Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
Wriggle all you want. Your position is that you argue for women wearing the burka even though you are intelligent enough to realise that perhaps the majority of such women are forced to and furthermore the whole premise of women wearing the burka is one of subjugation.
But you are trying to say that I am telling women what to wear.
Leftism, or "classical liberalism" in a nutshell.
I like most people on PB but you are proving yourself to be a despicable misogynist all in the name of cultural relativism.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
If you are going to take the classic liberalism approach, the question is simply the extent to which the woman 'wants' to walk down the street in a burka vs the extent to which she is forced to, either actively (do it or physical harm will come) or through the particular expectations of her section of society. Which I think you would at least conclude is not clear cut in favour of 'she wants to do it'.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone. Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
My idiot cat (one of my idiot cats) has just fallen off the roof. Excited by the prospect of an unexpolored egress, she leapt for the unusually open velux window, and soon found a slate roof offers claws little purchase. After a long and panicked descent, the evenual fall from the edge of the roof to the ground was only about 9 feet. Eminently manageable for even the clumsiest cat. So she is fine and has come back in the front door pretending all is fine. But inasmuch as a cat can look embarassed, she is looking rather embarassed by the whole escapade.
My cat was recently nonchalantly walking along the edge of the bath and slipped and fell in. Which she entirely meant to do. Very deliberate. Judging by her indifferent sudden decision to lick her fur, glance at me accusingly, then wander off not to be seen for sevaral hours.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
On the burka, yes, there are complications, but I think probably more arguments that burkas are bad than not. I buy that some women choose to wear the burka because they believe that's what God wants, but probably many would rather not. And those women who think that's what God (or society) wants have been sold a crap God (or society).
But I will also say that subjectively I do not like the burka, for exactly the same reasons that I do not like face masks or that fella in the picture above. Face coverings are hostile. They dehumanise. They cut out most of how we communicate. And I also do not like them for cultural reasons. They represent a failure to integrate. They are a small fuck-you to the host culture; they embody the failure of the melting pot. They signify a society which does not operate by the same norms. And while it is unfashionable to admit it, yes, I find that threatening. Not least because this not-integrating culture is demonstrably one which doesn't like us very much, holds us in contempt and periodically tries to blow us up.
And finally, as far as my understanding goes, which is weak in the extreme, there is nothing in Islamic theology which forces womenfolk into burkas.
As obvious as the sun rises in the east. But arseholes on here would have you believe that it is every woman's right to be submissive to the patriarchy.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
On the burka, yes, there are complications, but I think probably more arguments that burkas are bad than not. I buy that some women choose to wear the burka because they believe that's what God wants, but probably many would rather not. And those women who think that's what God (or society) wants have been sold a crap God (or society).
But I will also say that subjectively I do not like the burka, for exactly the same reasons that I do not like face masks or that fella in the picture above. Face coverings are hostile. They dehumanise. They cut out most of how we communicate. And I also do not like them for cultural reasons. They represent a failure to integrate. They are a small fuck-you to the host culture; they embody the failure of the melting pot. They signify a society which does not operate by the same norms. And while it is unfashionable to admit it, yes, I find that threatening. Not least because this not-integrating culture is demonstrably one which doesn't like us very much, holds us in contempt and periodically tries to blow us up.
And finally, as far as my understanding goes, which is weak in the extreme, there is nothing in Islamic theology which forces womenfolk into burkas.
There is a lot in what you say about obstructing communication. I don't like face masks for that reason, though very occasionally (Covid positive) I choose to wear one. And I don't like hoodies. I assume they are avoiding CCTV for some nefarious reason.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
Wriggle all you want. Your position is that you argue for women wearing the burka even though you are intelligent enough to realise that perhaps the majority of such women are forced to and furthermore the whole premise of women wearing the burka is one of subjugation.
But you are trying to say that I am telling women what to wear.
Leftism, or "classical liberalism" in a nutshell.
I like most people on PB but you are proving yourself to be a despicable misogynist all in the name of cultural relativism.
If the problem is people being compelled to wear something the solution isn't to compell them not to.
My idiot cat (one of my idiot cats) has just fallen off the roof. Excited by the prospect of an unexpolored egress, she leapt for the unusually open velux window, and soon found a slate roof offers claws little purchase. After a long and panicked descent, the evenual fall from the edge of the roof to the ground was only about 9 feet. Eminently manageable for even the clumsiest cat. So she is fine and has come back in the front door pretending all is fine. But inasmuch as a cat can look embarassed, she is looking rather embarassed by the whole escapade.
My cat was recently nonchalantly walking along the edge of the bath and slipped and fell in. Which she entirely meant to do. Very deliberate. Judging by her indifferent sudden decision to lick her fur, glance at me accusingly, then wander off not to be seen for sevaral hours.
Donald Trump on immigrants: "They're poisoning the blood of our country."
Jonathan Stanley, a Yale professor and author of a book on fascism, says that Trump's words echoed the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler, who warned against German blood being poisoned by Jews in his political treatise "Mein Kampf."
"He is now employing this vocabulary in repetition in rallies. Repeating dangerous speech increases its normalization and the practices it recommends. This is very concerning talk for the safety of immigrants in the U.S.," Staley said.
On the latest topic of contention, there is surely a distinction to be drawn between the hijab and the burqa. The former may have its origins in patriarchal religious conservatism but is essentially unobtrusive in a way that any piece of traditional headgear is. Someone wearing one can be a full participant in society - even if vile regimes like Iran's use it to control and persecute their female citizens. So there's no issue. We don't need to be French and be banning religious garb to prove we grasp enlightenment humanism.
The burqa is much more problematic, as it in effect shuts the wearer off from engaging with parts of society and creates issues of security and safety, while it can be indicative of a hardline, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that simply is always going to be at odds with a liberal society. Even if some people want to don one, there's a strong argument that it should be treated like other harmful religious practices we draw a line on and say are not OK as are harmful. Though one is much better off making this argument coolly, with understanding, and rationally over Boris' vitriol-encouraging insult comedy.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
Wriggle all you want. Your position is that you argue for women wearing the burka even though you are intelligent enough to realise that perhaps the majority of such women are forced to and furthermore the whole premise of women wearing the burka is one of subjugation.
But you are trying to say that I am telling women what to wear.
Leftism, or "classical liberalism" in a nutshell.
I like most people on PB but you are proving yourself to be a despicable misogynist all in the name of cultural relativism.
If the problem is people being compelled to wear something the solution isn't to compell them not to.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
I was just testing the nature of your objection to different kinds of headgear.
Is it because it's ugly? Is it because it's threatening?
I now see that your objection is because you think it is forced. No doubt it is in some cases, but I'd like to see the evidence of how many women are forced to wear the burqa and how many find it reassuring. I just don't know. Do you? You obviously feel strongly about it. I don't care one way or the other.
In Iran women are beaten, brutalised, jailed, tortured and sometimes killed because they refuse to wear "correct" Islamic clothing
You don't care one way or the other?
How about this teenage girl, who was beaten into a coma and died because of her "incorrect hijab"? Do you care one way ot the other about her?
"May I be sacrificed for your laughter... Ava Geravand has released a new video of #Armita_Geravand. Armita Geravand, a sixteen-year-old student, October 1st this year, fell into a coma after being beaten by the morality police of the Islamic Republic"
I do care deeply about that. I am horrified by the Iranian morality police and fully support the women.
Maybe we are at cross purposes.
I don't approve of the forced wearing of the burqa or anything else for that matter, particularly if it is forced by violence. Obviously.
But I don't automatically assume that the women I see here with covered heads are being forced to do it. I see it as their choice. But perhaps I'm wrong. I'd like to see some data on it if it exists.
EDIT. I must admit it jars a bit when I see a nun in a habit or a woman in a burqa but I put that down to my own biases and what I'm used to.
Personally I draw a huge distinction between garments that merely cover the hair, like the hijab, and garments that cover the face - burqa and niqab
Covering the entire face is inhuman, and feels fundamentally wrong: human faces are built to be incredibly expressive, with eyes, mouth, skin muscles - it's a vital part of proper, rich human communication, especially the giving of warmth and kindness via a smile or a laugh
Taking that away is basically evil. It is also harmful to children learning to speak and to deaf people trying to lip read
I'm afraid my automatic reaction when I see a niqab or a burqa is: No, that is not right
OK I can very much sympathise with that. But there's also freedom of choice - as long as it is free.
Off topic, but possibly useful to some of you: Dr. Leanna Wen describes three inexpensive, and simple ways to improve your physical and mental health, hearing aids for those who need them, exercise (and even a moderate amount helps), and more social contacts.
For example: "A recent review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that people who followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for 150 minutes a week of moderate- or high-intensity activity reduced their risk of heart disease and stroke by 27 percent. It also reduced their risk of cancer by 12 percent and premature death by 31 percent. . . . Many other studies on exercise have found a plethora of other health benefits, such as decreased dementia risk and improved mental well-being. There is a dose-response relationship, meaning that increased exercise results in better health outcomes." (Links omitted.) source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/12/health-lifestyle-changes-hearing-aids-exercise-loneliness/
(I haven't, so far as I know, persuaded NickP that one of the best things he could do for his community is make if easier for people to exercise, especially in the winter, but I think there is much scientific evidence for that simple idea.)
I don’t know if I’m a “right on leftie” but I hated masking during covid. I think covering one’s face creates a barrier with other humans, as much of what we do to relate to each other is done via facial expressions.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
I was just testing the nature of your objection to different kinds of headgear.
Is it because it's ugly? Is it because it's threatening?
I now see that your objection is because you think it is forced. No doubt it is in some cases, but I'd like to see the evidence of how many women are forced to wear the burqa and how many find it reassuring. I just don't know. Do you? You obviously feel strongly about it. I don't care one way or the other.
In Iran women are beaten, brutalised, jailed, tortured and sometimes killed because they refuse to wear "correct" Islamic clothing
You don't care one way or the other?
How about this teenage girl, who was beaten into a coma and died because of her "incorrect hijab"? Do you care one way ot the other about her?
"May I be sacrificed for your laughter... Ava Geravand has released a new video of #Armita_Geravand. Armita Geravand, a sixteen-year-old student, October 1st this year, fell into a coma after being beaten by the morality police of the Islamic Republic"
I do care deeply about that. I am horrified by the Iranian morality police and fully support the women.
Maybe we are at cross purposes.
I don't approve of the forced wearing of the burqa or anything else for that matter, particularly if it is forced by violence. Obviously.
But I don't automatically assume that the women I see here with covered heads are being forced to do it. I see it as their choice. But perhaps I'm wrong. I'd like to see some data on it if it exists.
We cannot look into a billion souls and find this truth, so we'll never have the data you request
What we DO know is that women in Iran will risk beatings, torture and even death in their protest against forced Islamic clothing - like the hijab, burka, niqab - so we therefore know that some women really do detest these garments. We also have the plentiful evidence from Afghanistan from women who fled the Taliban regime precisely because of the way they treat women, including the burqa
That should be enough to faintly concern you, if only for a moment, when you see a woman in these clothes
You don't need to ask a billion. A Yougov sample of say 1,000 would be sufficient.
Now this has arisen as a topic I'm tempted to ask a small sample.
Thinking more about it, I suspect in this country, without morality police, there may be peer pressure from other women among their friends and family. I've been told by several women that women mainly dress to impress other women. But what do I know!
I with some very intelligent and aware women who wear variations on Muslim dress (face coverings other than surgical masks are not worn). Any of them could change out of it at work if they chose, as there are changing facilities, but they do not. This includes women with no family in the city.
So it seems to me that it is very often a free choice, even if one that I don't understand.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
If you are going to take the classic liberalism approach, the question is simply the extent to which the woman 'wants' to walk down the street in a burka vs the extent to which she is forced to, either actively (do it or physical harm will come) or through the particular expectations of her section of society. Which I think you would at least conclude is not clear cut in favour of 'she wants to do it'.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone. Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
Well quite. Indeed the incoherence in the position of @OnlyLivingBoy on this issue is made overt in his comment here. He says he doesn't care what anyone wears and the law should allow people to "walk down the street naked" if they so desire
But that's not true. The law does not allow people to parade around naked, coz Joe Citizen doesn't want his five year old kids to see grown naked men with erections in Sainsburys on a Saturday afternoon
So liberal western countries do legislate around clothing, or lack of; and a ban on the burqa would, therefore, not be some outrageous and unprecedented illiberalism
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
I was just testing the nature of your objection to different kinds of headgear.
Is it because it's ugly? Is it because it's threatening?
I now see that your objection is because you think it is forced. No doubt it is in some cases, but I'd like to see the evidence of how many women are forced to wear the burqa and how many find it reassuring. I just don't know. Do you? You obviously feel strongly about it. I don't care one way or the other.
In Iran women are beaten, brutalised, jailed, tortured and sometimes killed because they refuse to wear "correct" Islamic clothing
You don't care one way or the other?
How about this teenage girl, who was beaten into a coma and died because of her "incorrect hijab"? Do you care one way ot the other about her?
"May I be sacrificed for your laughter... Ava Geravand has released a new video of #Armita_Geravand. Armita Geravand, a sixteen-year-old student, October 1st this year, fell into a coma after being beaten by the morality police of the Islamic Republic"
I do care deeply about that. I am horrified by the Iranian morality police and fully support the women.
Maybe we are at cross purposes.
I don't approve of the forced wearing of the burqa or anything else for that matter, particularly if it is forced by violence. Obviously.
But I don't automatically assume that the women I see here with covered heads are being forced to do it. I see it as their choice. But perhaps I'm wrong. I'd like to see some data on it if it exists.
EDIT. I must admit it jars a bit when I see a nun in a habit or a woman in a burqa but I put that down to my own biases and what I'm used to.
Personally I draw a huge distinction between garments that merely cover the hair, like the hijab, and garments that cover the face - burqa and niqab
Covering the entire face is inhuman, and feels fundamentally wrong: human faces are built to be incredibly expressive, with eyes, mouth, skin muscles - it's a vital part of proper, rich human communication, especially the giving of warmth and kindness via a smile or a laugh
Taking that away is basically evil. It is also harmful to children learning to speak and to deaf people trying to lip read
I'm afraid my automatic reaction when I see a niqab or a burqa is: No, that is not right
Aye, I was considering that distinction too. You could make many of the same arguments about hair coverings and question how voluntary it is, but emotionally it's hard to really feel it to the same extent. A hair covering doesn't cover the face, and doesn't feel weird or hostile - just a different form of dress. My daughters' headscarved Islamic friends don't feel separate from our society. There are no barriers to communication with them. But their burka'd* mothers do.
*To clarify; you could count the number of my daughters' Islamic friends whose mothers burka up on one hand; most do not.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
If you are going to take the classic liberalism approach, the question is simply the extent to which the woman 'wants' to walk down the street in a burka vs the extent to which she is forced to, either actively (do it or physical harm will come) or through the particular expectations of her section of society. Which I think you would at least conclude is not clear cut in favour of 'she wants to do it'.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone. Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
These are all good points. FWIW I actually greatly dislike seeing women covering their faces. Just as I greatly dislike people blowing their disgusting vape clouds in my face, or seeing people with tattoos or weird porn star makeup or men in red trousers. But I don't think it's my business to tell other people how to dress. From the relatively little (but not nothing) I know about why Muslim women wear what they do I think it is simply wrong to assume that there is compulsion involved in every case or even most cases. I am utterly against compulsion but that holds in both directions.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
Wriggle all you want. Your position is that you argue for women wearing the burka even though you are intelligent enough to realise that perhaps the majority of such women are forced to and furthermore the whole premise of women wearing the burka is one of subjugation.
But you are trying to say that I am telling women what to wear.
Leftism, or "classical liberalism" in a nutshell.
I like most people on PB but you are proving yourself to be a despicable misogynist all in the name of cultural relativism.
If the problem is people being compelled to wear something the solution isn't to compell them not to.
Don't be a dick. You know perfectly well that many (most) women would rather not wear a burka/niqab/etc.
@Leon has posted many links as supporting evidence but your own common sense realises this without actual reports of women being beaten in one or other Muslim country.
I am not compelling them to do anything other than not be compelled to do something.
Take a moment to think about what you are saying. And whether you would for example say it to any woman you know rather than to some anonymous types on the internet.
Has anyone else encountered unexpected anti-Semitism?
That poll cited by @williamglenn suggests that I am observing something real
It’s fairly common to encounter racism. Many people have no idea that you don’t have to shave your head, get badly spelt tattoos, drink 15 cans of cheap beer and join the EDL to be a racist.
If I had a pound for those occasions when the wine and cocaine was in at a posh event. And someone went “don’t get me wrong, but…”
When I asked my Ghanaian ex why she preferred talking to some unreconstructed South Africans at a do we went to - she kinda sighed and said “they are honest about their racism - half the other people in the room are like that, but just lie about it”
This is interesting, but again it is whataboutery
Of course racism is always with us, like poverty, hopefully one day we can abolish both
However I am specifically talking about anti-Semitism, and its sudden and overt re-appearance in society, often unabashed, and often from educated people - this to me is new and deeply perturbing
I don’t think it has just reappeared, suddenly, overly or otherwise.
It was there throughout Trump’s presidency.
It has been a problem for the Labour Party for some time.
It appears more salient to you right now because of your political views, particularly your Islamophobia as many but not all of those currently expressing antisemitic views are Muslims. It is also a bit more salient in reality simply because the situation in Gaza is so prominent in the news.
That’s not to diminish the problem, which is significant. But it’s naive of you to claim it has suddenly reappeared.
I shall pass over your tawdry ad hominens, out of politeness, and address the major point
You're simply wrong in this case. As I have now said several times, this friend of mine has NEVER displayed a hint of anti-Semitism before, yet suddenly there it was, last night, out of nowhere. So in this insance yes it "suddenly appeared"
And the polling of young people lends credence to the idea that it is resurgent
Gah, just catching up, hadn’t meant to go ad hominem, apologies. I can be a bit punchy on here.
Would you not describe yourself as an Islamophobe, though? I get it’s perjorative, but it’s healthy to lean into one’s failings.
I’m a flaming hypocrite, for example, and have some mildly fascist views about the expendability of babies.
Well for a start there is the salient point that phobia technically means an "extreme and irrational fear" and fears of more conservative forms of Islam are, unfortunately, completely rational:
But in common parlance Islamophobia = "racist dislike of Muslims" and I am absolutely not admitting to that. Some of my greatest travel highs have been in Islamic countries, and I have made good friends throiughout the Islamic world, especially in Egypt and Malaysia. At its best Islam can be a marvellous religion, egalitarian in nature and elegant in its art and liturgy
Sadly much modern Islam is not like this, So I'd classify mysef as "Islamo-wary". As Islam works its way through this present unpleasant lurch into fundamentalism - from the Taliban to Wahhabism, from ISIS to the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas - I think the west is right to be wary of importing more Islam. From Sweden to France we see where it ends. In Denmark they have just brought in Blasphemy Laws- why? Violent menace from the Islamic world, which will not tolerate ridicule
We are reversing the Enlightenment - a crucial part of which is the freedom to mock religion - because we are scared of medieval religionists - ie Islam. It is deeply depressing. And yes it makes me Islamo-wary
Fair enough. I think I’d agree with your description of the problem, but not sure the solution of avoiding importing Islam gets us anywhere towards preserving the Enlightenment.
It feels like the same sentiment that holds UK Jews responsible for Netanyahu’s horrors that so (rightly) exercises you on here.
How would you react if someone described themselves as Jew-wary? Doesn’t sound great, does it?
It doesn't sound great but then it's not the exact equivalent is it? You are referring to people I am referring to a religion
So the equivalent is "Judaism-wary" or "Zionism-wary", which both sound perfectly permissible to me
How about "flint-knapper-wary"?
He fitted a plug last night. He was very pleased. He can turn it on and off from his phone. Apparently a little light goes on. He's fair excited, so he is.
Well quite. Indeed the incoherence in the position of @OnlyLivingBoy on this issue is made overt in his comment here. He says he doesn't care what anyone wears and the law should allow people to "walk down the street naked" if they so desire
But that's not true. The law does not allow people to parade around naked, coz Joe Citizen doesn't want his five year old kids to see grown naked men with erections in Sainsburys on a Saturday afternoon
So liberal western countries do legislate around clothing, or lack of; and a ban on the burqa would, therefore, not be some outrageous and unprecedented illiberalism
"It is the will of Allah (SWT) that we are all born stark, raving naked!" -Grand Ayatollah Nudistani.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
If you are going to take the classic liberalism approach, the question is simply the extent to which the woman 'wants' to walk down the street in a burka vs the extent to which she is forced to, either actively (do it or physical harm will come) or through the particular expectations of her section of society. Which I think you would at least conclude is not clear cut in favour of 'she wants to do it'.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone. Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
Well quite. Indeed the incoherence in the position of @OnlyLivingBoy on this issue is made overt in his comment here. He says he doesn't care what anyone wears and the law should allow people to "walk down the street naked" if they so desire
But that's not true. The law does not allow people to parade around naked, coz Joe Citizen doesn't want his five year old kids to see grown naked men with erections in Sainsburys on a Saturday afternoon
So liberal western countries do legislate around clothing, or lack of; and a ban on the burqa would, therefore, not be some outrageous and unprecedented illiberalism
Where's the incoherence in my position? I said that as far as I'm concerned people should be able to wear whatever they want. Not that the law currently allows that. I would also legalise drugs like ecstacy but I am well aware that they are currently illegal. I'm just an old fashioned liberal, I think people should get out of other people's business.
This has been a useful discussion, particularly the distinction between garments that merely cover the hair, like the hijab, and garments that cover the face - burqa and niqab. Lots of good thoughtful points made all round.
Now I'm off to binge on the last episodes of The Crown.
Has anyone else encountered unexpected anti-Semitism?
That poll cited by @williamglenn suggests that I am observing something real
It’s fairly common to encounter racism. Many people have no idea that you don’t have to shave your head, get badly spelt tattoos, drink 15 cans of cheap beer and join the EDL to be a racist.
If I had a pound for those occasions when the wine and cocaine was in at a posh event. And someone went “don’t get me wrong, but…”
When I asked my Ghanaian ex why she preferred talking to some unreconstructed South Africans at a do we went to - she kinda sighed and said “they are honest about their racism - half the other people in the room are like that, but just lie about it”
This is interesting, but again it is whataboutery
Of course racism is always with us, like poverty, hopefully one day we can abolish both
However I am specifically talking about anti-Semitism, and its sudden and overt re-appearance in society, often unabashed, and often from educated people - this to me is new and deeply perturbing
I don’t think it has just reappeared, suddenly, overly or otherwise.
It was there throughout Trump’s presidency.
It has been a problem for the Labour Party for some time.
It appears more salient to you right now because of your political views, particularly your Islamophobia as many but not all of those currently expressing antisemitic views are Muslims. It is also a bit more salient in reality simply because the situation in Gaza is so prominent in the news.
That’s not to diminish the problem, which is significant. But it’s naive of you to claim it has suddenly reappeared.
I shall pass over your tawdry ad hominens, out of politeness, and address the major point
You're simply wrong in this case. As I have now said several times, this friend of mine has NEVER displayed a hint of anti-Semitism before, yet suddenly there it was, last night, out of nowhere. So in this insance yes it "suddenly appeared"
And the polling of young people lends credence to the idea that it is resurgent
Gah, just catching up, hadn’t meant to go ad hominem, apologies. I can be a bit punchy on here.
Would you not describe yourself as an Islamophobe, though? I get it’s perjorative, but it’s healthy to lean into one’s failings.
I’m a flaming hypocrite, for example, and have some mildly fascist views about the expendability of babies.
Well for a start there is the salient point that phobia technically means an "extreme and irrational fear" and fears of more conservative forms of Islam are, unfortunately, completely rational:
But in common parlance Islamophobia = "racist dislike of Muslims" and I am absolutely not admitting to that. Some of my greatest travel highs have been in Islamic countries, and I have made good friends throiughout the Islamic world, especially in Egypt and Malaysia. At its best Islam can be a marvellous religion, egalitarian in nature and elegant in its art and liturgy
Sadly much modern Islam is not like this, So I'd classify mysef as "Islamo-wary". As Islam works its way through this present unpleasant lurch into fundamentalism - from the Taliban to Wahhabism, from ISIS to the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas - I think the west is right to be wary of importing more Islam. From Sweden to France we see where it ends. In Denmark they have just brought in Blasphemy Laws- why? Violent menace from the Islamic world, which will not tolerate ridicule
We are reversing the Enlightenment - a crucial part of which is the freedom to mock religion - because we are scared of medieval religionists - ie Islam. It is deeply depressing. And yes it makes me Islamo-wary
Fair enough. I think I’d agree with your description of the problem, but not sure the solution of avoiding importing Islam gets us anywhere towards preserving the Enlightenment.
It feels like the same sentiment that holds UK Jews responsible for Netanyahu’s horrors that so (rightly) exercises you on here.
How would you react if someone described themselves as Jew-wary? Doesn’t sound great, does it?
It doesn't sound great but then it's not the exact equivalent is it? You are referring to people I am referring to a religion
So the equivalent is "Judaism-wary" or "Zionism-wary", which both sound perfectly permissible to me
How about "flint-knapper-wary"?
He fitted a plug last night. He was very pleased. He can turn it on and off from his phone. Apparently a little light goes on. He's fair excited, so he is.
I've just finished installing all the smart plugs! And yes it is exciting. I can now order Google to turn on my fan
The pleasure I derive from it is ridiculous, i hope it never goes away
HOWEVER I haven't worked out how to get Alexa to turn on my sidelamps. AAAARG
My idiot cat (one of my idiot cats) has just fallen off the roof. Excited by the prospect of an unexpolored egress, she leapt for the unusually open velux window, and soon found a slate roof offers claws little purchase. After a long and panicked descent, the evenual fall from the edge of the roof to the ground was only about 9 feet. Eminently manageable for even the clumsiest cat. So she is fine and has come back in the front door pretending all is fine. But inasmuch as a cat can look embarassed, she is looking rather embarassed by the whole escapade.
My cat does like to wander along the outside window sills and has occasionally fallen off. It doesn't seem to do him any harm.
Indeed I once experimented with dropping my cat to see if it really is true that they always land on their feet, and I can confirm that fact. I think it is via the tail rotating in the opposite direction to the trunk, and spinning while conserving angular momentum. I haven't got access to a Manx cat so cannot see if they can manage it.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
Wriggle all you want. Your position is that you argue for women wearing the burka even though you are intelligent enough to realise that perhaps the majority of such women are forced to and furthermore the whole premise of women wearing the burka is one of subjugation.
But you are trying to say that I am telling women what to wear.
Leftism, or "classical liberalism" in a nutshell.
I like most people on PB but you are proving yourself to be a despicable misogynist all in the name of cultural relativism.
If the problem is people being compelled to wear something the solution isn't to compell them not to.
Don't be a dick. You know perfectly well that many (most) women would rather not wear a burka/niqab/etc.
@Leon has posted many links as supporting evidence but your own common sense realises this without actual reports of women being beaten in one or other Muslim country.
I am not compelling them to do anything other than not be compelled to do something.
Take a moment to think about what you are saying. And whether you would for example say it to any woman you know rather than to some anonymous types on the internet.
I am against all forms of compulsion so of course I am horrified and disgusted by countries that enforce any kind of Islamic dress code. Equally I would be horrified and disgusted if we enforced a non-Islamic dress code here. I have frequently expressed this opinion in front of women, eg my wife who has the same opinion and holds it more forcefully than I do, and indeed knows a lot more Muslim women than I do and so is far better informed on the subject than either of us.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
If you are going to take the classic liberalism approach, the question is simply the extent to which the woman 'wants' to walk down the street in a burka vs the extent to which she is forced to, either actively (do it or physical harm will come) or through the particular expectations of her section of society. Which I think you would at least conclude is not clear cut in favour of 'she wants to do it'.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone. Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
These are all good points. FWIW I actually greatly dislike seeing women covering their faces. Just as I greatly dislike people blowing their disgusting vape clouds in my face, or seeing people with tattoos or weird porn star makeup or men in red trousers. But I don't think it's my business to tell other people how to dress. From the relatively little (but not nothing) I know about why Muslim women wear what they do I think it is simply wrong to assume that there is compulsion involved in every case or even most cases. I am utterly against compulsion but that holds in both directions.
Off topic, but possibly useful to some of you: Dr. Leanna Wen describes three inexpensive, and simple ways to improve your physical and mental health, hearing aids for those who need them, exercise (and even a moderate amount helps), and more social contacts.
For example: "A recent review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that people who followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for 150 minutes a week of moderate- or high-intensity activity reduced their risk of heart disease and stroke by 27 percent. It also reduced their risk of cancer by 12 percent and premature death by 31 percent. . . . Many other studies on exercise have found a plethora of other health benefits, such as decreased dementia risk and improved mental well-being. There is a dose-response relationship, meaning that increased exercise results in better health outcomes." (Links omitted.) source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/12/health-lifestyle-changes-hearing-aids-exercise-loneliness/
(I haven't, so far as I know, persuaded NickP that one of the best things he could do for his community is make if easier for people to exercise, especially in the winter, but I think there is much scientific evidence for that simple idea.)
Hearing aids are an interesting one.I have on occasion had problems with earwax, and while it is medically trivial, losing your hearing, even in one ear, is really miserable.
Social contact and exercise is a massive and easy feelgood boost. But even for those of us without barriers to these things it can be hard to get into the habit. How can we get people out of the house and walking to somewhere where they will get some quality social interaction? I'd like to imagine society just worked like that - it used to; that's what people would do; that's what pubs and social clubs and societies were for. But look at us - we're the internet at its best; yet we'd still be better off if we were having this chat in the pub, having walked 20 minutes to get there. Alas, Jim, I suspect it would be more than a 20 minute stroll for you to get to my local.
Off topic, but possibly useful to some of you: Dr. Leanna Wen describes three inexpensive, and simple ways to improve your physical and mental health, hearing aids for those who need them, exercise (and even a moderate amount helps), and more social contacts.
For example: "A recent review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that people who followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for 150 minutes a week of moderate- or high-intensity activity reduced their risk of heart disease and stroke by 27 percent. It also reduced their risk of cancer by 12 percent and premature death by 31 percent. . . . Many other studies on exercise have found a plethora of other health benefits, such as decreased dementia risk and improved mental well-being. There is a dose-response relationship, meaning that increased exercise results in better health outcomes." (Links omitted.) source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/12/health-lifestyle-changes-hearing-aids-exercise-loneliness/
(I haven't, so far as I know, persuaded NickP that one of the best things he could do for his community is make if easier for people to exercise, especially in the winter, but I think there is much scientific evidence for that simple idea.)
Hearing aids are an interesting one.I have on occasion had problems with earwax, and while it is medically trivial, losing your hearing, even in one ear, is really miserable.
Social contact and exercise is a massive and easy feelgood boost. But even for those of us without barriers to these things it can be hard to get into the habit. How can we get people out of the house and walking to somewhere where they will get some quality social interaction? I'd like to imagine society just worked like that - it used to; that's what people would do; that's what pubs and social clubs and societies were for. But look at us - we're the internet at its best; yet we'd still be better off if we were having this chat in the pub, having walked 20 minutes to get there. Alas, Jim, I suspect it would be more than a 20 minute stroll for you to get to my local.
Humans are intrinsically lazy, like most animals.
We all know that a walk and cooking nutritious food is good for our health, as is social contact. However, much of the time we can't be arsed, so fit smart plugs even in a one bedroom flat.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
Wriggle all you want. Your position is that you argue for women wearing the burka even though you are intelligent enough to realise that perhaps the majority of such women are forced to and furthermore the whole premise of women wearing the burka is one of subjugation.
But you are trying to say that I am telling women what to wear.
Leftism, or "classical liberalism" in a nutshell.
I like most people on PB but you are proving yourself to be a despicable misogynist all in the name of cultural relativism.
If the problem is people being compelled to wear something the solution isn't to compell them not to.
Don't be a dick. You know perfectly well that many (most) women would rather not wear a burka/niqab/etc.
@Leon has posted many links as supporting evidence but your own common sense realises this without actual reports of women being beaten in one or other Muslim country.
I am not compelling them to do anything other than not be compelled to do something.
Take a moment to think about what you are saying. And whether you would for example say it to any woman you know rather than to some anonymous types on the internet.
I am against all forms of compulsion so of course I am horrified and disgusted by countries that enforce any kind of Islamic dress code. Equally I would be horrified and disgusted if we enforced a non-Islamic dress code here. I have frequently expressed this opinion in front of women, eg my wife who has the same opinion and holds it more forcefully than I do, and indeed knows a lot more Muslim women than I do and so is far better informed on the subject than either of us.
Good to hear. But when you see a typical family unit in the UK, man shorts and t-shirt, children in children clothes and woman in burka I don't think it is the country that is enforcing the dress code.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
If you are going to take the classic liberalism approach, the question is simply the extent to which the woman 'wants' to walk down the street in a burka vs the extent to which she is forced to, either actively (do it or physical harm will come) or through the particular expectations of her section of society. Which I think you would at least conclude is not clear cut in favour of 'she wants to do it'.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone. Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
These are all good points. FWIW I actually greatly dislike seeing women covering their faces. Just as I greatly dislike people blowing their disgusting vape clouds in my face, or seeing people with tattoos or weird porn star makeup or men in red trousers. But I don't think it's my business to tell other people how to dress. From the relatively little (but not nothing) I know about why Muslim women wear what they do I think it is simply wrong to assume that there is compulsion involved in every case or even most cases. I am utterly against compulsion but that holds in both directions.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
No, an absolute equivalence, despite you correctly citing at the very least an acquiescence to anti-Semitism in the Corbyn column.
Johnson was amoral, weak and self-interested. Not talents you look for in a leader
Someone who - at the best possible interpretation- tolerates genocidal hatred for another race is evil
Those are not equivalent faults
I wrote a few days ago that there are two very different types of bigotry. The bigotry of superiority: dismissive, casual, mocking, whose violence is chronic; and the bigotry of resentment: hateful, angry, usually bubbling under the surface but whose violence can be acute and explosive.
Most genocides are born of the second type. But not exclusively: the genocides of the Australian aborigines and those practised by the conquistadors were of the former sort.
There was no "genocide of the Australian aborigines"
Genocide means "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"
That never happened in Australia. The British Empire had no desire to annihilate a population which represented no threat whatsoever. What happened was that aboriginal culture and society was absolutely shattered by contact with the "vastly superior" technology and entirely alien mores of white European invaders - aboriginal cultural self confidence went into freefall and has never really recovered. In sheer numbers, the population decline of Australian aborigines was down to disease - eg smallpox. It's worth noting that there are now more aboriginal Australians than ever
The one exception to this is the horror of Tasmania, but even then I'm not sure it strictly qualifies as a "genocide"
I shall watch “The Australian Wars” on iplayer as recommended above and let you know.
Whatever it was called, it was effective, with the indigenous population contacting to less than a tenth of its pre-colonial size. Obviously pandemic disease - as with the Americas - was part of the story, but the available evidence is hardly solid; we have no accurate numbers, for example, of the pre colonial population.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
On the burka, yes, there are complications, but I think probably more arguments that burkas are bad than not. I buy that some women choose to wear the burka because they believe that's what God wants, but probably many would rather not. And those women who think that's what God (or society) wants have been sold a crap God (or society).
But I will also say that subjectively I do not like the burka, for exactly the same reasons that I do not like face masks or that fella in the picture above. Face coverings are hostile. They dehumanise. They cut out most of how we communicate. And I also do not like them for cultural reasons. They represent a failure to integrate. They are a small fuck-you to the host culture; they embody the failure of the melting pot. They signify a society which does not operate by the same norms. And while it is unfashionable to admit it, yes, I find that threatening. Not least because this not-integrating culture is demonstrably one which doesn't like us very much, holds us in contempt and periodically tries to blow us up.
And finally, as far as my understanding goes, which is weak in the extreme, there is nothing in Islamic theology which forces womenfolk into burkas.
There is a lot in what you say about obstructing communication. I don't like face masks for that reason, though very occasionally (Covid positive) I choose to wear one. And I don't like hoodies. I assume they are avoiding CCTV for some nefarious reason.
First blessing for a same sex couple in the Church of England took place today at St John the Baptist Church in Felixstowe, Suffolk after approval from the House of Bishops and Synod https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67743298
Not bad, only took 2000 years.
Another two millennia before the poor chaps are actually allowed to marry. Despite law of the land and all that, especially for a State Church.
The established Lutheran church of Iceland also blesses rather than marries homosexual couples.
I think a blessing is fine, they can get married in civil law but holy matrimony for most Christians and Muslims is reserved for heterosexuals (ideally in lifelong unions)
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
If you are going to take the classic liberalism approach, the question is simply the extent to which the woman 'wants' to walk down the street in a burka vs the extent to which she is forced to, either actively (do it or physical harm will come) or through the particular expectations of her section of society. Which I think you would at least conclude is not clear cut in favour of 'she wants to do it'.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone. Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
These are all good points. FWIW I actually greatly dislike seeing women covering their faces. Just as I greatly dislike people blowing their disgusting vape clouds in my face, or seeing people with tattoos or weird porn star makeup or men in red trousers. But I don't think it's my business to tell other people how to dress. From the relatively little (but not nothing) I know about why Muslim women wear what they do I think it is simply wrong to assume that there is compulsion involved in every case or even most cases. I am utterly against compulsion but that holds in both directions.
First blessing for a same sex couple in the Church of England took place today at St John the Baptist Church in Felixstowe, Suffolk after approval from the House of Bishops and Synod https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67743298
Not bad, only took 2000 years.
500 years the Roman Catholic church was the national church until the Reformation and the Church of England didn't exist before Henry VIII and his Parliament created it other than a branch of Vatican control
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
No he was just being a racist prick. It's quite incredible to me that Johnson gets given a free pass on stuff like this. I guess it's some kind of hierarchy of racism shit.
So you think that women want to wear the burka. You see what complete idiocy your thinking leads you to.
In the name of something or other, let's call it woke for shorthand, you applaud the subjugation of women.
Really you ought to take a look at yourself.
I have utter contempt for any man who tries to control what women wear. You appear to be one of those men.
You prick. I have no idea how many women want to wear the burka vs how many are told to but one is too much and I'm betting that the number forced to is more than one.
But by all means go into battle for the right of women to be forced to wear the burka.
This is where leftism gets you.
I wouldn't say my view on this is a "leftist" one, it's just classical liberalism. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm other people. So if a woman wants to walk down the street in a burqa or a bikini, or for that matter stark naked, I don't consider it my business. In the name of stopping women being told what to wear by men, you have literally become a man telling women what to wear. If you can't see the idiocy of that position then you're even more drunk than I thought you were.
If you are going to take the classic liberalism approach, the question is simply the extent to which the woman 'wants' to walk down the street in a burka vs the extent to which she is forced to, either actively (do it or physical harm will come) or through the particular expectations of her section of society. Which I think you would at least conclude is not clear cut in favour of 'she wants to do it'.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone. Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
These are all good points. FWIW I actually greatly dislike seeing women covering their faces. Just as I greatly dislike people blowing their disgusting vape clouds in my face, or seeing people with tattoos or weird porn star makeup or men in red trousers. But I don't think it's my business to tell other people how to dress. From the relatively little (but not nothing) I know about why Muslim women wear what they do I think it is simply wrong to assume that there is compulsion involved in every case or even most cases. I am utterly against compulsion but that holds in both directions.
Off topic, but possibly useful to some of you: Dr. Leanna Wen describes three inexpensive, and simple ways to improve your physical and mental health, hearing aids for those who need them, exercise (and even a moderate amount helps), and more social contacts.
For example: "A recent review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that people who followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for 150 minutes a week of moderate- or high-intensity activity reduced their risk of heart disease and stroke by 27 percent. It also reduced their risk of cancer by 12 percent and premature death by 31 percent. . . . Many other studies on exercise have found a plethora of other health benefits, such as decreased dementia risk and improved mental well-being. There is a dose-response relationship, meaning that increased exercise results in better health outcomes." (Links omitted.) source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/12/health-lifestyle-changes-hearing-aids-exercise-loneliness/
(I haven't, so far as I know, persuaded NickP that one of the best things he could do for his community is make if easier for people to exercise, especially in the winter, but I think there is much scientific evidence for that simple idea.)
Hearing aids are an interesting one.I have on occasion had problems with earwax, and while it is medically trivial, losing your hearing, even in one ear, is really miserable.
Social contact and exercise is a massive and easy feelgood boost. But even for those of us without barriers to these things it can be hard to get into the habit. How can we get people out of the house and walking to somewhere where they will get some quality social interaction? I'd like to imagine society just worked like that - it used to; that's what people would do; that's what pubs and social clubs and societies were for. But look at us - we're the internet at its best; yet we'd still be better off if we were having this chat in the pub, having walked 20 minutes to get there. Alas, Jim, I suspect it would be more than a 20 minute stroll for you to get to my local.
Humans are intrinsically lazy, like most animals.
We all know that a walk and cooking nutritious food is good for our health, as is social contact. However, much of the time we can't be arsed, so fit smart plugs even in a one bedroom flat.
Mate, I have now fixed Alexa so that I can say "Alexa, turn on all the lamps" as I walk into my darkened living room
Bingo! The lights blaze
You don't understand how amazing this it. Feels like a bit of magic, I love it
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
On the burka, yes, there are complications, but I think probably more arguments that burkas are bad than not. I buy that some women choose to wear the burka because they believe that's what God wants, but probably many would rather not. And those women who think that's what God (or society) wants have been sold a crap God (or society).
But I will also say that subjectively I do not like the burka, for exactly the same reasons that I do not like face masks or that fella in the picture above. Face coverings are hostile. They dehumanise. They cut out most of how we communicate. And I also do not like them for cultural reasons. They represent a failure to integrate. They are a small fuck-you to the host culture; they embody the failure of the melting pot. They signify a society which does not operate by the same norms. And while it is unfashionable to admit it, yes, I find that threatening. Not least because this not-integrating culture is demonstrably one which doesn't like us very much, holds us in contempt and periodically tries to blow us up.
And finally, as far as my understanding goes, which is weak in the extreme, there is nothing in Islamic theology which forces womenfolk into burkas.
There is a lot in what you say about obstructing communication. I don't like face masks for that reason, though very occasionally (Covid positive) I choose to wear one. And I don't like hoodies. I assume they are avoiding CCTV for some nefarious reason.
I know nothing about Islamic theology.
Hoodies were invented by the wives of US construction workers to keep their husbands heads warm. It’s a truly straightforward and useful garment in dry chilly weather.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
On the burka, yes, there are complications, but I think probably more arguments that burkas are bad than not. I buy that some women choose to wear the burka because they believe that's what God wants, but probably many would rather not. And those women who think that's what God (or society) wants have been sold a crap God (or society).
But I will also say that subjectively I do not like the burka, for exactly the same reasons that I do not like face masks or that fella in the picture above. Face coverings are hostile. They dehumanise. They cut out most of how we communicate. And I also do not like them for cultural reasons. They represent a failure to integrate. They are a small fuck-you to the host culture; they embody the failure of the melting pot. They signify a society which does not operate by the same norms. And while it is unfashionable to admit it, yes, I find that threatening. Not least because this not-integrating culture is demonstrably one which doesn't like us very much, holds us in contempt and periodically tries to blow us up.
And finally, as far as my understanding goes, which is weak in the extreme, there is nothing in Islamic theology which forces womenfolk into burkas.
There is a lot in what you say about obstructing communication. I don't like face masks for that reason, though very occasionally (Covid positive) I choose to wear one. And I don't like hoodies. I assume they are avoiding CCTV for some nefarious reason.
I know nothing about Islamic theology.
Hoodies were invented by the wives of US construction workers to keep their husbands heads warm. It’s a truly straightforward and useful garment in dry chilly weather.
Yeah, I love hoodies. They are the most comforting thing
Off topic, but possibly useful to some of you: Dr. Leanna Wen describes three inexpensive, and simple ways to improve your physical and mental health, hearing aids for those who need them, exercise (and even a moderate amount helps), and more social contacts.
For example: "A recent review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that people who followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for 150 minutes a week of moderate- or high-intensity activity reduced their risk of heart disease and stroke by 27 percent. It also reduced their risk of cancer by 12 percent and premature death by 31 percent. . . . Many other studies on exercise have found a plethora of other health benefits, such as decreased dementia risk and improved mental well-being. There is a dose-response relationship, meaning that increased exercise results in better health outcomes." (Links omitted.) source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/12/health-lifestyle-changes-hearing-aids-exercise-loneliness/
(I haven't, so far as I know, persuaded NickP that one of the best things he could do for his community is make if easier for people to exercise, especially in the winter, but I think there is much scientific evidence for that simple idea.)
Hearing aids are an interesting one.I have on occasion had problems with earwax, and while it is medically trivial, losing your hearing, even in one ear, is really miserable.
Social contact and exercise is a massive and easy feelgood boost. But even for those of us without barriers to these things it can be hard to get into the habit. How can we get people out of the house and walking to somewhere where they will get some quality social interaction? I'd like to imagine society just worked like that - it used to; that's what people would do; that's what pubs and social clubs and societies were for. But look at us - we're the internet at its best; yet we'd still be better off if we were having this chat in the pub, having walked 20 minutes to get there. Alas, Jim, I suspect it would be more than a 20 minute stroll for you to get to my local.
Humans are intrinsically lazy, like most animals.
We all know that a walk and cooking nutritious food is good for our health, as is social contact. However, much of the time we can't be arsed, so fit smart plugs even in a one bedroom flat.
Mate, I have now fixed Alexa so that I can say "Alexa, turn on all the lamps" as I walk into my darkened living room
Bingo! The lights blaze
You don't understand how amazing this it. Feels like a bit of magic, I love it
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
No, an absolute equivalence, despite you correctly citing at the very least an acquiescence to anti-Semitism in the Corbyn column.
Johnson was amoral, weak and self-interested. Not talents you look for in a leader
Someone who - at the best possible interpretation- tolerates genocidal hatred for another race is evil
Those are not equivalent faults
I wrote a few days ago that there are two very different types of bigotry. The bigotry of superiority: dismissive, casual, mocking, whose violence is chronic; and the bigotry of resentment: hateful, angry, usually bubbling under the surface but whose violence can be acute and explosive.
Most genocides are born of the second type. But not exclusively: the genocides of the Australian aborigines and those practised by the conquistadors were of the former sort.
There was no "genocide of the Australian aborigines"
Genocide means "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"
That never happened in Australia. The British Empire had no desire to annihilate a population which represented no threat whatsoever. What happened was that aboriginal culture and society was absolutely shattered by contact with the "vastly superior" technology and entirely alien mores of white European invaders - aboriginal cultural self confidence went into freefall and has never really recovered. In sheer numbers, the population decline of Australian aborigines was down to disease - eg smallpox. It's worth noting that there are now more aboriginal Australians than ever
The one exception to this is the horror of Tasmania, but even then I'm not sure it strictly qualifies as a "genocide"
I shall watch “The Australian Wars” on iplayer as recommended above and let you know.
Whatever it was called, it was effective, with the indigenous population contacting to less than a tenth of its pre-colonial size. Obviously pandemic disease - as with the Americas - was part of the story, but the available evidence is hardly solid; we have no accurate numbers, for example, of the pre colonial population.
The Australian Wars is a bit of an eye opener, and does make me stop and think. It's pretty hard to deny the Australian genocide after watching it. Complicated though as much was done by Aboriginal frontier police. Much else by alcohol, drugs,TB and sugar, so quite similar to indigenous peoples in the USA, Canada etc.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
On the burka, yes, there are complications, but I think probably more arguments that burkas are bad than not. I buy that some women choose to wear the burka because they believe that's what God wants, but probably many would rather not. And those women who think that's what God (or society) wants have been sold a crap God (or society).
But I will also say that subjectively I do not like the burka, for exactly the same reasons that I do not like face masks or that fella in the picture above. Face coverings are hostile. They dehumanise. They cut out most of how we communicate. And I also do not like them for cultural reasons. They represent a failure to integrate. They are a small fuck-you to the host culture; they embody the failure of the melting pot. They signify a society which does not operate by the same norms. And while it is unfashionable to admit it, yes, I find that threatening. Not least because this not-integrating culture is demonstrably one which doesn't like us very much, holds us in contempt and periodically tries to blow us up.
And finally, as far as my understanding goes, which is weak in the extreme, there is nothing in Islamic theology which forces womenfolk into burkas.
There is a lot in what you say about obstructing communication. I don't like face masks for that reason, though very occasionally (Covid positive) I choose to wear one. And I don't like hoodies. I assume they are avoiding CCTV for some nefarious reason.
I know nothing about Islamic theology.
Hoodies were invented by the wives of US construction workers to keep their husbands heads warm. It’s a truly straightforward and useful garment in dry chilly weather.
Yeah, I love hoodies. They are the most comforting thing
The hoodie plus puffer gilet combo is inspired
I didn't really think hoodies for me before last winter. Then, looking for a souvenir of Lapland, I decided I wanted a hoodie which a) had the word 'Ruka' on it (the resort in which I was staying), b) had a reference to the exact latitude, as it was as far north as I had been, and c) had the word 'Suomi' on it. Improbably, I found one. It was also delightful to the touch. However, it was zip up. I thought having found something so specifc, to reject it on such a small technicality would be churlish. I then wore this hoody six days out of seven for the next three months. I had no idea it would be this good. As an added bonus, I can carry my glasses in one of its pockets. It also looks good: the bulk of the hood is forgiving for a man with a massive head. Since then I have aquired a further five hoodies and wear them pretty much on rotation. They are all brilliant. It has been the most surprising change in my sartorial habits in at least forty years. I love being able to put one on when I get up and leave the hood up until I have had a coffee and can emerge into the world. I rarely have the hood up otherwise - a woolly hat is usually preferable - but when it is four degrees and raining horizontally, a hoody hood is a great inner lining to your coat hood.
The downside is that most coats do not fit a hoody, but I have a large ski jacket and also a cagoul, both of which do the trick, depending on season.
Gilets never do it for me howevs. There is never an occasion in which my body needs to be warmer but my arms do not.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Are you in favour of this?
No.
How about this? Which do you prefer?
You are obviously a dickhead but please go for your life with the picture posts.
On the burka, yes, there are complications, but I think probably more arguments that burkas are bad than not. I buy that some women choose to wear the burka because they believe that's what God wants, but probably many would rather not. And those women who think that's what God (or society) wants have been sold a crap God (or society).
But I will also say that subjectively I do not like the burka, for exactly the same reasons that I do not like face masks or that fella in the picture above. Face coverings are hostile. They dehumanise. They cut out most of how we communicate. And I also do not like them for cultural reasons. They represent a failure to integrate. They are a small fuck-you to the host culture; they embody the failure of the melting pot. They signify a society which does not operate by the same norms. And while it is unfashionable to admit it, yes, I find that threatening. Not least because this not-integrating culture is demonstrably one which doesn't like us very much, holds us in contempt and periodically tries to blow us up.
And finally, as far as my understanding goes, which is weak in the extreme, there is nothing in Islamic theology which forces womenfolk into burkas.
There is a lot in what you say about obstructing communication. I don't like face masks for that reason, though very occasionally (Covid positive) I choose to wear one. And I don't like hoodies. I assume they are avoiding CCTV for some nefarious reason.
I know nothing about Islamic theology.
Hoodies were invented by the wives of US construction workers to keep their husbands heads warm. It’s a truly straightforward and useful garment in dry chilly weather.
Yeah, I love hoodies. They are the most comforting thing
The hoodie plus puffer gilet combo is inspired
I didn't really think hoodies for me before last winter. Then, looking for a souvenir of Lapland, I decided I wanted a hoodie which a) had the word 'Ruka' on it (the resort in which I was staying), b) had a reference to the exact latitude, as it was as far north as I had been, and c) had the word 'Suomi' on it. Improbably, I found one. It was also delightful to the touch. However, it was zip up. I thought having found something so specifc, to reject it on such a small technicality would be churlish. I then wore this hoody six days out of seven for the next three months. I had no idea it would be this good. As an added bonus, I can carry my glasses in one of its pockets. It also looks good: the bulk of the hood is forgiving for a man with a massive head. Since then I have aquired a further five hoodies and wear them pretty much on rotation. They are all brilliant. It has been the most surprising change in my sartorial habits in at least forty years. I love being able to put one on when I get up and leave the hood up until I have had a coffee and can emerge into the world.
The downside is that most coats do not fit a hoody, but I have a large ski jacket and also a cagoul, both of which do the trick, depending on season.
Gilets never do it for me howevs. There is never an occasion in which my body needs to be warmer but my arms do not.
Preach it, brother. Hoodies are fab
I also had a kind of hoodipiphany. I now have three Tommy Hilfiger hoodies and am contemplating a fourth. I love the consolation of knowing i can put up my hood and hide from the world, even as I look slightly sporty and youthful, in my own deluded mind
The key for a gilet plus hoodie is to wear a long sleeve base layer, like a long sleeved tee-shirt, then the hoodie, then the gilet over that, for mobility of your arms, and an extra layer that weighs near nothing
Gilets are also great in warm climates that can have slightly chilly evenings. you don't want to go and put on a full coat, you don't need the heat and chunkiness of a big jumper or hoodie
Slip on a puffer gilet. Sorted. And you can zip them right to the chin which feels manly
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
What’s false about the argument (which was journalism not an academic thesis) that women should have the freedom to choose what they want to wear? Or that there is something unedifying about the amount of overhead and waste in the world of international development?
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Women and indeed men should be allowed to wear whatever they want.
So you agree with Johnson.
So why the angst about the arguments he chose in respect of subjugation?
So now we have the situation on PB where all the right on lefties are passionately arguing for women to wear burkas.
You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so tragic
Nah, this "right on leftie" isn't.
I dislike the Niqab and Burkha, but blame the patriarchy rather than the victim of that patriarchy.
So does Johnson - he was building an argument for banning of the Burkha. One of the points he made was the enforced separation of women from society by the apparel which makes them look like a “letterbox”.
Sending a daughter to a nunnery against her will would be just as bad. Fortunately in the Uk that hasn’t happened for 500 years or so
Has anyone else encountered unexpected anti-Semitism?
That poll cited by @williamglenn suggests that I am observing something real
It’s fairly common to encounter racism. Many people have no idea that you don’t have to shave your head, get badly spelt tattoos, drink 15 cans of cheap beer and join the EDL to be a racist.
If I had a pound for those occasions when the wine and cocaine was in at a posh event. And someone went “don’t get me wrong, but…”
When I asked my Ghanaian ex why she preferred talking to some unreconstructed South Africans at a do we went to - she kinda sighed and said “they are honest about their racism - half the other people in the room are like that, but just lie about it”
This is interesting, but again it is whataboutery
Of course racism is always with us, like poverty, hopefully one day we can abolish both
However I am specifically talking about anti-Semitism, and its sudden and overt re-appearance in society, often unabashed, and often from educated people - this to me is new and deeply perturbing
I don’t think it has just reappeared, suddenly, overly or otherwise.
It was there throughout Trump’s presidency.
It has been a problem for the Labour Party for some time.
It appears more salient to you right now because of your political views, particularly your Islamophobia as many but not all of those currently expressing antisemitic views are Muslims. It is also a bit more salient in reality simply because the situation in Gaza is so prominent in the news.
That’s not to diminish the problem, which is significant. But it’s naive of you to claim it has suddenly reappeared.
I shall pass over your tawdry ad hominens, out of politeness, and address the major point
You're simply wrong in this case. As I have now said several times, this friend of mine has NEVER displayed a hint of anti-Semitism before, yet suddenly there it was, last night, out of nowhere. So in this insance yes it "suddenly appeared"
And the polling of young people lends credence to the idea that it is resurgent
Gah, just catching up, hadn’t meant to go ad hominem, apologies. I can be a bit punchy on here.
Would you not describe yourself as an Islamophobe, though? I get it’s perjorative, but it’s healthy to lean into one’s failings.
I’m a flaming hypocrite, for example, and have some mildly fascist views about the expendability of babies.
Well for a start there is the salient point that phobia technically means an "extreme and irrational fear" and fears of more conservative forms of Islam are, unfortunately, completely rational:
But in common parlance Islamophobia = "racist dislike of Muslims" and I am absolutely not admitting to that. Some of my greatest travel highs have been in Islamic countries, and I have made good friends throiughout the Islamic world, especially in Egypt and Malaysia. At its best Islam can be a marvellous religion, egalitarian in nature and elegant in its art and liturgy
Sadly much modern Islam is not like this, So I'd classify mysef as "Islamo-wary". As Islam works its way through this present unpleasant lurch into fundamentalism - from the Taliban to Wahhabism, from ISIS to the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas - I think the west is right to be wary of importing more Islam. From Sweden to France we see where it ends. In Denmark they have just brought in Blasphemy Laws- why? Violent menace from the Islamic world, which will not tolerate ridicule
We are reversing the Enlightenment - a crucial part of which is the freedom to mock religion - because we are scared of medieval religionists - ie Islam. It is deeply depressing. And yes it makes me Islamo-wary
Fair enough. I think I’d agree with your description of the problem, but not sure the solution of avoiding importing Islam gets us anywhere towards preserving the Enlightenment.
It feels like the same sentiment that holds UK Jews responsible for Netanyahu’s horrors that so (rightly) exercises you on here.
How would you react if someone described themselves as Jew-wary? Doesn’t sound great, does it?
It doesn't sound great but then it's not the exact equivalent is it? You are referring to people I am referring to a religion
So the equivalent is "Judaism-wary" or "Zionism-wary", which both sound perfectly permissible to me
How about "flint-knapper-wary"?
He fitted a plug last night. He was very pleased. He can turn it on and off from his phone. Apparently a little light goes on. He's fair excited, so he is.
I've just finished installing all the smart plugs! And yes it is exciting. I can now order Google to turn on my fan
The pleasure I derive from it is ridiculous, i hope it never goes away
HOWEVER I haven't worked out how to get Alexa to turn on my sidelamps. AAAARG
I will keep you posted
So Google know knows when you are home, what your tolerance for heat/stuffiness is and can make inferences about your consumption of cooling beverages
So now we have the situation on PB where all the right on lefties are passionately arguing for women to wear burkas.
You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so tragic
Nah, this "right on leftie" isn't.
I dislike the Niqab and Burkha, but blame the patriarchy rather than the victim of that patriarchy.
So does Johnson - he was building an argument for banning of the Burkha. One of the points he made was the enforced separation of women from society by the apparel which makes them look like a “letterbox”.
Sending a daughter to a nunnery against her will would be just as bad. Fortunately in the Uk that hasn’t happened for 500 years or so
It is perfectly possible to make that argument without being insulting, but Johnson did not. Therefore it reasonable to question his motives and language.
First blessing for a same sex couple in the Church of England took place today at St John the Baptist Church in Felixstowe, Suffolk after approval from the House of Bishops and Synod https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67743298
Not bad, only took 2000 years.
Another two millennia before the poor chaps are actually allowed to marry. Despite law of the land and all that, especially for a State Church.
The established Lutheran church of Iceland also blesses rather than marries homosexual couples.
I think a blessing is fine, they can get married in civil law but holy matrimony for most Christians and Muslims is reserved for heterosexuals (ideally in lifelong unions)
Wikipedia says the Church of Iceland has conducted same sex marriages since 2015. The CofE is way out of line with mainstream European Protestant churches on this.
I tend to agree with the view that there’s no real issue with hair covering. Face covering, OTOH, is about subjugation, and cutting women off from the rest of society.
Yes he's a good writer but also a human being so I've no doubt he'd turn down a knighthood now honours have been tarnished like so much else. Which is really the point of his article. Riding by train through these blue wall areas trashed by this Tory government and Brexit......
I arrived at Athens Airport on Friday and waited in a passport queue for an hour while those with EU passports floated through. The time stamping our passports took so long and with only one person on the desk it seemed deliberate. It occurred to maybe it wasn't Brexit perhaps it was the marbles...
Athens is a fantastic City. Full of life and history. One trip to the Acropolis museum and it's obvious why they want the stones back. Their conservation and recreations are spectacular. The museums are full of very young schoolchildren listening with rapt attention to their guides and teachers. It's why their history is in their blood. It feels more than a continent away from Jenrick and Rwanda and the grizzly government John Harris talks about. If we ever go back we have to go the whole way. Schengen the Euro the lot.
My idiot cat (one of my idiot cats) has just fallen off the roof. Excited by the prospect of an unexpolored egress, she leapt for the unusually open velux window, and soon found a slate roof offers claws little purchase. After a long and panicked descent, the evenual fall from the edge of the roof to the ground was only about 9 feet. Eminently manageable for even the clumsiest cat. So she is fine and has come back in the front door pretending all is fine. But inasmuch as a cat can look embarassed, she is looking rather embarassed by the whole escapade.
My cat does like to wander along the outside window sills and has occasionally fallen off. It doesn't seem to do him any harm.
The secret to surviving a fall is to be relaxed when you land. Babies have fallen from some surprisingly high balconies, and survived. Once we grow up, we instinctively brace for a fall, and that leads to everything getting broken.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Women and indeed men should be allowed to wear whatever they want.
So you agree with Johnson.
So why the angst about the arguments he chose in respect of subjugation?
Because along the way he chose to throw in some insulting and demeaning language for the lolz. Just imagine if Corbyn had ridiculed orthodox Jews for their choice of clothing or hair and tell me you'd have been fine with that.
So now we have the situation on PB where all the right on lefties are passionately arguing for women to wear burkas.
You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so tragic
Nah, this "right on leftie" isn't.
I dislike the Niqab and Burkha, but blame the patriarchy rather than the victim of that patriarchy.
So does Johnson - he was building an argument for banning of the Burkha. One of the points he made was the enforced separation of women from society by the apparel which makes them look like a “letterbox”.
Sending a daughter to a nunnery against her will would be just as bad. Fortunately in the Uk that hasn’t happened for 500 years or so
It is perfectly possible to make that argument without being insulting, but Johnson did not. Therefore it reasonable to question his motives and language.
His motives were clear: he was looking for amusing, mildly offensive wording to rile people up. He was a journalist; this was his style.
But people who hate Johnson were hating Johnson rather than engaging with the argument.
So now we have the situation on PB where all the right on lefties are passionately arguing for women to wear burkas.
You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so tragic
Nah, this "right on leftie" isn't.
I dislike the Niqab and Burkha, but blame the patriarchy rather than the victim of that patriarchy.
So does Johnson - he was building an argument for banning of the Burkha. One of the points he made was the enforced separation of women from society by the apparel which makes them look like a “letterbox”.
Sending a daughter to a nunnery against her will would be just as bad. Fortunately in the Uk that hasn’t happened for 500 years or so
It is perfectly possible to make that argument without being insulting, but Johnson did not. Therefore it reasonable to question his motives and language.
His motives were clear: he was looking for amusing, mildly offensive wording to rile people up. He was a journalist; this was his style.
But people who hate Johnson were hating Johnson rather than engaging with the argument.
It's a pattern of behaviour with Johnson, using racist, homophobic and demeaning language to get attention and to signal to various bigots that he is on their side. That some people don't consider this a problem is a sad reflection on them.
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
They are not equivalent
Johnson was a bad PM who was unsuited for the role
Corbyn, by virtue of his antisemitism, would have shamed Britain if he had been elected
Boris Johnson said Muslim women looked like letterboxes and referred to piccaninies but obviously that's totally fine.
He was arguing for the rights of Muslim women not to wear the burqa
And he said that the international NGO canal tended to view locals like colonialists viewed the “natives” in their day
If you could look past the colourful language to comprehend the argument we might make progress
The use of the "colourful language" is deliberate. It is the language of a dog whistle. It says something specific to a particular audience under the cover of a faux academic thesis.
Colourful language is irrelevant. He was railing against the wearing of burkas by women.
Something the lefties (and centrists) on here seem to be championing.
Are you in favour of women wearing burkas?
Women and indeed men should be allowed to wear whatever they want.
So you agree with Johnson.
So why the angst about the arguments he chose in respect of subjugation?
Because along the way he chose to throw in some insulting and demeaning language for the lolz. Just imagine if Corbyn had ridiculed orthodox Jews for their choice of clothing or hair and tell me you'd have been fine with that.
That’s exactly the point.
He wasn’t ridiculing them. He was sympathising,
Essentially he said “it’s disgraceful that they are forced to wear this clothing… it cuts them off from society..: they look like a letter box”
So now we have the situation on PB where all the right on lefties are passionately arguing for women to wear burkas.
You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so tragic
Nah, this "right on leftie" isn't.
I dislike the Niqab and Burkha, but blame the patriarchy rather than the victim of that patriarchy.
So does Johnson - he was building an argument for banning of the Burkha. One of the points he made was the enforced separation of women from society by the apparel which makes them look like a “letterbox”.
Sending a daughter to a nunnery against her will would be just as bad. Fortunately in the Uk that hasn’t happened for 500 years or so
It is perfectly possible to make that argument without being insulting, but Johnson did not. Therefore it reasonable to question his motives and language.
His motives were clear: he was looking for amusing, mildly offensive wording to rile people up. He was a journalist; this was his style.
But people who hate Johnson were hating Johnson rather than engaging with the argument.
Using offensive language against the victims of patriarchy damaged his argument rather than enhanced it.
Johnson always caters to his audience by telling them what they want to hear. In this case that offensive language is fine.
So now we have the situation on PB where all the right on lefties are passionately arguing for women to wear burkas.
You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so tragic
Nah, this "right on leftie" isn't.
I dislike the Niqab and Burkha, but blame the patriarchy rather than the victim of that patriarchy.
So does Johnson - he was building an argument for banning of the Burkha. One of the points he made was the enforced separation of women from society by the apparel which makes them look like a “letterbox”.
Sending a daughter to a nunnery against her will would be just as bad. Fortunately in the Uk that hasn’t happened for 500 years or so
It is perfectly possible to make that argument without being insulting, but Johnson did not. Therefore it reasonable to question his motives and language.
His motives were clear: he was looking for amusing, mildly offensive wording to rile people up. He was a journalist; this was his style.
But people who hate Johnson were hating Johnson rather than engaging with the argument.
It's a pattern of behaviour with Johnson, using racist, homophobic and demeaning language to get attention and to signal to various bigots that he is on their side. That some people don't consider this a problem is a sad reflection on them.
You can’t win the argument so go for ad hominem attacks?
First blessing for a same sex couple in the Church of England took place today at St John the Baptist Church in Felixstowe, Suffolk after approval from the House of Bishops and Synod https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67743298
Not bad, only took 2000 years.
Another two millennia before the poor chaps are actually allowed to marry. Despite law of the land and all that, especially for a State Church.
The established Lutheran church of Iceland also blesses rather than marries homosexual couples.
I think a blessing is fine, they can get married in civil law but holy matrimony for most Christians and Muslims is reserved for heterosexuals (ideally in lifelong unions)
Wikipedia says the Church of Iceland has conducted same sex marriages since 2015. The CofE is way out of line with mainstream European Protestant churches on this.
Wrong. It says blessings of same sex marriages are allowed in the Church of Iceland not actual full marriages. Some churches in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany offer only blessings not marriages too.
Most Protestant Baptist and Pentecostal churches offer neither blessings nor marriages, same as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches don't either
So now we have the situation on PB where all the right on lefties are passionately arguing for women to wear burkas.
You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so tragic
Nah, this "right on leftie" isn't.
I dislike the Niqab and Burkha, but blame the patriarchy rather than the victim of that patriarchy.
So does Johnson - he was building an argument for banning of the Burkha. One of the points he made was the enforced separation of women from society by the apparel which makes them look like a “letterbox”.
Sending a daughter to a nunnery against her will would be just as bad. Fortunately in the Uk that hasn’t happened for 500 years or so
It is perfectly possible to make that argument without being insulting, but Johnson did not. Therefore it reasonable to question his motives and language.
His motives were clear: he was looking for amusing, mildly offensive wording to rile people up. He was a journalist; this was his style.
But people who hate Johnson were hating Johnson rather than engaging with the argument.
It's a pattern of behaviour with Johnson, using racist, homophobic and demeaning language to get attention and to signal to various bigots that he is on their side. That some people don't consider this a problem is a sad reflection on them.
You can’t win the argument so go for ad hominem attacks?
Lovely.
The whole argument is about Johnson's language. It is genuinely shocking to me that people are willing to defend it.
First blessing for a same sex couple in the Church of England took place today at St John the Baptist Church in Felixstowe, Suffolk after approval from the House of Bishops and Synod https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67743298
Not bad, only took 2000 years.
Another two millennia before the poor chaps are actually allowed to marry. Despite law of the land and all that, especially for a State Church.
The established Lutheran church of Iceland also blesses rather than marries homosexual couples.
I think a blessing is fine, they can get married in civil law but holy matrimony for most Christians and Muslims is reserved for heterosexuals (ideally in lifelong unions)
Wikipedia says the Church of Iceland has conducted same sex marriages since 2015. The CofE is way out of line with mainstream European Protestant churches on this.
Wrong. It says blessings of same sex marriages are allowed in the Church of Iceland not actual full marriages. Some churches in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany offer only blessings not marriages too.
Most Protestant Baptist and Pentecostal churches offer neither blessings nor marriages, same as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches don't either
'In October 2015, the Church of Iceland voted to allow same-sex couples to marry in its churches. A freedom of conscience clause which would have allowed priests to decide based on religious or personal grounds whether to perform a ceremony was voted down by the Church Assembly. The Bishop of Iceland, Agnes M. Sigurðardóttir, welcomed the move to perform same-sex marriages, saying "the church is primarily a channel of the love of Christ and celebrates life in all its diversity."'
Comments
But you are trying to say that I am telling women what to wear.
Leftism, or "classical liberalism" in a nutshell.
I like most people on PB but you are proving yourself to be a despicable misogynist all in the name of cultural relativism.
As it happens, I think there are more arguments than just 'do what you will' here. If you are to live in a society, there is a need to conform to some basic societal expectations; the boundary between individualism, eccentricity and antisociality is blurry, but we do recognise that there are some behaviours which we would rather people did not do, even if they don't specifically harm anyone.
Whether, and if so how, we enforce this is a different question which is even harder to answer!
I know nothing about Islamic theology.
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
Donald Trump on immigrants: "They're poisoning the blood of our country."
Jonathan Stanley, a Yale professor and author of a book on fascism, says that Trump's words echoed the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler, who warned against German blood being poisoned by Jews in his political treatise "Mein Kampf."
"He is now employing this vocabulary in repetition in rallies. Repeating dangerous speech increases its normalization and the practices it recommends. This is very concerning talk for the safety of immigrants in the U.S.," Staley said.
The burqa is much more problematic, as it in effect shuts the wearer off from engaging with parts of society and creates issues of security and safety, while it can be indicative of a hardline, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that simply is always going to be at odds with a liberal society. Even if some people want to don one, there's a strong argument that it should be treated like other harmful religious practices we draw a line on and say are not OK as are harmful. Though one is much better off making this argument coolly, with understanding, and rationally over Boris' vitriol-encouraging insult comedy.
For example: "A recent review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that people who followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for 150 minutes a week of moderate- or high-intensity activity reduced their risk of heart disease and stroke by 27 percent. It also reduced their risk of cancer by 12 percent and premature death by 31 percent.
. . .
Many other studies on exercise have found a plethora of other health benefits, such as decreased dementia risk and improved mental well-being. There is a dose-response relationship, meaning that increased exercise results in better health outcomes."
(Links omitted.)
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/12/health-lifestyle-changes-hearing-aids-exercise-loneliness/
(I haven't, so far as I know, persuaded NickP that one of the best things he could do for his community is make if easier for people to exercise, especially in the winter, but I think there is much scientific evidence for that simple idea.)
So it seems to me that it is very often a free choice, even if one that I don't understand.
But that's not true. The law does not allow people to parade around naked, coz Joe Citizen doesn't want his five year old kids to see grown naked men with erections in Sainsburys on a Saturday afternoon
So liberal western countries do legislate around clothing, or lack of; and a ban on the burqa would, therefore, not be some outrageous and unprecedented illiberalism
My daughters' headscarved Islamic friends don't feel separate from our society. There are no barriers to communication with them. But their burka'd* mothers do.
*To clarify; you could count the number of my daughters' Islamic friends whose mothers burka up on one hand; most do not.
@Leon has posted many links as supporting evidence but your own common sense realises this without actual reports of women being beaten in one or other Muslim country.
I am not compelling them to do anything other than not be compelled to do something.
Take a moment to think about what you are saying. And whether you would for example say it to any woman you know rather than to some anonymous types on the internet.
Now I'm off to binge on the last episodes of The Crown.
The pleasure I derive from it is ridiculous, i hope it never goes away
HOWEVER I haven't worked out how to get Alexa to turn on my sidelamps. AAAARG
I will keep you posted
Indeed I once experimented with dropping my cat to see if it really is true that they always land on their feet, and I can confirm that fact. I think it is via the tail rotating in the opposite direction to the trunk, and spinning while conserving angular momentum. I haven't got access to a Manx cat so cannot see if they can manage it.
Now I must be off.
Social contact and exercise is a massive and easy feelgood boost. But even for those of us without barriers to these things it can be hard to get into the habit. How can we get people out of the house and walking to somewhere where they will get some quality social interaction? I'd like to imagine society just worked like that - it used to; that's what people would do; that's what pubs and social clubs and societies were for. But look at us - we're the internet at its best; yet we'd still be better off if we were having this chat in the pub, having walked 20 minutes to get there.
Alas, Jim, I suspect it would be more than a 20 minute stroll for you to get to my local.
We all know that a walk and cooking nutritious food is good for our health, as is social contact. However, much of the time we can't be arsed, so fit smart plugs even in a one bedroom flat.
Obviously pandemic disease - as with the Americas - was part of the story, but the available evidence is hardly solid; we have no accurate numbers, for example, of the pre colonial population.
Stories like this suggest that there was a bit more than 'loss of self confidence' going on.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/16/almost-half-the-massacres-of-aboriginal-people-were-by-police-research-finds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEJ2RM3cXv0
I think a blessing is fine, they can get married in civil law but holy matrimony for most Christians and Muslims is reserved for heterosexuals (ideally in lifelong unions)
Bingo! The lights blaze
You don't understand how amazing this it. Feels like a bit of magic, I love it
The hoodie plus puffer gilet combo is inspired
Varadkar condemns fire at Galway hotel set to house asylum seekers
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/ireland-offering-asylum-seekers-tents-housing-shortage-sleeping-rough
(Imagine the scandal if that were happening here...)
Then, looking for a souvenir of Lapland, I decided I wanted a hoodie which a) had the word 'Ruka' on it (the resort in which I was staying), b) had a reference to the exact latitude, as it was as far north as I had been, and c) had the word 'Suomi' on it. Improbably, I found one. It was also delightful to the touch. However, it was zip up. I thought having found something so specifc, to reject it on such a small technicality would be churlish.
I then wore this hoody six days out of seven for the next three months. I had no idea it would be this good. As an added bonus, I can carry my glasses in one of its pockets. It also looks good: the bulk of the hood is forgiving for a man with a massive head.
Since then I have aquired a further five hoodies and wear them pretty much on rotation. They are all brilliant. It has been the most surprising change in my sartorial habits in at least forty years.
I love being able to put one on when I get up and leave the hood up until I have had a coffee and can emerge into the world. I rarely have the hood up otherwise - a woolly hat is usually preferable - but when it is four degrees and raining horizontally, a hoody hood is a great inner lining to your coat hood.
The downside is that most coats do not fit a hoody, but I have a large ski jacket and also a cagoul, both of which do the trick, depending on season.
Gilets never do it for me howevs. There is never an occasion in which my body needs to be warmer but my arms do not.
I also had a kind of hoodipiphany. I now have three Tommy Hilfiger hoodies and am contemplating a fourth. I love the consolation of knowing i can put up my hood and hide from the world, even as I look slightly sporty and youthful, in my own deluded mind
The key for a gilet plus hoodie is to wear a long sleeve base layer, like a long sleeved tee-shirt, then the hoodie, then the gilet over that, for mobility of your arms, and an extra layer that weighs near nothing
Gilets are also great in warm climates that can have slightly chilly evenings. you don't want to go and put on a full coat, you don't need the heat and chunkiness of a big jumper or hoodie
Slip on a puffer gilet. Sorted. And you can zip them right to the chin which feels manly
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/17/britains-blue-wall-crumbling-tories-failing-voters
So why the angst about the arguments he chose in respect of subjugation?
Sending a daughter to a nunnery against her will would be just as bad. Fortunately in the Uk that hasn’t happened for 500 years or so
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1736585595374182524
"We're going to win four more years in the White House, then after that we'll negotiate. Based on the way I was treated; we're probably entitled to another four after that."
https://twitter.com/IndepenentMr/status/1736574226398945620
https://twitter.com/natashakorecki/status/1735674648820347173
Priced from $15,000, this plywood-built drone boasts a 32 kg explosive payload and a 32 kg explosive payload, a range of 750-950 km, and a swarm option.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1736559427866464628
I arrived at Athens Airport on Friday and waited in a passport queue for an hour while those with EU passports floated through. The time stamping our passports took so long and with only one person on the desk it seemed deliberate. It occurred to maybe it wasn't Brexit perhaps it was the marbles...
Athens is a fantastic City. Full of life and history. One trip to the Acropolis museum and it's obvious why they want the stones back. Their conservation and recreations are spectacular. The museums are full of very young schoolchildren listening with rapt attention to their guides and teachers. It's why their history is in their blood. It feels more than a continent away from Jenrick and Rwanda and the grizzly government John Harris talks about. If we ever go back we have to go the whole way. Schengen the Euro the lot.
But people who hate Johnson were hating Johnson rather than engaging with the argument.
He wasn’t ridiculing them. He was sympathising,
Essentially he said “it’s disgraceful that they are forced to wear this clothing… it cuts them off from society..: they look like a letter box”
It was a simile nothing else
Johnson always caters to his audience by telling them what they want to hear. In this case that offensive language is fine.
Lovely.
NEW THREAD
Most Protestant Baptist and Pentecostal churches offer neither blessings nor marriages, same as the Roman Catholic and
Orthodox churches don't
either
"Church of Iceland - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Iceland
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iceland
'In October 2015, the Church of Iceland voted to allow same-sex couples to marry in its churches. A freedom of conscience clause which would have allowed priests to decide based on religious or personal grounds whether to perform a ceremony was voted down by the Church Assembly. The Bishop of Iceland, Agnes M. Sigurðardóttir, welcomed the move to perform same-sex marriages, saying "the church is primarily a channel of the love of Christ and celebrates life in all its diversity."'