There's a lack of willingness to understand and ascribe charitable readings to either side - it seems unimaginable to some people that an abuse survivor in a support group could have their recovery hampered by the group allowing trans women, or alternatively unimaginable to others that being treated as the gender that someone feels can help someone. So I think viewing it as a top down conspiracy, talking about who funds what, is unhelpful - looking at it bottom up seems more useful as it helps to humanise both sides. Subscribe to my newsletter for opinions on a 3-state solution for Israel/Palestine and how to solve the AI alignment problem

Fair points. It feels somehow different than other manufactured moral panics, e.g. people crossing the channel in boats doesn't create the same strength of feeling, or protests, and it's not just innumerable column inches but animated discussions everywhere from Bangface raves, to YouTube physicists, to Scottish football forums. It seems to me more organic somehow, the need to have an opinion on it is pervasive, and the genuine almost psychosis it causes in the likes of Graham Linehan and Stuart Campbell is mind boggling. Although as I can't put my finger on exactly why I think it seems more organic than other moral panics, it makes me think maybe I'm blinded to the subtleties of the propaganda.

It's not an attempt to dismiss it, but trying to place it in wider context. I don't think of course that it's /only/ a cultural youth movement, but it surely exists, no? I'm largely perplexed why is it that gender dysphoria creates such polarisation, when e.g. functional disorders (just to pick at random a different, but more common mental health issue), where people also face prejudice, does not. What is it specifically that makes it a wedge issue, and engenders endless opinion columns, forum discussions and hot takes?

But to be clear, I'm not speaking specifically about those directly affected, the few trans folk I've met face a ton of prejudice and of course just want to live free from a social mania that castigates them for existing. I'm not forgetting that armchair speculation like this is borne out of curiosity about coherence of arguments and social movements, edge cases, and other largely inconsequential ideas. It's nothing like the same as lived experience.

Sure, but I think that's also true for multiple previous cultural movements, loads of hip-hop, rave and the criminal justice bill 1994, jazz and segregation. Something can be both artistic and political

So's everything though, even if 99.999% of people are male or female, some are intersex, things don't fit in neat boxes. I don't think it's necessarily wrong that there is something that it feels like to be a man or a woman, but I'm far from convinced. I wonder if society didn't impose strict gender roles, then would gender dysphoria exist? Theres an element where I think the wider, trans-supporting youth treat this as their punk/rave equivalent, lacking coalescence around a generation-gap artistic scene, and fair fucks to them