Seeing as there's quite a bit of chat going around the Tories choosing someone from a visible ethnic minority as their new leader, here are some quick thoughts from focus groups where I've asked Tory *voters* - not members - this question in focus groups recently...
So could a black or brown Tory win a general election? Emphatically yes.
I really didn't think Maugham could go down further in my estimation but once again I underestimated him.
Maugham is actually disgusting.
What man goes out in a kimono with a baseball bat with the express intention of smashing a fox to death. Twice
I don't like foxes particularly (fox shit is disgusting in the garden), but I can't even contemplate beating them to death with a baseball bat.
To make it worse, he then gloated about his “weird Boxing Day” (of fox smashing) on Twitter
His wife should delete his Twitter account
Or at the very least put a lock on her lingerie draw.
Tories (many, or at least some):
Killing a fox with a baseball bat, quickly and economically = BAAAD Ditto, inefficiently at huge expense with a horde of dogs, horses and assistants, with sabs getting in the way = GLORIOUS TRADITION
It would be better if the dogs wore kimonos.
This is PB. Someone is about to DALL-E that! Hound in a Kimono
Seeing as there's quite a bit of chat going around the Tories choosing someone from a visible ethnic minority as their new leader, here are some quick thoughts from focus groups where I've asked Tory *voters* - not members - this question in focus groups recently...
So could a black or brown Tory win a general election? Emphatically yes.
I really didn't think Maugham could go down further in my estimation but once again I underestimated him.
Maugham is actually disgusting.
Coward too - his 'white people agreed I should delete but people of colour said it was ok' makes his deletion pointless, and ignores plenty of commentators.
He's doubling down, too:
Am taking no lectures on racism from Parliamentarians in a Party that chose as its leader a man who described black people as "picaninies", which introduced the racist National and Borders Act, which introduced Voter ID to make it disproportionately more difficult for...
people of colour to vote, which commissioned a report bizarrely denying the existence of institutional racism, which (also) gaslit survivors of the Windrush generation, which has just appointed as Commissioner of the Met a white man who blamed a "lack of integration" for the...
rise of the Far Right, whose community website (Conservative Home) shows the top four positions for the leadership all occupied by white people, which introduced the hostile environment, which has been called out by its own former Chair (Baroness Warsi) for racism...
which fielded a white candidate in the Mayoral election who ran a racist campaign suggesting his Muslim opponent was a terrorist sympathiser, which is systematically stripping away access to legal protections which disproportionately benefit people of colour...
which objected to the England football team taking the knee to show solidarity with black people experiencing racism, which has run an intellectually deceitful campaign to try and hide the truth behind our colonial past, which has defended statues of slave traders and racists...
And I'm barely getting started.
I'm not going to apologise for calling out your racism - and if you actually give a damn about it, I'd suggest tackling that list is a better use of your time rather than plastic fury about my tweet.
Some of that is a bit of a stretch. And some is walking the edge.
I think that during this campaign the reactions are going to be as interesting as the candidates, as various peeps try to defend the inerrant truth of their presumptions.
The English Bar"s Max Bialystock would not have deleted that tweet if he thought it was in order
I understand your desire to see the Conservative Party remain in Government ad infinitum but this is just nonsense.
Yes, there will be a polling "bounce" while the new leader takes over and seeks to undo some of the damage inflicted by Johnson but the economic basics are exactly the same and we all know it's going to be a difficult winter if not year.
For all the platitudes about not wanting to raise taxes, Sunak had to raise taxes and I suspect his successor will because the demands on the public finances are severe (more money on defence, more Police, more for the NHS etc) and presumably you would not want to stand up and advocate cuts to public spending - perhaps we should cut welfare, slash pensions by 20% or slash local Government spending.
The honeymoon won't last and in six months I reckon the knives will be out for the successor - Wallace has understood this which is probably why he isn't standing. He'll wait until the defeat and put himself forward to be the LOTO.
Agree with most of that. But maybe Wallace doesn't want it/think he's up to it?
I understand your desire to see the Conservative Party remain in Government ad infinitum but this is just nonsense.
Yes, there will be a polling "bounce" while the new leader takes over and seeks to undo some of the damage inflicted by Johnson but the economic basics are exactly the same and we all know it's going to be a difficult winter if not year.
For all the platitudes about not wanting to raise taxes, Sunak had to raise taxes and I suspect his successor will because the demands on the public finances are severe (more money on defence, more Police, more for the NHS etc) and presumably you would not want to stand up and advocate cuts to public spending - perhaps we should cut welfare, slash pensions by 20% or slash local Government spending.
The honeymoon won't last and in six months I reckon the knives will be out for the successor - Wallace has understood this which is probably why he isn't standing. He'll wait until the defeat and put himself forward to be the LOTO.
Agree with most of that. But maybe Wallace doesn't want it/think he's up to it?
He is favourite for head of NATO in October 2023
Yes. He's an ex-forces bloke. Maybe he just realises you need to be an all-rounder to be PM? Nothing wrong in being a specialist at all. NATO would be a major role. Generalists suit PM. This is another issue I have with Sunak btw. He has virtually zero experience outside finance/economics.
I understand your desire to see the Conservative Party remain in Government ad infinitum but this is just nonsense.
Yes, there will be a polling "bounce" while the new leader takes over and seeks to undo some of the damage inflicted by Johnson but the economic basics are exactly the same and we all know it's going to be a difficult winter if not year.
For all the platitudes about not wanting to raise taxes, Sunak had to raise taxes and I suspect his successor will because the demands on the public finances are severe (more money on defence, more Police, more for the NHS etc) and presumably you would not want to stand up and advocate cuts to public spending - perhaps we should cut welfare, slash pensions by 20% or slash local Government spending.
The honeymoon won't last and in six months I reckon the knives will be out for the successor - Wallace has understood this which is probably why he isn't standing. He'll wait until the defeat and put himself forward to be the LOTO.
Of course you would see it that way but Johnson going has changed the narrative and opened the possibility to a 24 GE win as unlikely as it may seem
I would just say it will not be a Labour coronation
None of the current leaders are as much of a threat to Labour as 2019 Boris. Some are less of a threat than 2022 Boris. I only am moderately concerned about one.
He said "there will be a contest". He didn't say "I am resigning so there will be a contest"
This is a common mistake people make about rulebooks - they assume every single scenario under the sun must be covered within them and if it is not set out carved into stone something is permissable, but that really is not the case because it is impossible to cover everything. Common sense is actually a big part of administration.
There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2
The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'
Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.
Point 3 states
Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board
So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.
You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.
Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.
Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
It has sparked the debate about whether he has in fact resigned though
If he hasn't, then there isn't a vacancy for him to run for. At the risk of pointing out the obvious.
Has the PM actually resigned? Genuine Q…
“It is now clearly the will of the parliamentary conservative party that there should be a new leader of that party and therefore a new Prime Minister and I have agreed…the process of choosing that new leader should begin now”
Im guessing this is something Old Lady Brady would have scrupulously checked Friday AM as he has no authority to start a race without something concrete id have thought?
The rules and procedures will be announced by the 1922 on Monday evening
"Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader... the rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board."
Doesn't matter whether Boris has technically resigned or not, the process has been initiated so the 1922 committee has the power to exclude him from the contest.
I understand your desire to see the Conservative Party remain in Government ad infinitum but this is just nonsense.
Yes, there will be a polling "bounce" while the new leader takes over and seeks to undo some of the damage inflicted by Johnson but the economic basics are exactly the same and we all know it's going to be a difficult winter if not year.
For all the platitudes about not wanting to raise taxes, Sunak had to raise taxes and I suspect his successor will because the demands on the public finances are severe (more money on defence, more Police, more for the NHS etc) and presumably you would not want to stand up and advocate cuts to public spending - perhaps we should cut welfare, slash pensions by 20% or slash local Government spending.
The honeymoon won't last and in six months I reckon the knives will be out for the successor - Wallace has understood this which is probably why he isn't standing. He'll wait until the defeat and put himself forward to be the LOTO.
Of course you would see it that way but Johnson going has changed the narrative and opened the possibility to a 24 GE win as unlikely as it may seem
I would just say it will not be a Labour coronation
I don't think it's changed as much as you think. Johnson still could have recovered and led the Conservatives to a 2024 GE win - unlikely, improbable even but no more unlikely than those who thought Thatcher would still have beaten Kinnock again in a 1991 GE.
You are hoping the Conservative Party will somehow be "cleansed" by Johnson's departure - rather like the scapegoat, put all the faults, problems and issues onto Johnson - blame him and hope somehow people will forget those who aided an abetted him. If all the Tories are "loyal" to the new leader and cabinet everything will be all right.
I merely point out all the other issues against which people protested in Wakefield, in Tiverton & Honiton, in Charlwood on Thursday and elsewhere haven't gone away. The cost of living issues haven't gone away - rising fuel bills haven't gone away yet all we hear is the stupidity of "tax cuts" as though somehow giving people a little bit back will help (taking it away from public services I suppose).
No - while the way Johnson comported himself in office deserved and merited his removal, the performance of the Government as a whole deservedly should be open to detailed scrutiny and account.
Quite. The scapegoat in the famous Holman Hunt painting may have a suspiciously Johnsonian hairstyle but the top Tories are all from the same flock of goats rather than sheep and have been running with him for too long.
I understand your desire to see the Conservative Party remain in Government ad infinitum but this is just nonsense.
Yes, there will be a polling "bounce" while the new leader takes over and seeks to undo some of the damage inflicted by Johnson but the economic basics are exactly the same and we all know it's going to be a difficult winter if not year.
For all the platitudes about not wanting to raise taxes, Sunak had to raise taxes and I suspect his successor will because the demands on the public finances are severe (more money on defence, more Police, more for the NHS etc) and presumably you would not want to stand up and advocate cuts to public spending - perhaps we should cut welfare, slash pensions by 20% or slash local Government spending.
The honeymoon won't last and in six months I reckon the knives will be out for the successor - Wallace has understood this which is probably why he isn't standing. He'll wait until the defeat and put himself forward to be the LOTO.
Of course you would see it that way but Johnson going has changed the narrative and opened the possibility to a 24 GE win as unlikely as it may seem
I would just say it will not be a Labour coronation
None of the current leaders are as much of a threat to Labour as 2019 Boris. Some are less of a threat than 2022 Boris. I only am moderately concerned about one.
It has sparked the debate about whether he has in fact resigned though
If he hasn't, then there isn't a vacancy for him to run for. At the risk of pointing out the obvious.
Has the PM actually resigned? Genuine Q…
“It is now clearly the will of the parliamentary conservative party that there should be a new leader of that party and therefore a new Prime Minister and I have agreed…the process of choosing that new leader should begin now”
Im guessing this is something Old Lady Brady would have scrupulously checked Friday AM as he has no authority to start a race without something concrete id have thought?
My assumption is that he agreed, in private, when Brady asked him if he was resigning, but that he couldn't bring himself to say the words in public.
Classic thing, same with apologies - issue one, but don't say it.
It has sparked the debate about whether he has in fact resigned though
If he hasn't, then there isn't a vacancy for him to run for. At the risk of pointing out the obvious.
Has the PM actually resigned? Genuine Q…
“It is now clearly the will of the parliamentary conservative party that there should be a new leader of that party and therefore a new Prime Minister and I have agreed…the process of choosing that new leader should begin now”
Im guessing this is something Old Lady Brady would have scrupulously checked Friday AM as he has no authority to start a race without something concrete id have thought?
My assumption is that he agreed, in private, when Brady asked him if he was resigning, but that he couldn't bring himself to say the words in public.
It's like rhubarb, pyramid of inverted piffle etc - looks like a denial or resignation till you look closer
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
The claim that this is bigotry seems to me to be an attempt to put transpeople on a par with other oppressed minorities. But being black or Jewish or Chinese aren't relevant to sexual attractiveness. Whereas someone's sex & body are: they're fundamental to it. You're not oppressed because people with a different sexuality to yours don't want to have sex with you. To claim so is fundamentally dishonest.
Some people may well be willing to have intimate relationships with a trans person but that needs to be their choice. A trans person would be better advised, IMO, to be open about who they are & persuade a potential partner in the normal way not by making factually untrue claims, hurling abuse or trying to bully someone into sex.
Having made a brief foray on Twitter, I see there are growing calls for a "People's March" on London to "re-instate Boris Johnson as Prime Minister".
First, I thought Boris Johnson was still Prime Minister. Second, I thought the current legislation on public protest would make any such protest illegal.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Nearly all mixed relationships seem to involve a white person. How often do you see a black/Asian couple, even in very multicultural areas?
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
No I don't think so. The heart will do what the heart will do.
I understand your desire to see the Conservative Party remain in Government ad infinitum but this is just nonsense.
Yes, there will be a polling "bounce" while the new leader takes over and seeks to undo some of the damage inflicted by Johnson but the economic basics are exactly the same and we all know it's going to be a difficult winter if not year.
For all the platitudes about not wanting to raise taxes, Sunak had to raise taxes and I suspect his successor will because the demands on the public finances are severe (more money on defence, more Police, more for the NHS etc) and presumably you would not want to stand up and advocate cuts to public spending - perhaps we should cut welfare, slash pensions by 20% or slash local Government spending.
The honeymoon won't last and in six months I reckon the knives will be out for the successor - Wallace has understood this which is probably why he isn't standing. He'll wait until the defeat and put himself forward to be the LOTO.
Of course you would see it that way but Johnson going has changed the narrative and opened the possibility to a 24 GE win as unlikely as it may seem
I would just say it will not be a Labour coronation
None of the current leaders are as much of a threat to Labour as 2019 Boris. Some are less of a threat than 2022 Boris. I only am moderately concerned about one.
Complacency is dangerous
Quite so. It’s the the complacency of people who think electing a Tory leader with zero chance of uniting or dominating an angry party or experienced enough to deal with the economic chaos that is so encouraging.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Nearly all mixed relationships seem to involve a white person. How often do you see a black/Asian couple, even in very multicultural areas?
I seem to recall that coming up as a plot point in the second season of Space Force.
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
I find it hard to believe that so-called “identity politics” has much to do with the actual problems facing the country: inflation and the cost of living, war in Ukraine, surging COVID-19 numbers, NHS waiting lists, poor productivity, etc. Can we have a PM interested in the real challenges the country faces, not one worried about responding to right-wing columnists’ bête-noirs?
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
A white person only being attracted to other white people, clearly meets many, but not all, the various definitions of prejudice. I don't think it is a particularly harmful prejudice or one that needs to be addressed by society, but linguistically, yes it is not wrong to call it prejudice.
Rybakina wins the Ladies' Singles title - 6-2 in the final set.
Trophy heads to Moscow. Ranking point irony.
I don't think it's a terrible outcome though I would have liked Jabeur to win.
Rybakina may be Russian but she has represented Kazakhstan for years. So we get to show we aren't prejudiced against Russians whilst Kazakhstan gets the glory - witness the excited reaction of their tennis federation head in the players' box. I'm warming to their country particularly since President Tokayev humiliated Putin onstage at the St Petersburg conference.
One thing: this time, it is not going to be a posh white male
Wallace is out and Hunt is nearly out and Tugendhat hasn’t got a chance
We are left with women and ethnic minority candidates
What's interesting is how naturally this happens if you LEAVE ALL IDENTITY POLITICS OUT OF IT.
FFS, just treat people like individuals.
Yes. The Tory party has, for the rest of us, made two bits of real progress. It is full at the top of BAME people, none of it SFAICS is tokenism, but the consequence of ambition, opportunity and variable degrees of talent (like all politics) and, subtler but important, we feel absolutely free to be as polite or rude - in the case of Patel very rude indeed - about them as we are to politicians generally. Hooray.
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
I find it hard to believe that so-called “identity politics” has much to do with the actual problems facing the country: inflation and the cost of living, war in Ukraine, surging COVID-19 numbers, NHS waiting lists, poor productivity, etc. Can we have a PM interested in the real challenges the country faces, not one worried about responding to right-wing columnists’ bête-noirs?
But her only experience has been posturing as Equalities Minister while almost every group she's supposed to have been representing has complained about her attitude.
So that's the platform upon which she stands.
(ETA: And it may be enough to propel her to the premiership, but I doubt it. It certainly will not be enough to sustain her through it. There would have to be some hitherto untapped well on which to draw.)
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
A white person only being attracted to other white people, clearly meets many, but not all, the various definitions of prejudice. I don't think it is a particularly harmful prejudice or one that needs to be addressed by society, but linguistically, yes it is not wrong to call it prejudice.
Well that is just bollocks. Prejudice is a mental state of affairs. Attraction manifests itself in different organs altogether.
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
I find it hard to believe that so-called “identity politics” has much to do with the actual problems facing the country: inflation and the cost of living, war in Ukraine, surging COVID-19 numbers, NHS waiting lists, poor productivity, etc. Can we have a PM interested in the real challenges the country faces, not one worried about responding to right-wing columnists’ bête-noirs?
But her only experience has been posturing as Equalities Minister while almost every group she's supposed to have been representing has complained about her attitude.
So that's the platform upon which she stands.
Although there’s something about her I like, if you read her Wikipedia page she seems to want to go out of her way to get into fights.
Mr. Gezou, identity politics is an absolutely wretched prism through which to view the world, as it reduces people to their demographics rather than three-dimensional, unique individuals, and assigns rewards or punishments accordingly.
It's bizarre that we have a Select Committee for Women and Equalities, an unwittingly brilliant piece of irony (equality, for half the population). Likewise Googlemaps now flagging up businesses that identify as being women-led. As if that's better than being men-led.
Judging people not based on their thoughts or words or deeds but their demographics is the same basis as every other form of bigotry. Time was, judging people by their skin colour was plain old racism, but the rebranding has been very successful.
With the possible exception of Mordaunt, I no longer think Keir has a damn thing to worry about.
The contenders are all mad, bad, or dangerous to know.
Generally agree. But would add Badenoch. Facing either would be a dangerous and unpredictable ride. They could both make SKS look yesterday's man, and worthy but dull. He can eat the rest without trouble.
SKS's bigger problem is that he and his party are committed (by force, they have no real choice) to a Brexit they don't and can't believe in. It will come home to us in due course that the best government available to us (Lab/LD coalition) has the moral force, over the big issue of the decade, of Nicola Sturgeon trying to promote the interests of a 'better together' United Kingdom.
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
I find it hard to believe that so-called “identity politics” has much to do with the actual problems facing the country: inflation and the cost of living, war in Ukraine, surging COVID-19 numbers, NHS waiting lists, poor productivity, etc. Can we have a PM interested in the real challenges the country faces, not one worried about responding to right-wing columnists’ bête-noirs?
But her only experience has been posturing as Equalities Minister while almost every group she's supposed to have been representing has complained about her attitude.
So that's the platform upon which she stands.
Although there’s something about her I like, if you read her Wikipedia page she seems to want to go out of her way to get into fights.
Being a campaigner is a solid thing in a politician; that's true.
One thing: this time, it is not going to be a posh white male
Wallace is out and Hunt is nearly out and Tugendhat hasn’t got a chance
We are left with women and ethnic minority candidates
What's interesting is how naturally this happens if you LEAVE ALL IDENTITY POLITICS OUT OF IT.
FFS, just treat people like individuals.
Yes. The Tory party has, for the rest of us, made two bits of real progress. It is full at the top of BAME people, none of it SFAICS is tokenism, but the consequence of ambition, opportunity and variable degrees of talent (like all politics) and, subtler but important, we feel absolutely free to be as polite or rude - in the case of Patel very rude indeed - about them as we are to politicians generally. Hooray.
BTW bring on Badenoch.
Thoughts and prayers for the ghost of Enoch Powell if it turns out the final proof of the darkies having the whip hand over white Brits is the Tories choosing as leader/PM a black person with the name BAD ENOCH.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Nearly all mixed relationships seem to involve a white person. How often do you see a black/Asian couple, even in very multicultural areas?
One of my best friends at primary school (this was back in 1980-87) was mixed Indian/Chinese.
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
I find it hard to believe that so-called “identity politics” has much to do with the actual problems facing the country: inflation and the cost of living, war in Ukraine, surging COVID-19 numbers, NHS waiting lists, poor productivity, etc. Can we have a PM interested in the real challenges the country faces, not one worried about responding to right-wing columnists’ bête-noirs?
There isn't a problem at the moment in this country with identity politics, but there certainly is the United States and we tend to be about 5 years behind them in everything.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Nearly all mixed relationships seem to involve a white person. How often do you see a black/Asian couple, even in very multicultural areas?
In Eng & Wales approx 50m white vs 4-5m Asian vs 2m black accounts for that.
Fantastic Any Questions today. One of the best I've listened to. The visceral hatred of everything Johnson (and even to an extent Tory) was something we haven't seen since the days of Thatcher. Very brave of Rees Mogg turning up but being an Old Etonian his superciliousness just floated over it.
Anna Soubrey is a very impressive speaker and it was difficult not to mourn the fact that this sort of talent doesn't exist in parliament anymore. In the Any Answers there was a terrific Tory member who didn't want a woman to lead or someone NOT 'British' . "Definitely not Sunak. Can't stand him!"
I'd bet on someone who hasn't been NEAR a Johnson Cabinet. They are hated.
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
I find it hard to believe that so-called “identity politics” has much to do with the actual problems facing the country: inflation and the cost of living, war in Ukraine, surging COVID-19 numbers, NHS waiting lists, poor productivity, etc. Can we have a PM interested in the real challenges the country faces, not one worried about responding to right-wing columnists’ bête-noirs?
There isn't a problem at the moment in this country with identity politics, but there certainly is the United States and we tend to be about 5 years behind them in everything.
As far as I can tell the Americans are obsessed with race in the way the British are obsessed with class (and the French with sex).
I don’t think it follows that American innovations always wash-up in the UK.
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
Essex seat. What's her views on levelling up the North?
I understand your desire to see the Conservative Party remain in Government ad infinitum but this is just nonsense.
Yes, there will be a polling "bounce" while the new leader takes over and seeks to undo some of the damage inflicted by Johnson but the economic basics are exactly the same and we all know it's going to be a difficult winter if not year.
For all the platitudes about not wanting to raise taxes, Sunak had to raise taxes and I suspect his successor will because the demands on the public finances are severe (more money on defence, more Police, more for the NHS etc) and presumably you would not want to stand up and advocate cuts to public spending - perhaps we should cut welfare, slash pensions by 20% or slash local Government spending.
The honeymoon won't last and in six months I reckon the knives will be out for the successor - Wallace has understood this which is probably why he isn't standing. He'll wait until the defeat and put himself forward to be the LOTO.
Of course you would see it that way but Johnson going has changed the narrative and opened the possibility to a 24 GE win as unlikely as it may seem
I would just say it will not be a Labour coronation
None of the current leaders are as much of a threat to Labour as 2019 Boris. Some are less of a threat than 2022 Boris. I only am moderately concerned about one.
Complacency is dangerous
Quite so. It’s the the complacency of people who think electing a Tory leader with zero chance of uniting or dominating an angry party or experienced enough to deal with the economic chaos that is so encouraging.
You think Mogadon Man SKS is without vulnerability? After his performance this week?
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
A white person only being attracted to other white people, clearly meets many, but not all, the various definitions of prejudice. I don't think it is a particularly harmful prejudice or one that needs to be addressed by society, but linguistically, yes it is not wrong to call it prejudice.
Well that is just bollocks. Prejudice is a mental state of affairs. Attraction manifests itself in different organs altogether.
1 an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2 any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3 unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group. 4 such attitudes considered collectively: 5 damage or injury; detriment:
Louise Mensch is taking the Ben Wallace decision badly.
"Louise Mensch 🇺🇸🇺🇦 @LouiseMensch Replying to @BWallaceMP Ben, duty calls. There is absolutely nobody better for this job than you, and moreover there is nobody who will do it nearly as well, I really hope you will change your mind you are by far and away the most likely person to win and you would be easily the best at the job. 12:57 PM · Jul 9, 2022"
Terrible news, he was the only candidate who could have united the party.
My preference is now for Tugendhat
Very interesting choice. Why in particular? Outsider not part of Cabinet factions?
That surprised me. Tugendhat is about the only contender that would make me reconsider voting Tory. Problem is he would never get past the membership sadly.
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
Essex seat. What's her views on levelling up the North?
I haven't heard them, but I think most of her backers so far are Redwallers. So I doubt she's planning to cancel it
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
Essex seat. What's her views on levelling up the North?
I haven't heard them, but I think most of her backers so far are Redwallers. So I doubt she's planning to cancel it
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
A white person only being attracted to other white people, clearly meets many, but not all, the various definitions of prejudice. I don't think it is a particularly harmful prejudice or one that needs to be addressed by society, but linguistically, yes it is not wrong to call it prejudice.
Well that is just bollocks. Prejudice is a mental state of affairs. Attraction manifests itself in different organs altogether.
1 an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2 any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3 unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group. 4 such attitudes considered collectively: 5 damage or injury; detriment:
It is most certainly a preconceived feeling.
No it isn't. Feeling in that context is clearly a mental state.
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
Essex seat. What's her views on levelling up the North?
I haven't heard them, but I think most of her backers so far are Redwallers. So I doubt she's planning to cancel it
With the possible exception of Mordaunt, I no longer think Keir has a damn thing to worry about.
The contenders are all mad, bad, or dangerous to know.
Generally agree. But would add Badenoch. Facing either would be a dangerous and unpredictable ride. They could both make SKS look yesterday's man, and worthy but dull. He can eat the rest without trouble.
SKS's bigger problem is that he and his party are committed (by force, they have no real choice) to a Brexit they don't and can't believe in. It will come home to us in due course that the best government available to us (Lab/LD coalition) has the moral force, over the big issue of the decade, of Nicola Sturgeon trying to promote the interests of a 'better together' United Kingdom.
I must admit my lack of knowledge about most of the possible PM/Tory leader, can anyone enlighten me as to whether any would qualify as 'One Nation' tories, or is that a quaint idea nowadays?
Mr. Gezou, identity politics is an absolutely wretched prism through which to view the world, as it reduces people to their demographics rather than three-dimensional, unique individuals, and assigns rewards or punishments accordingly.
It's bizarre that we have a Select Committee for Women and Equalities, an unwittingly brilliant piece of irony (equality, for half the population). Likewise Googlemaps now flagging up businesses that identify as being women-led. As if that's better than being men-led.
Judging people not based on their thoughts or words or deeds but their demographics is the same basis as every other form of bigotry. Time was, judging people by their skin colour was plain old racism, but the rebranding has been very successful.
(a) Nearly everyone agrees we want to get to a situation where we don’t judge people by the colour of their skin. However, despite articulating this goal for decades, we’re still a long way from getting there. How do we get there quicker? Some feel that being more aware of the colour of people’s skin, or their gender, for a period, so we can better understand the prejudices still in place and thus combat them, is the way to go. I don’t think that’s racism (or sexism) at all: it’s about understanding the scale of the problem when it comes to undoing racism. However, I understand others feel it isn’t the best route to the shared goal.
(b) This has little to do with the major problems facing the country of inflation, war, disease etc. Let’s make sure that everyone can pay their electricity bills first!
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
A white person only being attracted to other white people, clearly meets many, but not all, the various definitions of prejudice. I don't think it is a particularly harmful prejudice or one that needs to be addressed by society, but linguistically, yes it is not wrong to call it prejudice.
Well that is just bollocks. Prejudice is a mental state of affairs. Attraction manifests itself in different organs altogether.
1 an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2 any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3 unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group. 4 such attitudes considered collectively: 5 damage or injury; detriment:
It is most certainly a preconceived feeling.
No it isn't. Feeling in that context is clearly a mental state.
Attraction is not a feeling??? I give up. Choose your own definitions if you must.
I understand your desire to see the Conservative Party remain in Government ad infinitum but this is just nonsense.
Yes, there will be a polling "bounce" while the new leader takes over and seeks to undo some of the damage inflicted by Johnson but the economic basics are exactly the same and we all know it's going to be a difficult winter if not year.
For all the platitudes about not wanting to raise taxes, Sunak had to raise taxes and I suspect his successor will because the demands on the public finances are severe (more money on defence, more Police, more for the NHS etc) and presumably you would not want to stand up and advocate cuts to public spending - perhaps we should cut welfare, slash pensions by 20% or slash local Government spending.
The honeymoon won't last and in six months I reckon the knives will be out for the successor - Wallace has understood this which is probably why he isn't standing. He'll wait until the defeat and put himself forward to be the LOTO.
Of course you would see it that way but Johnson going has changed the narrative and opened the possibility to a 24 GE win as unlikely as it may seem
I would just say it will not be a Labour coronation
None of the current leaders are as much of a threat to Labour as 2019 Boris. Some are less of a threat than 2022 Boris. I only am moderately concerned about one.
Complacency is dangerous
Quite so. It’s the the complacency of people who think electing a Tory leader with zero chance of uniting or dominating an angry party or experienced enough to deal with the economic chaos that is so encouraging.
You think Mogadon Man SKS is without vulnerability? After his performance this week?
no complacency there at all, then.
You don’t have to be perfect, just better. Starmer is better than this lot. Lots of hard work required, but definitely doable.
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
Spoiler: it doesn't sound like things are that great.
As economists have pointed out, it is the sweeping tax cuts of 2019 - lobbied for and cheered on by many corporate and professional groups - that contributed to emptying Sri Lanka's coffers, and helped bring the nation to this brink.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
No I don't think so. The heart will do what the heart will do.
I've long had a Venn Diagram in my head which is overlapping sets of "People who are attracted to people like them", "People who are attracted to people not like them" and "People with a fixed type".
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
I find it hard to believe that so-called “identity politics” has much to do with the actual problems facing the country: inflation and the cost of living, war in Ukraine, surging COVID-19 numbers, NHS waiting lists, poor productivity, etc. Can we have a PM interested in the real challenges the country faces, not one worried about responding to right-wing columnists’ bête-noirs?
There isn't a problem at the moment in this country with identity politics, but there certainly is the United States and we tend to be about 5 years behind them in everything.
No we don't. See a lot of UK arguments over guns, do we?
Just one example, but we cannot generalise so much, it isn't inevitable that the same issues will play out here.
With the possible exception of Mordaunt, I no longer think Keir has a damn thing to worry about.
The contenders are all mad, bad, or dangerous to know.
Generally agree. But would add Badenoch. Facing either would be a dangerous and unpredictable ride. They could both make SKS look yesterday's man, and worthy but dull. He can eat the rest without trouble.
SKS's bigger problem is that he and his party are committed (by force, they have no real choice) to a Brexit they don't and can't believe in. It will come home to us in due course that the best government available to us (Lab/LD coalition) has the moral force, over the big issue of the decade, of Nicola Sturgeon trying to promote the interests of a 'better together' United Kingdom.
I must admit my lack of knowledge about most of the possible PM/Tory leader, can anyone enlighten me as to whether any would qualify as 'One Nation' tories, or is that a quaint idea nowadays?
Based on evidence here on PB, appears to be a LOT of One Notion Tories, the notion being WOKE.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
A white person only being attracted to other white people, clearly meets many, but not all, the various definitions of prejudice. I don't think it is a particularly harmful prejudice or one that needs to be addressed by society, but linguistically, yes it is not wrong to call it prejudice.
Don’t be ridiculous. what if white skin colour is the one colour that turns you on?
I know men that can only fuck blondes, or tall women, or women with tiny feet, or men, or young men - they just don’t fancy the alternatives, much as they might like to (as it would broaden their choices)
Sexual preferences are not chosen, they are also fairly immutable once you are well beyond puberty
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
A white person only being attracted to other white people, clearly meets many, but not all, the various definitions of prejudice. I don't think it is a particularly harmful prejudice or one that needs to be addressed by society, but linguistically, yes it is not wrong to call it prejudice.
Well that is just bollocks. Prejudice is a mental state of affairs. Attraction manifests itself in different organs altogether.
1 an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2 any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3 unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group. 4 such attitudes considered collectively: 5 damage or injury; detriment:
It is most certainly a preconceived feeling.
No it isn't. Feeling in that context is clearly a mental state.
Attraction is not a feeling??? I give up. Choose your own definitions if you must.
You just aren't good enough at the precise analysis of language. Of course attraction is a feeling, duh, but if you are talking about feelings which can usefully be described as preconceived you are talking about something else.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Nearly all mixed relationships seem to involve a white person. How often do you see a black/Asian couple, even in very multicultural areas?
One of my best friends at primary school (this was back in 1980-87) was mixed Indian/Chinese.
One of my best friends at primary school was mixed Lebanese/Chinese. His baby sister spoke Levantine Arabic, Chinese and English, but hadn’t yet learnt that most people don’t know all 3. She’d start sentences in one and finish them in another. I’m sure she’s impressively trilingual today.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
No I don't think so. The heart will do what the heart will do.
I've long had a Venn Diagram in my head which is overlapping sets of "People who are attracted to people like them", "People who are attracted to people not like them" and "People with a fixed type".
My weakness, is, always has been, and always will be redheads.
Bought myself a little table and chairs for my backyard today. I will be drinking wine there later!
How are the cucumbers?
Delicious!
And I've already had fifteen of them. They are mini (about an inch across and three or four long), but I don't want whole, big cucumbers. I end up wasting most of them.
Maybe men who can only get an erection for black women, or white women, or gingers, should shout at their penis for being a bigot, then take it to be re-educated?
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Nearly all mixed relationships seem to involve a white person. How often do you see a black/Asian couple, even in very multicultural areas?
One of my best friends at primary school (this was back in 1980-87) was mixed Indian/Chinese.
One of my best friends at primary school was mixed Lebanese/Chinese. His baby sister spoke Levantine Arabic, Chinese and English, but hadn’t yet learnt that most people don’t know all 3. She’d start sentences in one and finish them in another. I’m sure she’s impressively trilingual today.
Same, well I grew up speaking English, Urdu, and Punjabi.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
No I don't think so. The heart will do what the heart will do.
I've long had a Venn Diagram in my head which is overlapping sets of "People who are attracted to people like them", "People who are attracted to people not like them" and "People with a fixed type".
Watching Love Island is a summer guilty pleasure of mine. The contestant who said "I don't have a type" in one sentence and then "I'm picky" in the next sentence, was rightly ridiculed by the others.
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
The more I think about Kemi for PM, the more I like it.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
She'd be fine for a LOTO > PM run over a four or five year Parliament so people have time to get to know her but I just can't see someone that... "unknown" being parachuted in to Downing St...
With the possible exception of Mordaunt, I no longer think Keir has a damn thing to worry about.
The contenders are all mad, bad, or dangerous to know.
Generally agree. But would add Badenoch. Facing either would be a dangerous and unpredictable ride. They could both make SKS look yesterday's man, and worthy but dull. He can eat the rest without trouble.
SKS's bigger problem is that he and his party are committed (by force, they have no real choice) to a Brexit they don't and can't believe in. It will come home to us in due course that the best government available to us (Lab/LD coalition) has the moral force, over the big issue of the decade, of Nicola Sturgeon trying to promote the interests of a 'better together' United Kingdom.
I must admit my lack of knowledge about most of the possible PM/Tory leader, can anyone enlighten me as to whether any would qualify as 'One Nation' tories, or is that a quaint idea nowadays?
Tugendhat and Hunt.
Sunak, Truss, Javid, and Badenoch are all actually on the libertarian right. Probably Zahawi and Braverman too.
Mordaunt is the most interesting, she’s a Brexiter but a centrist on social and probably fiscal issues too.
Maybe men who can only get an erection for black women, or white women, or gingers, should shout at their penis for being a bigot, then take it to be re-educated?
That should sort out this lingering prejudice
Nah, every hole’s a goal, I mean you don’t look at the mantelpiece when you’re stoking the fires.
Look, everyone has standards, it’s just mine are lower than everybody else’s.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
No I don't think so. The heart will do what the heart will do.
I've long had a Venn Diagram in my head which is overlapping sets of "People who are attracted to people like them", "People who are attracted to people not like them" and "People with a fixed type".
After 36 years of marriage I would not pretend to have much of a feel for the old dating game but what happened to nice personality and GSOH, let alone beauty being more than skin deep?
There's only one candidate for prime minister with the guts to dismantle the self-loathing culture of identity politics that is destroying Britain. She's uniquely qualified to take on the challenge because she's a black woman raised in Nigeria who studied for her A-levels while working in McDonald's. And she may succeed because, in addition to a passion for knocking heads together, she has a startlingly clear understanding of how our politics and culture are poisoning each other in a left-liberal suicide pact.
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
I find it hard to believe that so-called “identity politics” has much to do with the actual problems facing the country: inflation and the cost of living, war in Ukraine, surging COVID-19 numbers, NHS waiting lists, poor productivity, etc. Can we have a PM interested in the real challenges the country faces, not one worried about responding to right-wing columnists’ bête-noirs?
There isn't a problem at the moment in this country with identity politics, but there certainly is the United States and we tend to be about 5 years behind them in everything.
As far as I can tell the Americans are obsessed with race in the way the British are obsessed with class (and the French with sex).
I don’t think it follows that American innovations always wash-up in the UK.
US innovation that UK may well be following, is that of Republican conservatives backing Black and other ethnic minority candidates PROVIDED they are right on correct issues (and visa versa). In large measure to flummox the Democrats. "Call ME a racist? I'm voting for the Black candidate!"
Plenty of examples in American politics over past couple decades, for example former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, both from South Carolina - first state to secede from the Union in defense of slavery after the election of Abe Lincoln as 1st Republican POTUS.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
No I don't think so. The heart will do what the heart will do.
I've long had a Venn Diagram in my head which is overlapping sets of "People who are attracted to people like them", "People who are attracted to people not like them" and "People with a fixed type".
My weakness, is, always has been, and always will be redheads.
Given that their are zero south Asian redheads that means your preference is to mate with women outside your racial background. WHICH OF COURSE IS FINE
But there are some mad identity politics people who would say you are suffering from false consciousness, you’re quasi racist, you’re a self hater, you’ve been conditioned by evil white culture. Cf black men who date white women, they often get intense amounts of grief online
With the possible exception of Mordaunt, I no longer think Keir has a damn thing to worry about.
The contenders are all mad, bad, or dangerous to know.
Generally agree. But would add Badenoch. Facing either would be a dangerous and unpredictable ride. They could both make SKS look yesterday's man, and worthy but dull. He can eat the rest without trouble.
SKS's bigger problem is that he and his party are committed (by force, they have no real choice) to a Brexit they don't and can't believe in. It will come home to us in due course that the best government available to us (Lab/LD coalition) has the moral force, over the big issue of the decade, of Nicola Sturgeon trying to promote the interests of a 'better together' United Kingdom.
I must admit my lack of knowledge about most of the possible PM/Tory leader, can anyone enlighten me as to whether any would qualify as 'One Nation' tories, or is that a quaint idea nowadays?
Tugendhat and Hunt.
Sunak, Truss, Javid, and Badenoch are all actually on the libertarian right. Probably Zahawi and Braverman too.
Mordaunt is the most interesting, she’s a Brexiter but a centrist on social and probably fiscal issues too.
Javid i'm not so sure is libertarian. He was apparantly clamouring for lockdown over Omicron. If true he can fook right off
With the possible exception of Mordaunt, I no longer think Keir has a damn thing to worry about.
The contenders are all mad, bad, or dangerous to know.
Generally agree. But would add Badenoch. Facing either would be a dangerous and unpredictable ride. They could both make SKS look yesterday's man, and worthy but dull. He can eat the rest without trouble.
SKS's bigger problem is that he and his party are committed (by force, they have no real choice) to a Brexit they don't and can't believe in. It will come home to us in due course that the best government available to us (Lab/LD coalition) has the moral force, over the big issue of the decade, of Nicola Sturgeon trying to promote the interests of a 'better together' United Kingdom.
I must admit my lack of knowledge about most of the possible PM/Tory leader, can anyone enlighten me as to whether any would qualify as 'One Nation' tories, or is that a quaint idea nowadays?
Tugendhat and Hunt.
Sunak, Truss, Javid, and Badenoch are all actually on the libertarian right. Probably Zahawi and Braverman too.
Mordaunt is the most interesting, she’s a Brexiter but a centrist on social and probably fiscal issues too.
Thanks, that helped. I know Braverman as she's my MP, very Brexity and right wing.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Nearly all mixed relationships seem to involve a white person. How often do you see a black/Asian couple, even in very multicultural areas?
One of my best friends at primary school (this was back in 1980-87) was mixed Indian/Chinese.
One of my best friends at primary school was mixed Lebanese/Chinese. His baby sister spoke Levantine Arabic, Chinese and English, but hadn’t yet learnt that most people don’t know all 3. She’d start sentences in one and finish them in another. I’m sure she’s impressively trilingual today.
Same, well I grew up speaking English, Urdu, and Punjabi.
A periodically perceptive, provocative, pungent, Punjabi PB pundit & procurator?
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
A white person only being attracted to other white people, clearly meets many, but not all, the various definitions of prejudice. I don't think it is a particularly harmful prejudice or one that needs to be addressed by society, but linguistically, yes it is not wrong to call it prejudice.
Don’t be ridiculous. what if white skin colour is the one colour that turns you on?
I know men that can only fuck blondes, or tall women, or women with tiny feet, or men, or young men - they just don’t fancy the alternatives, much as they might like to (as it would broaden their choices)
Sexual preferences are not chosen, they are also fairly immutable once you are well beyond puberty
If white skin colour is the only one that turns you on, date a white person of course! Prejudice does not necessarily mean the person is doing something wrong, it is a big part of how the mind operates.
And yes attractions for the majority change little post puberty, but whether people like curvy or skinny for example does go through societal changes in different eras so it is not simply a matter of dna but also socialisation when people are growing up.
Just seen the Wallace news. Must make Rishi far more likely. Big question now is whether Truss or Mordaunt can make it through to the final two and force it to the membership (in which case they’ve both got a chance as the stop Rishi candidate). If however he cleans up in the MPs vote in then there might be a fair bit of pressure for a withdrawal.
Spoiler: it doesn't sound like things are that great.
Could happen to us. There's a clamour for tax cuts when the country is broke. We're living in denial.
I often think of this when I see modern Britain:
"In today's modern Galaxy there is of course very little still held to be unspeakable....So, for instance, when in a recent national speech the Financial Minister of the Royal World Estate of Quarlvista actually dared to say that due to one thing and another and the fact that no one had made any food for a while and the king seemed to have died and most of the population had been on holiday now for over three years, the economy was now in what he called "one whole joojooflop situation," everyone was so pleased that he felt able to come out and say it that they quite failed to note that their entire five-thousand-year old civilization had just collapsed overnight."
Comments
Nothing wrong in being a specialist at all. NATO would be a major role.
Generalists suit PM. This is another issue I have with Sunak btw. He has virtually zero experience outside finance/economics.
There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2
The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'
Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.
Point 3 states
Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board
So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.
You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.
Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.
Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
Doesn't matter whether Boris has technically resigned or not, the process has been initiated so the 1922 committee has the power to exclude him from the contest.
https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/scapegoat
Ranking point irony.
It’s amazing how fucked Rishi Sunak thinks the economy got in the three days he hadn’t been chancellor
Loathesome piece of work
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is
(a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong?
(b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia?
(c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
Some people may well be willing to have intimate relationships with a trans person but that needs to be their choice. A trans person would be better advised, IMO, to be open about who they are & persuade a potential partner in the normal way not by making factually untrue claims, hurling abuse or trying to bully someone into sex.
You may find this of interest on this debate - https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/06/14/what-finance-can-tell-us-about-the-trans-self-id-debate/.
I must resume my journey.
Till later.
First, I thought Boris Johnson was still Prime Minister.
Second, I thought the current legislation on public protest would make any such protest illegal.
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
As soon as I read Kemi Badenoch's article in this morning’s Times, I thought: this is a risk worth taking. The last gamble didn't pay off, but then Boris Johnson was always too distracted and self-absorbed to assemble his maverick ideas into a political philosophy. Cameron and May, meanwhile, were almost completely subservient to ‘the Blob’.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-tories-should-gamble-on-kemi-badenoch
I think it will be between Rishi and Penny.
Ben Wallace will have a big influence in who he backs. I reckon he will back Penny as a fellow soldier and in return for defence.
Rishi is the favourite but Penny at 6.8 on Betfair is very good value.
Sussex Universtiy, degree in computer systems engineering, is definitely not the usual route to political leadership.
Alonso will be interesting in the race.
The contenders are all mad, bad, or dangerous to know.
Rybakina may be Russian but she has represented Kazakhstan for years. So we get to show we aren't prejudiced against Russians whilst Kazakhstan gets the glory - witness the excited reaction of their tennis federation head in the players' box. I'm warming to their country particularly since President Tokayev humiliated Putin onstage at the St Petersburg conference.
BTW bring on Badenoch.
So that's the platform upon which she stands.
(ETA: And it may be enough to propel her to the premiership, but I doubt it. It certainly will not be enough to sustain her through it. There would have to be some hitherto untapped well on which to draw.)
It's bizarre that we have a Select Committee for Women and Equalities, an unwittingly brilliant piece of irony (equality, for half the population). Likewise Googlemaps now flagging up businesses that identify as being women-led. As if that's better than being men-led.
Judging people not based on their thoughts or words or deeds but their demographics is the same basis as every other form of bigotry. Time was, judging people by their skin colour was plain old racism, but the rebranding has been very successful.
SKS's bigger problem is that he and his party are committed (by force, they have no real choice) to a Brexit they don't and can't believe in. It will come home to us in due course that the best government available to us (Lab/LD coalition) has the moral force, over the big issue of the decade, of Nicola Sturgeon trying to promote the interests of a 'better together' United Kingdom.
Another helpful decorating hint -
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/african-americans/individuals/hueynewton-loc.jpg
Spoiler: it doesn't sound like things are that great.
Anna Soubrey is a very impressive speaker and it was difficult not to mourn the fact that this sort of talent doesn't exist in parliament anymore. In the Any Answers there was a terrific Tory member who didn't want a woman to lead or someone NOT 'British' . "Definitely not Sunak. Can't stand him!"
I'd bet on someone who hasn't been NEAR a Johnson Cabinet. They are hated.
She’s an intelligent, articulate, charismatic, attractive, young, Conservative, black woman. She castrates so many of the traditional attacks against the “traditional” Conservative Party, while still being impressive enough to have been picked on merit.
It might be too soon for her, but if the Tories want a proper break from Boris/Eton/Oxford they could do a hell of a lot worse.
I don’t think it follows that American innovations always wash-up in the UK.
no complacency there at all, then.
Definition of prejudice
noun
1 an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2 any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3 unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.
4 such attitudes considered collectively:
5 damage or injury; detriment:
It is most certainly a preconceived feeling.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/09/bafflement-over-tory-mps-admission-she-hacked-harriet-harmans-website
(b) This has little to do with the major problems facing the country of inflation, war, disease etc. Let’s make sure that everyone can pay their electricity bills first!
As economists have pointed out, it is the sweeping tax cuts of 2019 - lobbied for and cheered on by many corporate and professional groups - that contributed to emptying Sri Lanka's coffers, and helped bring the nation to this brink.
Just one example, but we cannot generalise so much, it isn't inevitable that the same issues will play out here.
I know men that can only fuck blondes, or tall women, or women with tiny feet, or men, or young men - they just don’t fancy the alternatives, much as they might like to (as it would broaden their choices)
Sexual preferences are not chosen, they are also fairly immutable once you are well beyond puberty
And I've already had fifteen of them. They are mini (about an inch across and three or four long), but I don't want whole, big cucumbers. I end up wasting most of them.
That should sort out this lingering prejudice
Same, well I grew up speaking English, Urdu, and Punjabi.
The contestant who said "I don't have a type" in one sentence and then "I'm picky" in the next sentence, was rightly ridiculed by the others.
That is just gross & borderline criminal incompetence.
If there is anything sensitive amongst your computer files, it is your responsibility to maintain basic standards of computer security.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1545794565243813889
Sunak, Truss, Javid, and Badenoch are all actually on the libertarian right. Probably Zahawi and Braverman too.
Mordaunt is the most interesting, she’s a Brexiter but a centrist on social and probably fiscal issues too.
Look, everyone has standards, it’s just mine are lower than everybody else’s.
Plenty of examples in American politics over past couple decades, for example former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, both from South Carolina - first state to secede from the Union in defense of slavery after the election of Abe Lincoln as 1st Republican POTUS.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
But there are some mad identity politics people who would say you are suffering from false consciousness, you’re quasi racist, you’re a self hater, you’ve been conditioned by evil white culture. Cf black men who date white women, they often get intense amounts of grief online
I know Braverman as she's my MP, very Brexity and right wing.
And yes attractions for the majority change little post puberty, but whether people like curvy or skinny for example does go through societal changes in different eras so it is not simply a matter of dna but also socialisation when people are growing up.
"In today's modern Galaxy there is of course very little still held to be unspeakable....So, for instance, when in a recent national speech the Financial Minister of the Royal World Estate of Quarlvista actually dared to say that due to one thing and another and the fact that no one had made any food for a while and the king seemed to have died and most of the population had been on holiday now for over three years, the economy was now in what he called "one whole joojooflop situation," everyone was so pleased that he felt able to come out and say it that they quite failed to note that their entire five-thousand-year old civilization had just collapsed overnight."