Any PB regular knows that he’s a drama queen. By the sound of it, it didn’t take the NHS that long to work out the same.
The alternative being to believe that Sean is actually UK Patient Zero.
It does seem to me that eadric is in the position of someone on 15/4/12 pointing out in relatively measured terms that the ship has actually hit an iceberg, is actually sinking, and that there are actually not enough lifeboats. The suggestion that seeking advice from PHE, and following it, is the wrong thing to do sets a new standard of batshittery (not to say irresponsibility).
And his advice four weeks ago to get out of equities was the most valuable I have ever acted on.
I agree selling equities recently was wise, and did so myself. Whether it was valuable advice in the medium term depends on what happens to the markets while you are out of them.
My advice - from last weekend onwards - to take sell positions on the Dow and FTSE, and sell GBP/CHF - would actually have delivered you a profit (rather than just an avoided loss) this week.
Really? I thought you weren't panicking four weeks ago, and the markets certainly weren't, so why would you have done that?
Anyway the difference is that eadric persuaded me, correctly *and contemporaneously*, that the world was changing. You didn't.
Maybe you weren’t reading posts here at the right times. The precise, timed advice I gave on here from last weekend onwards would have netted anyone who followed them £’000s in profit, even for modest stakes.
This, inter alia, is one reason I think Brexit might end up being paused.
Yes, will Johnson really walk out of talks and refuse to extend the transition if we're in the midst of a serious health crisis? It would make him look like a crazed ideologue.
Let him look like a crazed ideologue.
If the EU want to compromise and see sense then we can get a mutually-respectful trade agreement recognising each other as sovereign equals.
If the EU don't want to compromise then so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
Brexit is definitely going to be paused. Unless you think corona crisis doesn’t last years.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
This is your field, isn't it? (Or is it TimB? - sorry I get you confused)
A few weeks ago you were moderately confident this would not be a terrible pandemic. Are you still?
Yes, biological risk management is my current field (at personal, institutional and national levels of risk management). My degree is in cellular pathology, I was a diplomat spending time negotiating the chemical weapons treaty and thereafter disarming Iraq's wmd. But in the last 15 years my field has morphed from national biochemical security, to biosafety, to risk management at a systems level, to organizational responses to change in complex dangerous environments. I still work mainly in the field of biology, such as one health, emerging technologies (synthetic biology), national biosecurity, and safety excellence in research and diagnostic labs, biological production facilities, and healthcare institutions.
I think you misinterpret me in saying I was moderately confident this would not become a terrible pandemic. I was urging caution in dealing with early statistics because they are always fraught for every new disease outbreak. I opined that the final mortality rate was likely to be lower than the initial figures out of Wuhan for a variety of reasons. I still think that will be the case.
But it is an extremely worrying disease which will be very hard to contain now we know that (1) it can be spread before symptoms appear and (2) a very high percentage of those infected are either asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic.
But, as others on this site do, I suspect, even with this, that the greatest element of global damage will come from our response measures to the outbreak, not from the disease it causes.
I wonder why the fatality rate in Italy seems to be higher than other Western countries. I know they have the second-oldest population in the world after Japan but one wouldn't have thought that would be a significant factor.
Any PB regular knows that he’s a drama queen. By the sound of it, it didn’t take the NHS that long to work out the same.
The alternative being to believe that Sean is actually UK Patient Zero.
It does seem to me that eadric is in the position of someone on 15/4/12 pointing out in relatively measured terms that the ship has actually hit an iceberg, is actually sinking, and that there are actually not enough lifeboats. The suggestion that seeking advice from PHE, and following it, is the wrong thing to do sets a new standard of batshittery (not to say irresponsibility).
And his advice four weeks ago to get out of equities was the most valuable I have ever acted on.
I agree selling equities recently was wise, and did so myself. Whether it was valuable advice in the medium term depends on what happens to the markets while you are out of them.
My advice - from last weekend onwards - to take sell positions on the Dow and FTSE, and sell GBP/CHF - would actually have delivered you a profit (rather than just an avoided loss) this week.
Really? I thought you weren't panicking four weeks ago, and the markets certainly weren't, so why would you have done that?
Anyway the difference is that eadric persuaded me, correctly *and contemporaneously*, that the world was changing. You didn't.
Maybe you weren’t reading posts here at the right times. The precise, timed advice I gave on here from last weekend onwards would have netted anyone who followed them £’000s in profit, even for modest stakes.
"from last weekend onwards"; compared to calling the situation correctly 4 weeks ago, not really the same ballpark, is it?
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
I wonder why the fatality rate in Italy seems to be higher than other Western countries. I know they have the second-oldest population in the world after Japan but one wouldn't have thought that would be a significant factor.
Because the resources are now stretched to breaking point possibly and they can’t provide dedicated teams to each case. I think someone alluded to this affect earlier. There is speculation that in Iran extensive civil disorder is about to break out as the infection has hit medical staff and police forces.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
Any PB regular knows that he’s a drama queen. By the sound of it, it didn’t take the NHS that long to work out the same.
The alternative being to believe that Sean is actually UK Patient Zero.
It does seem to me that eadric is in the position of someone on 15/4/12 pointing out in relatively measured terms that the ship has actually hit an iceberg, is actually sinking, and that there are actually not enough lifeboats. The suggestion that seeking advice from PHE, and following it, is the wrong thing to do sets a new standard of batshittery (not to say irresponsibility).
And his advice four weeks ago to get out of equities was the most valuable I have ever acted on.
I agree selling equities recently was wise, and did so myself. Whether it was valuable advice in the medium term depends on what happens to the markets while you are out of them.
My advice - from last weekend onwards - to take sell positions on the Dow and FTSE, and sell GBP/CHF - would actually have delivered you a profit (rather than just an avoided loss) this week.
Really? I thought you weren't panicking four weeks ago, and the markets certainly weren't, so why would you have done that?
Anyway the difference is that eadric persuaded me, correctly *and contemporaneously*, that the world was changing. You didn't.
Maybe you weren’t reading posts here at the right times. The precise, timed advice I gave on here from last weekend onwards would have netted anyone who followed them £’000s in profit, even for modest stakes.
"from last weekend onwards"; compared to calling the situation correctly 4 weeks ago, not really the same ballpark, is it?
Personally I’d rather get specific tips on when to short, based on the positions I took last Friday (which was pretty much US market top) and before market open on Monday - than a generalised panic about the state of the world several weeks before it became pertinent.
It’s not usual for PB’ers to be so churlish about successful tips, whether politics, sport or financial? All my posts are on record for you to peruse if you doubt my word.
Reading Wikipedia on the Spanish Flu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu), the stats are: 27% of the world population got it (500 million), and 35-50 million people died from it.
Most deaths were not from influenza itself (which had only a 1.5-3.0% fatality rate), but were from secondary infections.
The good news is that when proper measures were put in place, transmission stopped very rapidly. Places which did the right right thing (and it was very much a city-by-city response) saw new infections drop to zero (or near zero) in about a month.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
Already been posted, but this contains totals. Lots of reports coming out of Italy that they're at their breaking point in terms of medical equipment in the north.
I wonder why the fatality rate in Italy seems to be higher than other Western countries. I know they have the second-oldest population in the world after Japan but one wouldn't have thought that would be a significant factor.
Occam's razor. They have many more cases than they've found. Which would be an explanation consistent with their high level of exporting cases.
Experience suggests that spending a lot of time on google isn’t a good way to arrive at a balanced judgement.
You haven’t been right about anything so far (apart from selling shares, advice echoed by many, myself included). It’s too early to tell.
Try and act the responsible citizen. You know you didn’t have Coronavirus, and panicked unnecessarily. At least you can be honest about that,
You want reassurance?
OK, I ca
I hope that helps.
If you had it, then you should be reassuring people that the end of the world isn’t nigh.
But I strongly suspect that you didn’t have it. The timing would have put you right at the front end of cases outside China, which is hardly credible. The NHS response - even as described from your own partial viewpoint - suggests that they didn’t really take you seriously. And your long track record on PB as our Panicky Wuss Zero speaks for itself.
Sorry.
As for financial markets, that’s a different question. There are a lot of people like you out there.
This is the last time we will discuss this, or I will become irritated with you, once again. Which is a waste of energy right now.
After I discharged myself from the hospital - with UCL and PHE still arguing about me - I went home, and thought, well that's that. I'll get better, and hear no more of it.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
I'm rather proud of the fact that we haven't succumbed to panic buying in this country so far.
I now feel terrible, like I have let the whole school down....
I think we will see the first UK empty shelves photos by Wednesday.
Can I challenge the whole concept of panic buying? If you make a careful reasoned plan of what you are going to need (enough baked beans for two years for example) and calmly rationally go about gathering it all together, is it panic buying?
It’s also therapeutic and satisfying. With each tin of beans stockpiled you know you are going to be okay, and the likes of Janet Daley will not.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
Any PB regular knows that he’s a drama queen. By the sound of it, it didn’t take the NHS that long to work out the same.
The alternative being to believe that Sean is actually UK Patient Zero.
It does seem to me that eadric is in the position of someone on 15/4/12 pointing out in relatively measured terms that the ship has actually hit an iceberg, is actually sinking, and that there are actually not enough lifeboats. The suggestion that seeking advice from PHE, and following it, is the wrong thing to do sets a new standard of batshittery (not to say irresponsibility).
And his advice four weeks ago to get out of equities was the most valuable I have ever acted on.
I agree selling equities recently was wise, and did so myself. Whether it was valuable advice in the medium term depends on what happens to the markets while you are out of them.
My advice - from last weekend onwards - to take sell positions on the Dow and FTSE, and sell GBP/CHF - would actually have delivered you a profit (rather than just an avoided loss) this week.
Really? I thought you weren't panicking four weeks ago, and the markets certainly weren't, so why would you have done that?
Anyway the difference is that eadric persuaded me, correctly *and contemporaneously*, that the world was changing. You didn't.
Maybe you weren’t reading posts here at the right times. The precise, timed advice I gave on here from last weekend onwards would have netted anyone who followed them £’000s in profit, even for modest stakes.
"from last weekend onwards"; compared to calling the situation correctly 4 weeks ago, not really the same ballpark, is it?
Personally I’d rather get specific tips on when to short, based on the positions I took last Friday (which was pretty much US market top) and before market open on Monday - than a generalised panic about the state of the world several weeks before it became pertinent.
It’s not usual for PB’ers to be so churlish about successful tips, whether politics, sport or financial? All my posts are on record for you to peruse if you doubt my word.
So longer range forecasts aren't right because they are "not yet pertinent," even if they are right? I see.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
You have got to be fucking joking.
How many leftwingers have lost their jobs for posting shite about how awesome communism is on social media?
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
You have got to be fucking joking.
I didn’t ask to be sworn at, I asked for actual examples. Name a left-winger driven out of their job by a right-wing Internet hate mob.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
I'm rather proud of the fact that we haven't succumbed to panic buying in this country so far.
I now feel terrible, like I have let the whole school down....
I think we will see the first UK empty shelves photos by Wednesday.
Can I challenge the whole concept of panic buying? If you make a careful reasoned plan of what you are going to need (enough baked beans for two years for example) and calmly rationally go about gathering it all together, is it panic buying?
It’s also therapeutic and satisfying. With each tin of beans stockpiled you know you are going to be okay, and the likes of Janet Daley will not.
Quite. I shall feel a real twit continuing to use Andrex as a torche cul when the real men have resorted to dock leaves, if they can get them.
Do we expect an exponential growth in road traffic accidents or something?
Maybe of electric scooter related accidents, as they seem to be multiplying at an alarming rate.
Adults with small children on electric scooters (seen twice last week), neither with any protective equipment, looks like an accident waiting to happen.
Okay, the idea of the oppressed right-winger is certainly a myth. As someone who is firmly in the liberal left corner of the political compass, I would say that.
However, the article builds a strawman using an idiot like Toby Young and some extreme hypothetical examples. There is a genuine problem, among both social liberals and social conservatives (it's not a left/right thing), of a disproportionate response to contrary views. People are being no-platformed for much much milder things than supporting child pornography. The behaviour of twitter mobs is, in many cases, bullying. It is childish to call people snowflakes for pointing this out.
It is a wrong instinct that many people who share most of my political views have to try to silence opposing views. It is also a wrong instinct when it comes from social conservatives. However, I object to it more strongly from my own side, because it's not just morally wrong - it's also counter-productive. If we'd got rid of these kneejerk reactions 10 years ago, I think we'd still be in the EU, and Hillary Clinton would be POTUS.
On topic - talking to a friend, his company is in the process of binning someone for being a Remainer of a certain... enthusiasm.
Apparently this person was in the habit pushing the topic of Brexit into every conversation and taking it ill if the answer was not an enthusiastic endorsement of Remain. Politely declining to comment was taken as being Nigel Farage.
Finally things came to a head when the subject of the.... "enquiry" was quite senior. It turned out that said Remainer had been in the habit of registering complaints with HR about anyone who didn't show enough enthusiasm for Europe - and even digging into people's personal social media to try and smell out the Evil Ones. The complaints were apparently of the form that anyone not ProEu is an evil racist xenophobe who creates a hostile working environment just by being there.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many. many complaints had been registered about this person.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
I wish that were true, but it's not.
There have been some very organised alt-right mobs that have been every bit as unpleasant.
But we have a tendency not to see them, because they're not "our right", and their targets are not people that we personally follow our sympathize with.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
I'm rather proud of the fact that we haven't succumbed to panic buying in this country so far.
I now feel terrible, like I have let the whole school down....
I think we will see the first UK empty shelves photos by Wednesday.
Can I challenge the whole concept of panic buying? If you make a careful reasoned plan of what you are going to need (enough baked beans for two years for example) and calmly rationally go about gathering it all together, is it panic buying?
It’s also therapeutic and satisfying. With each tin of beans stockpiled you know you are going to be okay, and the likes of Janet Daley will not.
On topic - talking to a friend, his company is in the process of binning someone for being a Remainer of a certain... enthusiasm.
Apparently this person was in the habit pushing the topic of Brexit into every conversation and taking it ill if the answer was not an enthusiastic endorsement of Remain. Politely declining to comment was taken as being Nigel Farage.
Finally things came to a head when the subject of the.... "enquiry" was quite senior. It turned out that said Remainer had been in the habit of registering complaints with HR about anyone who didn't show enough enthusiasm for Europe - and even digging into people's personal social media to try and smell out the Evil Ones. The complaints were apparently of the form that anyone not ProEu is an evil racist xenophobe who creates a hostile working environment just by being there.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many. many complaints had been registered about this person.
This, inter alia, is one reason I think Brexit might end up being paused.
Yes, will Johnson really walk out of talks and refuse to extend the transition if we're in the midst of a serious health crisis? It would make him look like a crazed ideologue.
Whereas the EU negotiators would look like paragons of virtue, as the EU lose count of the body bags they've used....
Already been posted, but this contains totals. Lots of reports coming out of Italy that they're at their breaking point in terms of medical equipment in the north.
I wonder why the fatality rate in Italy seems to be higher than other Western countries. I know they have the second-oldest population in the world after Japan but one wouldn't have thought that would be a significant factor.
Occam's razor. They have many more cases than they've found. Which would be an explanation consistent with their high level of exporting cases.
The map shows it is not in Africa because the locusts have eaten it.
Another myth I can helpfully dispel. Where You read the face masks don’t protect you at all so you don’t really one (just wash your hands AND ARMS whilst singing happy death day to yourself twice) it is lies, the face masks do protect you. The mob want to see you wearing one, coughing and sneezing and breathing into it, if you are not wearing one the mob will hit you over the head with an iron bar until you are dead.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
I'm rather proud of the fact that we haven't succumbed to panic buying in this country so far.
I now feel terrible, like I have let the whole school down....
I think we will see the first UK empty shelves photos by Wednesday.
Can I challenge the whole concept of panic buying? If you make a careful reasoned plan of what you are going to need (enough baked beans for two years for example) and calmly rationally go about gathering it all together, is it panic buying?
It’s also therapeutic and satisfying. With each tin of beans stockpiled you know you are going to be okay, and the likes of Janet Daley will not.
Yes, there are plenty of experts on Twitter and elsewhere, calmly advising that you SHOULD go out and get 2 weeks of food, loo roll, etc. It is the responsible thing to do for your family, they say.
If you follow that advice, I am not sure it can be classified as "panicking".
Reading Wikipedia on the Spanish Flu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu), the stats are: 27% of the world population got it (500 million), and 35-50 million people died from it.
Most deaths were not from influenza itself (which had only a 1.5-3.0% fatality rate), but were from secondary infections.
The good news is that when proper measures were put in place, transmission stopped very rapidly. Places which did the right right thing (and it was very much a city-by-city response) saw new infections drop to zero (or near zero) in about a month.
One problem was that Spanish flu ("which started in America") was spread by soldiers packed onto long sea cruises to the First World War trenches. Both British and American authorities took the view, perhaps rightly, that winning the war came first.
Do we expect an exponential growth in road traffic accidents or something?
Maybe of electric scooter related accidents, as they seem to be multiplying at an alarming rate.
Adults with small children on electric scooters (seen twice last week), neither with any protective equipment, looks like an accident waiting to happen.
I've seen someone on a scooter pushing a pushchair along on the road. Thankfully no child was in it, but it's still bloody stupid.
Already been posted, but this contains totals. Lots of reports coming out of Italy that they're at their breaking point in terms of medical equipment in the north.
I wonder why the fatality rate in Italy seems to be higher than other Western countries. I know they have the second-oldest population in the world after Japan but one wouldn't have thought that would be a significant factor.
Occam's razor. They have many more cases than they've found. Which would be an explanation consistent with their high level of exporting cases.
The map shows it is not in Africa because the locusts have eaten it.
Another myth I can helpfully dispel. Where You read the face masks don’t protect you at all so you don’t really one (just wash your hands AND ARMS whilst singing happy death day to yourself twice) it is lies, the face masks do protect you. The mob want to see you wearing one, coughing and sneezing and breathing into it, if you are not wearing one the mob will hit you over the head with an iron bar until you are dead.
I'm gonna pin a poppy to my face mask when I get one, to cover all the bases.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
I'm rather proud of the fact that we haven't succumbed to panic buying in this country so far.
I now feel terrible, like I have let the whole school down....
I think we will see the first UK empty shelves photos by Wednesday.
Can I challenge the whole concept of panic buying? If you make a careful reasoned plan of what you are going to need (enough baked beans for two years for example) and calmly rationally go about gathering it all together, is it panic buying?
It’s also therapeutic and satisfying. With each tin of beans stockpiled you know you are going to be okay, and the likes of Janet Daley will not.
Quite. I shall feel a real twit continuing to use Andrex as a torche cul when the real men have resorted to dock leaves, if they can get them.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
You have got to be fucking joking.
I didn’t ask to be sworn at, I asked for actual examples. Name a left-winger driven out of their job by a right-wing Internet hate mob.
If it helps, we can instead start by naming all the left wingers who weren't forced out of their jobs, because they had "been on a journey" and "weren't that person any more" and "no longer held those views".
Okay, the idea of the oppressed right-winger is certainly a myth. As someone who is firmly in the liberal left corner of the political compass, I would say that.
However, the article builds a strawman using an idiot like Toby Young and some extreme hypothetical examples. There is a genuine problem, among both social liberals and social conservatives (it's not a left/right thing), of a disproportionate response to contrary views. People are being no-platformed for much much milder things than supporting child pornography. The behaviour of twitter mobs is, in many cases, bullying. It is childish to call people snowflakes for pointing this out.
It is a wrong instinct that many people who share most of my political views have to try to silence opposing views. It is also a wrong instinct when it comes from social conservatives. However, I object to it more strongly from my own side, because it's not just morally wrong - it's also counter-productive. If we'd got rid of these kneejerk reactions 10 years ago, I think we'd still be in the EU, and Hillary Clinton would be POTUS.
Well said, and probably true re the EU and Hillary Clinton.
Personally I think it is a terrible shame and intellectually dishonest when people use the worst example of, or argument from, an opponent to illustrate a point
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
I wish that were true, but it's not.
There have been some very organised alt-right mobs that have been every bit as unpleasant.
But we have a tendency not to see them, because they're not "our right", and their targets are not people that we personally follow our sympathize with.
There are certainly hate mobs on all sides of the internet, but I still only see one side who go out of their way to ‘fair game’, Scientology-style, those who disagree with them, preventing them from earning a living. I’ll happily retract my argument for anyone who names a left-winger that lost their job as a result of a right-wing hate mob.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
On topic - talking to a friend, his company is in the process of binning someone for being a Remainer of a certain... enthusiasm.
Apparently this person was in the habit pushing the topic of Brexit into every conversation and taking it ill if the answer was not an enthusiastic endorsement of Remain. Politely declining to comment was taken as being Nigel Farage.
Finally things came to a head when the subject of the.... "enquiry" was quite senior. It turned out that said Remainer had been in the habit of registering complaints with HR about anyone who didn't show enough enthusiasm for Europe - and even digging into people's personal social media to try and smell out the Evil Ones. The complaints were apparently of the form that anyone not ProEu is an evil racist xenophobe who creates a hostile working environment just by being there.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many. many complaints had been registered about this person.
Fired last week....
Could be any number of PB commenters.
I find this reminds me of the comment that a Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged. Everyone is OK with Cancel Culture until they get Cancelled.
I would suggest that the esteemed gentlemen who wrote the header for this thread should widen his reading.
Consider this: People who reported actual, real, on going crime were told the following: Under legislation to combat hateful neighbours, they would be classified as racists. And then thrown out of their council houses.
A poor comparison. I can avoid road deaths by staying off the road or driving defensively.
If somebody in a restaurant kitchen has COVID19 and gets it on food, they could infect people who are taking all sorts of precautions and even kill some of them. This is a common disease vector in the USA were people get fired for taking sick time. The CDC has said that 70% of Norovirus cases in the US are passed by infected food workers.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
I wish that were true, but it's not.
There have been some very organised alt-right mobs that have been every bit as unpleasant.
But we have a tendency not to see them, because they're not "our right", and their targets are not people that we personally follow our sympathize with.
There are certainly hate mobs on all sides of the internet, but I still only see one side who go out of their way to ‘fair game’, Scientology-style, those who disagree with them, preventing them from earning a living. I’ll happily retract my argument for anyone who names a left-winger that lost their job as a result of a right-wing hate mob.
This may be an argument about geography. The actions of the alt right in the US around, for example, gun rights (eg hounding the Sandy Hook families as government sponsored actors) is totally unconscionable, but thankfully the UK is mostly devoid of equivalents.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
You have got to be fucking joking.
You're welcome to provide counter-examples.
Anna Sarkeesian. Online mob set against her, credible death threats, the full works.
Literally any of the women target by the GamerGate mob.
Yes, that's what I mean. I should say "the Brexit process" perhaps. There is a reasonable chance it will be paused, as we deal with more pressing matters.
The idea we will want to put greater obstacles along supply chains even as these break down is fanciful, to me.
Yes, I think that's very plausible. (And probably wouldn't be a bad thing, reducing tension.)
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
You have got to be fucking joking.
You're welcome to provide counter-examples.
Anna Sarkeesian. Online mob set against her, credible death threats, the full works.
Literally any of the women target by the GamerGate mob.
She received unspeakably awful abuse from an alt-right mob. She didn't lose her job though.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
You have got to be fucking joking.
You're welcome to provide counter-examples.
Anna Sarkeesian. Online mob set against her, credible death threats, the full works.
Literally any of the women target by the GamerGate mob.
Yup - this crap spreads where ever anyone Knows They Are Right. Hence your opponents are Evil Incarnated. And everyone knows that Pure Evil must be destroyed without quarter, due process or rational thought.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
You have got to be fucking joking.
I didn’t ask to be sworn at, I asked for actual examples. Name a left-winger driven out of their job by a right-wing Internet hate mob.
If it helps, we can instead start by naming all the left wingers who weren't forced out of their jobs, because they had "been on a journey" and "weren't that person any more" and "no longer held those views".
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
You have got to be fucking joking.
I didn’t ask to be sworn at, I asked for actual examples. Name a left-winger driven out of their job by a right-wing Internet hate mob.
If it helps, we can instead start by naming all the left wingers who weren't forced out of their jobs, because they had "been on a journey" and "weren't that person any more" and "no longer held those views".
I'll start. Naz Shah.
Boris Johnson.
Droll. Do you remember what his Labour opponent in Uxbridge confessed to just before the election? You'll never guess...
The chances of a UK recession within the next five years I'd say are pretty likely.
I wonder if this will shred the Tory economic credentials as per 1992?
I'm amazed we didn't get one by 2020. In any case they will have been in power for 14 years by the next election, it would frankly be a surprise if they were not hated and kicked out. That presently it doesn't look all that likely to happen is the surprise.
Already been posted, but this contains totals. Lots of reports coming out of Italy that they're at their breaking point in terms of medical equipment in the north.
I wonder why the fatality rate in Italy seems to be higher than other Western countries. I know they have the second-oldest population in the world after Japan but one wouldn't have thought that would be a significant factor.
Occam's razor. They have many more cases than they've found. Which would be an explanation consistent with their high level of exporting cases.
The map shows it is not in Africa because the locusts have eaten it.
Another myth I can helpfully dispel. Where You read the face masks don’t protect you at all so you don’t really one (just wash your hands AND ARMS whilst singing happy death day to yourself twice) it is lies, the face masks do protect you. The mob want to see you wearing one, coughing and sneezing and breathing into it, if you are not wearing one the mob will hit you over the head with an iron bar until you are dead.
I'm gonna pin a poppy to my face mask when I get one, to cover all the bases.
Let’s manufacture Union Jack face masks? Or why stop there, face mask in whatever flag you want.
A poor comparison. I can avoid road deaths by staying off the road or driving defensively.
If somebody in a restaurant kitchen has COVID-19 and gets it on food, they could infect people who are taking all sorts of precautions and even kill some of them. This is a common disease vector in the USA were people get fired for taking sick time. The CDC has said that 70% of Norovirus cases in the US are passed by infected food workers.
So 1.25m road traffic deaths each year are OK - because you can avoid being one of them. Whereas somebody preparing your food might kill YOU.
Of course free speech is not consequence-free speech, but what about cases like Maya Forstater? She expressed views on a big issue of the day, made clear she was doing so in a personal capacity, and lost a job that had nothing to do with those views all the same. A judge then proclaimed that her views (i.e. biological sex is real, immutable, and important) were 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society' and her employers were within their rights to do as they had. Chilling.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
I wish that were true, but it's not.
There have been some very organised alt-right mobs that have been every bit as unpleasant.
But we have a tendency not to see them, because they're not "our right", and their targets are not people that we personally follow our sympathize with.
There are certainly hate mobs on all sides of the internet, but I still only see one side who go out of their way to ‘fair game’, Scientology-style, those who disagree with them, preventing them from earning a living. I’ll happily retract my argument for anyone who names a left-winger that lost their job as a result of a right-wing hate mob.
I was thinking - for example - of the organised mob that descended on the Ghostbuster actress Leslie Jones. I think her crime (being a in a "feminist" remake of an eighties classic) was non-existant, and the hate leveled at her was every bit as nasty as that directed at Toby Young.
Okay, the idea of the oppressed right-winger is certainly a myth. As someone who is firmly in the liberal left corner of the political compass, I would say that.
However, the article builds a strawman using an idiot like Toby Young and some extreme hypothetical examples. There is a genuine problem, among both social liberals and social conservatives (it's not a left/right thing), of a disproportionate response to contrary views. People are being no-platformed for much much milder things than supporting child pornography. The behaviour of twitter mobs is, in many cases, bullying. It is childish to call people snowflakes for pointing this out.
It is a wrong instinct that many people who share most of my political views have to try to silence opposing views. It is also a wrong instinct when it comes from social conservatives. However, I object to it more strongly from my own side, because it's not just morally wrong - it's also counter-productive. If we'd got rid of these kneejerk reactions 10 years ago, I think we'd still be in the EU, and Hillary Clinton would be POTUS.
Well said, and probably true re the EU and Hillary Clinton.
Personally I think it is a terrible shame and intellectually dishonest when people use the worst example of, or argument from, an opponent to illustrate a point
I would agree that one of the biggest problems with the no-platform culture is the resulting decline in the ability to construct moral frameworks, and reasoned arguments.
I was struck, when watching a Philosophy seminar by the following: A number of students, when challenged to explain why slavery was wrong, took offence. Slavery was wrong and anyone who asked why was bad. It was noticeable in the discussions that followed that the offended couldn't win people to their way of thinking on other topics - they were not used to constructing an argument beyond "I am right and you are bad for not agreeing with me".
There were still plenty of anti-bacterial hand wipes in the local Sainsbury's yesterday. And lots of Dettol surface cleanser. The only sign that summat's up is the total absence anywhere of hand sanitizer.
There were still plenty of anti-bacterial hand wipes in the local Sainsbury's yesterday. And lots of Dettol surface cleanser. The only sign that summat's up is the total absence anywhere of hand sanitizer.
If it helps, we can instead start by naming all the left wingers who weren't forced out of their jobs, because they had "been on a journey" and "weren't that person any more" and "no longer held those views".
I'll start. Naz Shah.
Boris Johnson.
Droll. Do you remember what his Labour opponent in Uxbridge confessed to just before the election? You'll never guess...
I know what Boris wrote about, if that helps. I have three of his books. They were not his views, obviously. Or if they were, they aren't now. Which is why it was an appropriate response to the message to which I replied.
She didn't lose a job, she was on a contract and didn't have her contract renewed.
Further more her job was to do fund raising which required making personal contact with hundreds of people, third parties personal opinion of her were hugely relevant to getting a new contract.
None of which factors are particularly relevant or should have an effect, unless the parties she was talking to were either incompetent or allowing their decisions to be coloured by personal prejudice.
Any competent funder or person making donations should be competent enough to distinguish between personal opinions of an employee and the organisation.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of concerning cases.
The issue is the online-organised hate mobs, which only exist on one side of the debate, and think that someone who disagrees with them (or once did, a decade ago, with a general comment on Twitter) is ‘fair game’ to have calls placed to their employer, the CEO of the organisation and the media, in an attempt to hound people out of their unrelated job.
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
I wish that were true, but it's not.
There have been some very organised alt-right mobs that have been every bit as unpleasant.
But we have a tendency not to see them, because they're not "our right", and their targets are not people that we personally follow our sympathize with.
There are certainly hate mobs on all sides of the internet, but I still only see one side who go out of their way to ‘fair game’, Scientology-style, those who disagree with them, preventing them from earning a living. I’ll happily retract my argument for anyone who names a left-winger that lost their job as a result of a right-wing hate mob.
I was thinking - for example - of the organised mob that descended on the Ghostbuster actress Leslie Jones. I think her crime (being a in a "feminist" remake of an eighties classic) was non-existant, and the hate leveled at her was every bit as nasty as that directed at Toby Young.
That’s fair comment, but IMO the difference is that Leslie Jones (and Anita Sarkeesian and others mentioned) made a fortune from their contemporary harrasment situation, whereas Toby Young was forced out of several jobs for his years-old comments.
Toby Young is offering to his "supporters" what a trade union would offer to any of its members. It's a curious juxtaposition of solidarity and support that a man of the Right uses the language of the unionised Left in that way.
Ah well, those of us who always regard Right and Left as two cheeks of the same arse won't be surprised.
The emergence of online and often anonymous debate has, not surprisingly, been manna from heaven to the provocateur and the agitator. I'm of the view some on here and many who post online generally aren't interested in debate or argument (presumably because they aren't very good at either) and instead seek to provoke a response from opponents or agitate to lead the argument down one usually one-sided route often based on misinformation or disinformation.
Of course, provocation, agitation and misinformation are nothing new - it's the extent to which the online environment empowers such forces which has been the surprise.
Debate and argument are marginalised in favour of rabble rousing often by small numbers who post frequently rather than by the online community as a whole and hide behind such mantra as "freedom of speech" or "the right to offend".
There were still plenty of anti-bacterial hand wipes in the local Sainsbury's yesterday. And lots of Dettol surface cleanser. The only sign that summat's up is the total absence anywhere of hand sanitizer.
Toby Young is offering to his "supporters" what a trade union would offer to any of its members. It's a curious juxtaposition of solidarity and support that a man of the Right uses the language of the unionised Left in that way.
Ah well, those of us who always regard Right and Left as two cheeks of the same arse won't be surprised.
The emergence of online and often anonymous debate has, not surprisingly, been manna from heaven to the provocateur and the agitator. I'm of the view some on here and many who post online generally aren't interested in debate or argument (presumably because they aren't very good at either) and instead seek to provoke a response from opponents or agitate to lead the argument down one usually one-sided route often based on misinformation or disinformation.
Of course, provocation, agitation and misinformation are nothing new - it's the extent to which the online environment empowers such forces which has been the surprise.
Debate and argument are marginalised in favour of rabble rousing often by small numbers who post frequently rather than by the online community as a whole and hide behind such mantra as "freedom of speech" or "the right to offend".
The online environment's hostility is sometimes aggravated by twitter bots and the like, some even funded by hostile foreign powers. The United States government has already pointed to Russian social media disinformation about the coronavirus outbreaks.
Hitchens might have a point but I am not sure why he thinks the "left-wing baby boomer generation" is in power here or in the United States.
I am not sure he even has a point.
I know the person who was chief OPCW inspector for the first Syria inspection and met him shortly after his return from that inspection. I know the political constraints that inspection operated under, and what they were allowed to report on. As far as I know, the report was heavily redacted for political reasons, but in a diametrically opposed way to what Hitchens is now reporting. It won't happen, but I'd find it fascinating to sit down and question Hitchens about the specifics of what his sources have reported to him, and their potential political objectives in doing so.
What they do have is a much better mortality rate. So far
Is it spreading, or have there just been far more tests?
They have done LOADS of tests, the most outside China.
But it is hard to find anything truly reassuring in their data, at the moment.
Anyone fancy a bet that SK is showing a significant reduction in new cases within 7 days? They have gone looking. Hard. What we are seeing now is what they found.
Already been posted, but this contains totals. Lots of reports coming out of Italy that they're at their breaking point in terms of medical equipment in the north.
I wonder why the fatality rate in Italy seems to be higher than other Western countries. I know they have the second-oldest population in the world after Japan but one wouldn't have thought that would be a significant factor.
Occam's razor. They have many more cases than they've found. Which would be an explanation consistent with their high level of exporting cases.
That just looks like a map of first world medical coverage to me. If it isn't rife everywhere else I will cash out my 2020 US recession bet and post it to the white house.
This, inter alia, is one reason I think Brexit might end up being paused.
Yes, will Johnson really walk out of talks and refuse to extend the transition if we're in the midst of a serious health crisis? It would make him look like a crazed ideologue.
Arguably Boris could say there is even more reason to end the transition and end free movement in the short term to ensure the borders are slammed shut and limit the number of coronavirus cases coming into the UK from abroad
There were still plenty of anti-bacterial hand wipes in the local Sainsbury's yesterday. And lots of Dettol surface cleanser. The only sign that summat's up is the total absence anywhere of hand sanitizer.
I suppose we should credit panic shoppers with knowing their virus from their bacteria?
The online environment's hostility is sometimes aggravated by twitter bots and the like, some even funded by hostile foreign powers. The United States government has already pointed to Russian social media disinformation about the coronavirus outbreaks.
Yes, I'm sure that's so. The direction and control of opinion has become a weapon of international diplomacy but again nothing new.
Major powers have always sought to "influence" the political development of smaller strategically important powers in their direction. That influence has been both covert and overt but the manipulation of the democratic process has and no doubt will continue to be part of that.
A poor comparison. I can avoid road deaths by staying off the road or driving defensively.
If somebody in a restaurant kitchen has COVID-19 and gets it on food, they could infect people who are taking all sorts of precautions and even kill some of them. This is a common disease vector in the USA were people get fired for taking sick time. The CDC has said that 70% of Norovirus cases in the US are passed by infected food workers.
So 1.25m road traffic deaths each year are OK - because you can avoid being one of them. Whereas somebody preparing your food might kill YOU.
This, inter alia, is one reason I think Brexit might end up being paused.
Yes, will Johnson really walk out of talks and refuse to extend the transition if we're in the midst of a serious health crisis? It would make him look like a crazed ideologue.
Arguably Boris could say there is even more reason to end the transition and end free movement in the short term to ensure the borders are slammed shut and limit the number of coronavirus cases coming into the UK from abroad
Free movement has zero to do with border security. They could ground all flights on health grounds tomorrow if they wanted to.
Comments
If the EU want to compromise and see sense then we can get a mutually-respectful trade agreement recognising each other as sovereign equals.
If the EU don't want to compromise then so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye.
And my wife and I are in the high risk category
You should be betting accordingly.
I think you misinterpret me in saying I was moderately confident this would not become a terrible pandemic. I was urging caution in dealing with early statistics because they are always fraught for every new disease outbreak. I opined that the final mortality rate was likely to be lower than the initial figures out of Wuhan for a variety of reasons. I still think that will be the case.
But it is an extremely worrying disease which will be very hard to contain now we know that (1) it can be spread before symptoms appear and (2) a very high percentage of those infected are either asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic.
But, as others on this site do, I suspect, even with this, that the greatest element of global damage will come from our response measures to the outbreak, not from the disease it causes.
It has killed 2,990.
Since then, 3,287 have been killed in road accidents.
Every day.
https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
Toby Young is a good example, if someone can find me an example of a left-winger being hounded by the right, then I’ll happily change my mind that it’s only one side engaged in this behaviour.
If you are to do any panic buying, may I suggest you start with any essential medications you might need. Get a 3 month supply.
Terrible pictures of the Greeks/EU tear gassing with distressed children, and mothers trying to wash out their eyes with bottled water
What a mess and how will this contain the virus
It’s not usual for PB’ers to be so churlish about successful tips, whether politics, sport or financial? All my posts are on record for you to peruse if you doubt my word.
Most deaths were not from influenza itself (which had only a 1.5-3.0% fatality rate), but were from secondary infections.
The good news is that when proper measures were put in place, transmission stopped very rapidly. Places which did the right right thing (and it was very much a city-by-city response) saw new infections drop to zero (or near zero) in about a month.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
I think we will see the first UK empty shelves photos by Wednesday.
Already been posted, but this contains totals. Lots of reports coming out of Italy that they're at their breaking point in terms of medical equipment in the north.
About 10% in ICU. Occam's razor. They have many more cases than they've found. Which would be an explanation consistent with their high level of exporting cases.
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
It’s also therapeutic and satisfying. With each tin of beans stockpiled you know you are going to be okay, and the likes of Janet Daley will not.
#owenjonesisawankerday on Twitter.
https://news.sky.com/story/number-10-blocked-mary-beard-role-at-british-museum-because-she-is-pro-eu-11947303
The place is completely out of anti bacterial wipes, but is otherwise completely normal.
Okay, the idea of the oppressed right-winger is certainly a myth. As someone who is firmly in the liberal left corner of the political compass, I would say that.
However, the article builds a strawman using an idiot like Toby Young and some extreme hypothetical examples. There is a genuine problem, among both social liberals and social conservatives (it's not a left/right thing), of a disproportionate response to contrary views. People are being no-platformed for much much milder things than supporting child pornography. The behaviour of twitter mobs is, in many cases, bullying. It is childish to call people snowflakes for pointing this out.
It is a wrong instinct that many people who share most of my political views have to try to silence opposing views. It is also a wrong instinct when it comes from social conservatives. However, I object to it more strongly from my own side, because it's not just morally wrong - it's also counter-productive. If we'd got rid of these kneejerk reactions 10 years ago, I think we'd still be in the EU, and Hillary Clinton would be POTUS.
Apparently this person was in the habit pushing the topic of Brexit into every conversation and taking it ill if the answer was not an enthusiastic endorsement of Remain. Politely declining to comment was taken as being Nigel Farage.
Finally things came to a head when the subject of the.... "enquiry" was quite senior. It turned out that said Remainer had been in the habit of registering complaints with HR about anyone who didn't show enough enthusiasm for Europe - and even digging into people's personal social media to try and smell out the Evil Ones. The complaints were apparently of the form that anyone not ProEu is an evil racist xenophobe who creates a hostile working environment just by being there.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many. many complaints had been registered about this person.
Fired last week....
There have been some very organised alt-right mobs that have been every bit as unpleasant.
But we have a tendency not to see them, because they're not "our right", and their targets are not people that we personally follow our sympathize with.
Thank goodness she's gone. Good riddance.
Another myth I can helpfully dispel. Where You read the face masks don’t protect you at all so you don’t really one (just wash your hands AND ARMS whilst singing happy death day to yourself twice) it is lies, the face masks do protect you. The mob want to see you wearing one, coughing and sneezing and breathing into it, if you are not wearing one the mob will hit you over the head with an iron bar until you are dead.
I'll start. Naz Shah.
Personally I think it is a terrible shame and intellectually dishonest when people use the worst example of, or argument from, an opponent to illustrate a point
An excellent piece
I would suggest that the esteemed gentlemen who wrote the header for this thread should widen his reading.
Consider this: People who reported actual, real, on going crime were told the following: Under legislation to combat hateful neighbours, they would be classified as racists. And then thrown out of their council houses.
If somebody in a restaurant kitchen has COVID19 and gets it on food, they could infect people who are taking all sorts of precautions and even kill some of them. This is a common disease vector in the USA were people get fired for taking sick time. The CDC has said that 70% of Norovirus cases in the US are passed by infected food workers.
Literally any of the women target by the GamerGate mob.
There speaks a liberal.....
I was struck, when watching a Philosophy seminar by the following: A number of students, when challenged to explain why slavery was wrong, took offence. Slavery was wrong and anyone who asked why was bad. It was noticeable in the discussions that followed that the offended couldn't win people to their way of thinking on other topics - they were not used to constructing an argument beyond "I am right and you are bad for not agreeing with me".
Toby Young is offering to his "supporters" what a trade union would offer to any of its members. It's a curious juxtaposition of solidarity and support that a man of the Right uses the language of the unionised Left in that way.
Ah well, those of us who always regard Right and Left as two cheeks of the same arse won't be surprised.
The emergence of online and often anonymous debate has, not surprisingly, been manna from heaven to the provocateur and the agitator. I'm of the view some on here and many who post online generally aren't interested in debate or argument (presumably because they aren't very good at either) and instead seek to provoke a response from opponents or agitate to lead the argument down one usually one-sided route often based on misinformation or disinformation.
Of course, provocation, agitation and misinformation are nothing new - it's the extent to which the online environment empowers such forces which has been the surprise.
Debate and argument are marginalised in favour of rabble rousing often by small numbers who post frequently rather than by the online community as a whole and hide behind such mantra as "freedom of speech" or "the right to offend".
I know the person who was chief OPCW inspector for the first Syria inspection and met him shortly after his return from that inspection. I know the political constraints that inspection operated under, and what they were allowed to report on. As far as I know, the report was heavily redacted for political reasons, but in a diametrically opposed way to what Hitchens is now reporting. It won't happen, but I'd find it fascinating to sit down and question Hitchens about the specifics of what his sources have reported to him, and their potential political objectives in doing so.
Major powers have always sought to "influence" the political development of smaller strategically important powers in their direction. That influence has been both covert and overt but the manipulation of the democratic process has and no doubt will continue to be part of that.