I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
PC gamers not able to get laid going mad may also be involved.
Certainly lots of err 'energy' gets poured into this area.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters, control your won borders, reduce VAT rates to suit yourself, CE marking, control social security, public procurement, set international tariffs, legal jurisdiction, cross border taxation, straight bananas.
Fish your own waters: the UK government (of its own volition) sold the rights to EU fisherman with no mechanism for taking the licences back. The EU fishermen now have loans from UK banks secured against the rights so there is no means of recovering them without cuasing commerical harm. But it can be done whether a member or not. Will the UK have the same sway to do so as an ex-member as it would have had as a contributing member - thats a good question?
UK VAT rates differ to the UK in absolute terms and by product and service - it sounds like they can be set to suit the UK.
CE Marking is an international standard: UK manufactuers will keep it even after Brexit to sell into that market. Member or not the UK has to play by the rules.
What does control Social Security mean? The UK uses NI, in Germany they have insurance companies for example, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
The UK today published a set of international tarrifs copy and pasted from the ones already used by the EU. Also as a member of the EU council the UK had the right to infuence the rates of the entire continent. Now it will be a rule taker from the trade deal it signs or from the WHO - which one is better?
What does legal jurisdiction mean? The UK has different laws to the rest of the EU, can you point me to the EU directive harmonising this?
What does cross border taxation mean? The UK is missing the right to lay claim to all income earned by UK citizens as the US does?
Straight bananas - try and stay serious.
Look we had this debate in 2016.
You lost.
I for one will spend the rest of my life nailing leavers to the wall for their utter credulity and deceit. Its a right I'm pleased to have maintained.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
I just didn't want to offend her by using a genderless word, as she seems to dislike that.
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Is this why that dodgy media report about the Oxford vaccine was released?
Or was that GSK?
There's a lot of money riding on this race...
It's the preprint about the Oxford vaccine trial that's just been released. The dodgy media report was several weeks ago.
No, I meant the report on the preprint suggesting that it wasn't very effective in monkeys. It seems that was a misrepresentation of the trial.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
How do you go about buying their shares with this offer ?
$80 right now.
No, that was last night.
While I have every hope that Moderna is successful with their vaccine, sell on the news is usually good advice (in the short term at least) for most biotechs.
Preferably in advance of the company's own efforts...
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Yes, one the one hand, I can no longer go and live in France or retire to Spain. But I am no longer enslaved by the EU directive governing the use of pallets in the building sector. Freedom! (Note to Brexiteers, I am being sarcastic. You have stolen my European birthright and that of my children, and you will feel my wrath until the day you die).
People lived and retired in France and Spain before we joined the EU. Non EU nationals stills do.
Yawn. I have no interest in fighting the Brexit battles again, you morons have won. You should be out there enjoying your freedoms instead of still trying to convince us that you've not done something stupid. But what you're turning this country into, it's not really my country anymore.
The victors seem to be the most exercised I'm done with it. I wish it had never happened, I will never forgive Dave for allowing it to happen, but we are where we are.
Attack being the best form of defence, victorious Leave freedom fighters getting their excuses in early?
I believe in their heart of hearts they understand it will be a false dawn.
Does Big Daddy himself (BJ) believe Brexit is in the national interest? I sense not.
England’s greatest unforced error since the Middle Ages.
To be optimistic you need to buy into the @Alanbrooke vision - that the chaos and costs of Brexit, and now plus the Virus, will create an opportunity for radical and benign change in favour of ordinary Brits. Or as another "AB" might put it -
"This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters,
That is fucking great. I'll get my stern trawler out this weekend.
Whatever floats your boat Pugwash
As established, the fishing rights have been sold to Spanish, French and Dutch fishermen and they are not coming back. They may lease them back to UK fishermen but the UK government sold the rights and there is no mechanism for their return.
It wasn't the government was it? AIUI it was the big fishing companies.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Why is that every time someone on the Left disagrees with someone on the Right, the person on the Right says that the person on the Left is taking away their right to have that opinion? Saying you are wrong doesn't mean we think you shouldn't be allowed to think it. The only people taking away other people's rights around here are the you people with your fucking Brexit.
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Is this why that dodgy media report about the Oxford vaccine was released?
Or was that GSK?
There's a lot of money riding on this race...
Who knows the motivation for press commentary ?
But a billion dollar offering does provide some context.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Why is that every time someone on the Left disagrees with someone on the Right, the person on the Right says that the person on the Left is taking away their right to have that opinion? Saying you are wrong doesn't mean we think you shouldn't be allowed to think it. The only people taking away other people's rights around here are the you people with your fucking Brexit.
Is that really the case? I thought there were legitimate concerns about the policy of no platforming, for example?
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
I know what you mean. IKEA has that effect on me, too.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Why is that every time someone on the Left disagrees with someone on the Right, the person on the Right says that the person on the Left is taking away their right to have that opinion? Saying you are wrong doesn't mean we think you shouldn't be allowed to think it. The only people taking away other people's rights around here are the you people with your fucking Brexit.
Is that really the case? I thought there were legitimate concerns about the policy of no platforming, for example?
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
I thought that one of the immigration issues that surfaced was the difficulty curry houses were having, back in 2016 or so, in recruiting competent chefs.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
As this is PedanticBetting.com I should point out that he didn't use a gendered pronoun.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
Not so much all the detail - and trust me I do get that it can come over as a bit silly at times - but the idea is one I support fully. Gender stereotyping in language might not be the most important way that gender inequality is propagated - this remains the threat of physical violence - but it is one of the ways that it is. So let us gently 'nudge nudge' address it.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
I thought that one of the immigration issues that surfaced was the difficulty curry houses were having, back in 2016 or so, in recruiting competent chefs.
Indeed.
Strange to bring that up if you week seeking to end immigration.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Why is that every time someone on the Left disagrees with someone on the Right, the person on the Right says that the person on the Left is taking away their right to have that opinion? Saying you are wrong doesn't mean we think you shouldn't be allowed to think it. The only people taking away other people's rights around here are the you people with your fucking Brexit.
Is that really the case? I thought there were legitimate concerns about the policy of no platforming, for example?
Yep, I think I may have seen those concerns expressed in the Spectator, Telegraph, Times, Mail, Sun, Express, Spiked, UnHerd, CapX, Guido, etc.
And it was certainly shocking the way the Today prog and GMB no platformed Tories.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
Not so much all the detail - and trust me I do get that it can come over as a bit silly at times - but the idea is one I support fully. Gender stereotyping in language might not be the most important way that gender inequality is propagated - this remains the threat of physical violence - but it is one of the ways that it is. So let us gently 'nudge nudge' address it.
And there are also practical confusions - now we have females in fire engines, the word 'fireman' is now irredeemably ambiguous. 'Installation of 4 toilets for firemen" for instance.
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Is this why that dodgy media report about the Oxford vaccine was released?
Or was that GSK?
There's a lot of money riding on this race...
It's the preprint about the Oxford vaccine trial that's just been released. The dodgy media report was several weeks ago.
No, I meant the report on the preprint suggesting that it wasn't very effective in monkeys. It seems that was a misrepresentation of the trial.
Thanks for posting that. I'm sure everyone in her right mind wants the Oxford vaccine (and every other vaccine) to succeed.
At the same time, I don't find a tweet saying "There is so much wrong with this commentary" very convincing in itself. Or, for that matter, one saying "this is badly done. Guess they need to sell their paper?"
It would be helpful to read a response written in a medium other than Twitter.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
I know what you mean. IKEA has that effect on me, too.
Whenever I think of Ikea (not often thankfully) I think of matches.
Dishwashers (down from 2.7%) Freezers (down from 2.5%) Sanitary products and tampons (down from 6.3%) Paints (down from 6.5%) and screwdrivers (down from 2.7%) Mirrors (down from 4%) Scissors and garden shears (down from 4.7%) Padlocks (down from 2.7%) Cooking products such as baking powder (down from 6.1%), yeast (down from 12%), bay leaves (down from 7%), ground thyme (down from 8.5%) and cocoa powder (down from 8%) Christmas trees (down from 2.5%)
Most of these are easily within the range of currency fluctuation, and of course apply to the delivered cost, not the retail price - so anyone who think's they're going to get fiver off their £200 dishwasher is in for a disappointment. I wish people would stop fetishising "trade deals" and focus more on educating a work force "to make the stuff the world actually wants".
This seems an odd step. As you say these tariffs are not particularly an inhibition to trade but they will certainly be an inhibition to a free trade agreement with the EU. They cannot have a situation where goods that should bear such tariffs can be imported tariff free to the UK and then have free access to the EU. It therefore seems to be a ploy to make a FTA with the EU more difficult at a time when the negotiations are already struggling. Unhelpful.
Quite the opposite - it will make a prompt deal more attractive.
"But tariffs will remain on UK-produced cars - at 10% - and on agricultural products including lamb, beef and butter at their current levels, following concerns that these industries could be decimated by Brexit.
These new tariffs will be applied to trade with any country with which the UK has not negotiated a trade deal by the time the transition period ends on 31 December."
Don't understand the reference to UK-produced cars. If that is supposed to be non UK produced cars we are presumably saying that would apply to EU cars in the absence of a trade deal?
Its badly phrased, whoever wrote that but I understand what they were trying to say.
What they're trying to say is that goods we don't produce (dishwashers etc) are going to be permitted tariff-free, but goods we produce ourselves like cars will see tariffs for that sector.
So we are discouraging the manufacture of dishwashers in this country. Why? We urgently need import substitution to reduce our trade deficit.
Ive been saying that for years
You have indeed. And you are right. We cannot restrict our production to what we produce now. Bluntly, we just don't produce nearly enough to pay for our current standard of living.
I too like the idea of more self-sufficiency. But I'm not sure replacing cheap imports with expensive homegrown goods leads to a sustainable rise in our living standards.
Everything is a matter of degree but for the last 20 years these "cheap imports" have caused us to run a serious trade deficit with the result that we have switched from a creditor nation receiving more income from abroad than repatriated profits to a debtor nation where other countries own more and more of our assets and charge us rent for their use. In the longer term this will diminish the standard of living in this country. Indeed, it already has. So the true cost of "cheap imports" is much higher than it appears.
If we were finding better things to do than make these imports and were able to sell our skills abroad it would not matter. I don't have a particular fetish about manufacturing. But the sad truth is we don't, not by a long way. So we either accept a falling standard of living or we do something about it. Import substitution is one obvious way to address the problem but we need to improve investment, reduce consumption, improve training, education, productivity and our attitude towards engineers and applied scientists. Governments of all shades have failed to address this since the 70s. It is increasingly urgent.
I do agree with much of what you say here. But classic trade theory says that if things are made where it is cheapest to do so, it leads to an optimum material result for the whole. Of course this neglects incredibly important issues such as wealth distribution and environmental concerns. But that is the theory driving globalization and I believe it is widely accepted to be true. Meaning that if the process is reversed the world will be the (materially) poorer for it. Perhaps we can get richer in a world getting poorer, as opposed to (as now) getting poorer in one getting richer - talking relative rather than absolute - but my sense is it will be a big ask.
Where's the benefit in making Jeff Bezos richer and Hartlepool poorer ? Free trade works for the benefit of the local hegemon. We lost that position 100 years ago. Now it's questionable if it is in our interest.
Globalization has reduced the gap between "us and them" in global terms (good IMO) but increased the gap between rich and poor in the west (bad IMO). Conundrum.
In general I'd like to see more focus on how wealth is distributed and less on how it's made. I think the distribution issue is the more interesting and challenging.
Yes, similar point to one I like made by Amol Rajan, along the lines of 'mass immigration is good for people from poor countries, and the rich in rich countries, but bad for the poor in rich countries.'
If mass immigration made the poor in rich countries better off at the expense of the rich in rich countries, whilst benefitting the poor countries, id be all for it.
But if that were the case there wouldn't be mass immigration
As for losing freedoms, a Case @SouthamObserver often tries to make, it is true as long as you don't consider the other side. When I buy a pair of trainers for £50 I could just say 'I'm £50 worse off' if I didn't mention I'd got the trainers
Liverpool lost a lot of attacking flair when they sold Coutinho, that a true statement... we could leave it at that, but I'd mention they used the money to buy van Dijk
Another way of putting it is to say that globalisation has increased inequality in western countries. That's why populism has made a comeback.
Yes. But it's populism of the Right sadly. It seems that for populism in the West to really have some oomph it needs to have a good dose of xenophobia in there.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters,
That is fucking great. I'll get my stern trawler out this weekend.
Whatever floats your boat Pugwash
As established, the fishing rights have been sold to Spanish, French and Dutch fishermen and they are not coming back. They may lease them back to UK fishermen but the UK government sold the rights and there is no mechanism for their return.
It wasn't the government was it? AIUI it was the big fishing companies.
Those dastardly Big Fish vested interests, and their insatiable desires for more Small Ponds.
Seriously, who are the big fishing companies? I've just Googled it and I've never heard of any of them.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
Yes. An example where integrity, competence, bravery and ambition does not pass automatically from one generation to the next.
What has Sarah Smith done to annoy the Nats so much? Is working for the BBC enough? I don't know much about her but I am starting to warm to her.
You are correct , anyone in the state propaganda unit is suspect and to boot she hates SNP and always looks as if she has shit under her nose, condescending overprivileged establishment unionist. Not much to like unless you are a staunch unionist.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
As this is PedanticBetting.com I should point out that he didn't use a gendered pronoun.
And I would have gotten away with that too if I'd only logged onto PunningBetting.com
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
Yes. An example where integrity, competence, bravery and ambition does not pass automatically from one generation to the next.
What has Sarah Smith done to annoy the Nats so much? Is working for the BBC enough? I don't know much about her but I am starting to warm to her.
You are correct , anyone in the state propaganda unit is suspect and to boot she hates SNP and always looks as if she has shit under her nose, condescending overprivileged establishment unionist. Not much to like unless you are a staunch unionist.
She said "enjoyed" rather than "embraced". BURN THE WITCH
On the back of yesterday's press release from Moderna about their first four vaccine trial volunteers...
...CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2020-- Moderna, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a clinical stage biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines to create a new generation of transformative medicines for patients, today announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 17,600,000 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $76.00 per share, before underwriting discounts and commissions. In addition, Moderna has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 2,640,000 shares of common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. All shares of common stock are being offered by Moderna. Gross proceeds from the offering will be approximately $1.34 billion. The offering is expected to close on or about May 21, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions....
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Is this why that dodgy media report about the Oxford vaccine was released?
Or was that GSK?
There's a lot of money riding on this race...
It's the preprint about the Oxford vaccine trial that's just been released. The dodgy media report was several weeks ago.
No, I meant the report on the preprint suggesting that it wasn't very effective in monkeys. It seems that was a misrepresentation of the trial.
Thanks for posting that. I'm sure everyone in her right mind wants the Oxford vaccine (and every other vaccine) to succeed.
At the same time, I don't find a tweet saying "There is so much wrong with this commentary" very convincing in itself. Or, for that matter, one saying "this is badly done. Guess they need to sell their paper?"
It would be helpful to read a response written in a medium other than Twitter.
It is also worth noting that the Telegraph article quoted some other sceptical views about the Oxford vaccine, as well as Haseltine's on Forbes.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
Look out the WOKE police are out of teh doughnut shop.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Why is that every time someone on the Left disagrees with someone on the Right, the person on the Right says that the person on the Left is taking away their right to have that opinion? Saying you are wrong doesn't mean we think you shouldn't be allowed to think it. The only people taking away other people's rights around here are the you people with your fucking Brexit.
Is that really the case? I thought there were legitimate concerns about the policy of no platforming, for example?
Yep, I think I may have seen those concerns expressed in the Spectator, Telegraph, Times, Mail, Sun, Express, Spiked, UnHerd, CapX, Guido, etc.
And it was certainly shocking the way the Today prog and GMB no platformed Tories.
Yeah, the practice has been criticised, but it still continues.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
Look out the JOKE police are out of teh doughnut shop.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
Look out the WOKE police are out of teh doughnut shop.
Not at all, Madam. I just detected an aversion to gender-free language, and I'm doing my best not to offend you ladies!
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
Yes. An example where integrity, competence, bravery and ambition does not pass automatically from one generation to the next.
What has Sarah Smith done to annoy the Nats so much? Is working for the BBC enough? I don't know much about her but I am starting to warm to her.
You are correct , anyone in the state propaganda unit is suspect and to boot she hates SNP and always looks as if she has shit under her nose, condescending overprivileged establishment unionist. Not much to like unless you are a staunch unionist.
She said "enjoyed" rather than "embraced". BURN THE WITCH
Welcome to "Civic" nationalism.
She very nastily inferred Sturgeon was enjoying Covid and treating it as just an excuse to get one over Boris. A biased unionist Uncle Tom arsehole is being polite.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
Look out the WOKE police are out of teh doughnut shop.
Not at all, Madam. I just detected an aversion to gender-free language, and I'm doing my best not to offend you ladies!
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
It was about being able to control the level of immigration, not ending it completely. Farage and UKIP didn't want to end it completely.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
@isam, who will no doubt shortly speak for himself, has in the past illustrated how immigration was central to Brexit, which conforms with any number of surveys on the matter.
You say: "oh just saying immigration doesn't mean people want to control or have less of it". I say: "is it time for your afternoon nap yet?"
Dishwashers (down from 2.7%) Freezers (down from 2.5%) Sanitary products and tampons (down from 6.3%) Paints (down from 6.5%) and screwdrivers (down from 2.7%) Mirrors (down from 4%) Scissors and garden shears (down from 4.7%) Padlocks (down from 2.7%) Cooking products such as baking powder (down from 6.1%), yeast (down from 12%), bay leaves (down from 7%), ground thyme (down from 8.5%) and cocoa powder (down from 8%) Christmas trees (down from 2.5%)
Most of these are easily within the range of currency fluctuation, and of course apply to the delivered cost, not the retail price - so anyone who think's they're going to get fiver off their £200 dishwasher is in for a disappointment. I wish people would stop fetishising "trade deals" and focus more on educating a work force "to make the stuff the world actually wants".
This seems an odd step. As you say these tariffs are not particularly an inhibition to trade but they will certainly be an inhibition to a free trade agreement with the EU. They cannot have a situation where goods that should bear such tariffs can be imported tariff free to the UK and then have free access to the EU. It therefore seems to be a ploy to make a FTA with the EU more difficult at a time when the negotiations are already struggling. Unhelpful.
Quite the opposite - it will make a prompt deal more attractive.
"But tariffs will remain on UK-produced cars - at 10% - and on agricultural products including lamb, beef and butter at their current levels, following concerns that these industries could be decimated by Brexit.
These new tariffs will be applied to trade with any country with which the UK has not negotiated a trade deal by the time the transition period ends on 31 December."
Don't understand the reference to UK-produced cars. If that is supposed to be non UK produced cars we are presumably saying that would apply to EU cars in the absence of a trade deal?
Its badly phrased, whoever wrote that but I understand what they were trying to say.
What they're trying to say is that goods we don't produce (dishwashers etc) are going to be permitted tariff-free, but goods we produce ourselves like cars will see tariffs for that sector.
So we are discouraging the manufacture of dishwashers in this country. Why? We urgently need import substitution to reduce our trade deficit.
Ive been saying that for years
You have indeed. And you are right. We cannot restrict our production to what we produce now. Bluntly, we just don't produce nearly enough to pay for our current standard of living.
I too like the idea of more self-sufficiency. But I'm not sure replacing cheap imports with expensive homegrown goods leads to a sustainable rise in our living standards.
Everything is a matter of degree but for the last 20 years these "cheap imports" have caused us to run a serious trade deficit with the result that we have switched from a creditor nation receiving more income from abroad than repatriated profits to a debtor nation where other countries own more and more of our assets and charge us rent for their use. In the longer term this will diminish the standard of living in this country. Indeed, it already has. So the true cost of "cheap imports" is much higher than it appears.
If we were finding better things to do than make these imports and were able to sell our skills abroad it would not matter. I don't have a particular fetish about manufacturing. But the sad truth is we don't, not by a long way. So we either accept a falling standard of living or we do something about it. Import substitution is one obvious way to address the problem but we need to improve investment, reduce consumption, improve training, education, productivity and our attitude towards engineers and applied scientists. Governments of all shades have failed to address this since the 70s. It is increasingly urgent.
I do agree with much of what you say here. But classic trade theory says that if things are made where it is cheapest to do so, it leads to an optimum material result for the whole. Of course this neglects incredibly important issues such as wealth distribution and environmental concerns. But that is the theory driving globalization and I believe it is widely accepted to be true. Meaning that if the process is reversed the world will be the (materially) poorer for it. Perhaps we can get richer in a world getting poorer, as opposed to (as now) getting poorer in one getting richer - talking relative rather than absolute - but my sense is it will be a big ask.
Where's the benefit in making Jeff Bezos richer and Hartlepool poorer ? Free trade works for the benefit of the local hegemon. We lost that position 100 years ago. Now it's questionable if it is in our interest.
Globalization has reduced the gap between "us and them" in global terms (good IMO) but increased the gap between rich and poor in the west (bad IMO). Conundrum.
In general I'd like to see more focus on how wealth is distributed and less on how it's made. I think the distribution issue is the more interesting and challenging.
Yes, similar point to one I like made by Amol Rajan, along the lines of 'mass immigration is good for people from poor countries, and the rich in rich countries, but bad for the poor in rich countries.'
If mass immigration made the poor in rich countries better off at the expense of the rich in rich countries, whilst benefitting the poor countries, id be all for it.
But if that were the case there wouldn't be mass immigration
As for losing freedoms, a Case @SouthamObserver often tries to make, it is true as long as you don't consider the other side. When I buy a pair of trainers for £50 I could just say 'I'm £50 worse off' if I didn't mention I'd got the trainers
Liverpool lost a lot of attacking flair when they sold Coutinho, that a true statement... we could leave it at that, but I'd mention they used the money to buy van Dijk
Another way of putting it is to say that globalisation has increased inequality in western countries. That's why populism has made a comeback.
Yes. But it's populism of the Right sadly. It seems that for populism in the West to really have some oomph it needs to have a good dose of xenophobia in there.
You could argue that Jeremy Corbyn almost won the 2017 election on a platform of left-wing populism.
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Why is that every time someone on the Left disagrees with someone on the Right, the person on the Right says that the person on the Left is taking away their right to have that opinion? Saying you are wrong doesn't mean we think you shouldn't be allowed to think it. The only people taking away other people's rights around here are the you people with your fucking Brexit.
Is that really the case? I thought there were legitimate concerns about the policy of no platforming, for example?
Yep, I think I may have seen those concerns expressed in the Spectator, Telegraph, Times, Mail, Sun, Express, Spiked, UnHerd, CapX, Guido, etc.
And it was certainly shocking the way the Today prog and GMB no platformed Tories.
Yeah, the practice has been criticised, but it still continues.
And so many platforms from which to criticise it. No wonder the Tories feel they can boycott the platforms they don't like.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
@isam, who will no doubt shortly speak for himself, has in the past illustrated how immigration was central to Brexit, which conforms with any number of surveys on the matter.
You say: "oh just saying immigration doesn't mean people want to control or have less of it". I say: "is it time for your afternoon nap yet?"
I have no qualms with you saying immigration was central to Brexit.
I have a qualm with you saying "ending immigration" was.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
It was about being able to control the level of immigration, not ending it completely. Farage and UKIP didn't want to end it completely.
Thanks isam.
There we go @TOPPING ... isam agrees with me. Are you prepared to concede defeat?
Aren't immigrants usually foreigners, Richard? Let's see if the examples you give work if we swap the two words.
Oh look, they do.
No, this is wrong.
To take an illustration I've used before, suppose a nice Swedish family come and live in a small English village. They would be welcomed. There would be no anti-Swedish sentiment. But if 100 Swedish families buy up half the houses in the village, the school starts teaching in Swedish, the pub gives up on English beer and ham, egg and chips, and instead serves only vodka and Smörgåsbord, then the locals would not unreasonably feel that their community is no longer recognisable, and resent it. They might even start hating the Swedish incomers themselves, although it's important to realise that that is a secondary effect.
There is nothing xenophobic or intolerant about this; it's perfectly reasonable. And whilst my example is artificial, it's not really very different to the impact of incoming EU workers in some specific towns and areas,
Failure to admit this perfectly natural and unobjectionable sentiment, and equating it with 'racism', is a big mistake - one of the mistakes which led to the disaster of Brexit.
An excellent illustration. It's the difference between the existing culture being enhanced and it being replaced - a distinction that makes all the difference between a happy multifaceted society and one rushing for the Brexit door, and yet the concept is completely lost on some people.
Again, you may not care if the language, dress, food, culture etc etc of your area is replaced by another or if increased population pressure makes everything more crowded and resources more scarce, and that's fine. But many people do care, and they have every right in the world to express their opinion in the public sphere and at the ballot box.
Why is that every time someone on the Left disagrees with someone on the Right, the person on the Right says that the person on the Left is taking away their right to have that opinion? Saying you are wrong doesn't mean we think you shouldn't be allowed to think it. The only people taking away other people's rights around here are the you people with your fucking Brexit.
Is that really the case? I thought there were legitimate concerns about the policy of no platforming, for example?
Yep, I think I may have seen those concerns expressed in the Spectator, Telegraph, Times, Mail, Sun, Express, Spiked, UnHerd, CapX, Guido, etc.
And it was certainly shocking the way the Today prog and GMB no platformed Tories.
Yeah, the practice has been criticised, but it still continues.
And so many platforms from which to criticise it. No wonder the Tories feel they can boycott the platforms they don't like.
I don't think anyone has ever complained about the lack of ability to debate the pros and cons of no platforming. The issues where no-platforming has occurred, however...
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
It was about being able to control the level of immigration, not ending it completely. Farage and UKIP didn't want to end it completely.
He speaks!
And I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who cited immigration as a reason for their leave vote were happy with the numbers and just wanted to reclaim the abstract principle of being able to control it.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
Yes. An example where integrity, competence, bravery and ambition does not pass automatically from one generation to the next.
What has Sarah Smith done to annoy the Nats so much? Is working for the BBC enough? I don't know much about her but I am starting to warm to her.
You are correct , anyone in the state propaganda unit is suspect and to boot she hates SNP and always looks as if she has shit under her nose, condescending overprivileged establishment unionist. Not much to like unless you are a staunch unionist.
She said "enjoyed" rather than "embraced". BURN THE WITCH
Welcome to "Civic" nationalism.
She very nastily inferred Sturgeon was enjoying Covid and treating it as just an excuse to get one over Boris. A biased unionist Uncle Tom arsehole is being polite.
She's aged over the last 3 months. That future UN / WHO / NGO sinecure must be looking more attractive by the day.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
Would that the same could be said of some of those replying....
That's John Smith's daughter isn't it?
Yes. An example where integrity, competence, bravery and ambition does not pass automatically from one generation to the next.
What has Sarah Smith done to annoy the Nats so much? Is working for the BBC enough? I don't know much about her but I am starting to warm to her.
You are correct , anyone in the state propaganda unit is suspect and to boot she hates SNP and always looks as if she has shit under her nose, condescending overprivileged establishment unionist. Not much to like unless you are a staunch unionist.
She said "enjoyed" rather than "embraced". BURN THE WITCH
Welcome to "Civic" nationalism.
She very nastily inferred Sturgeon was enjoying Covid and treating it as just an excuse to get one over Boris. A biased unionist Uncle Tom arsehole is being polite.
A one word slip turns into "biased Uncle Tom arsehole" as "polite".
She's apologised. Sturgeon has accepted the apology.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
It was about being able to control the level of immigration, not ending it completely. Farage and UKIP didn't want to end it completely.
He speaks!
And I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who cited immigration as a reason for their leave vote were happy with the numbers and just wanted to reclaim the abstract principle of being able to control it.
Why are you trying to introduce numbers into it? Your claim was "end" - that means no numbers.
Reducing numbers was government policy under David Cameron. Are you trying to bring him into it now? Make your mind up, you're all over the shop.
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
As this is PedanticBetting.com I should point out that he didn't use a gendered pronoun.
No, just a gendered noun.
p.s. No one has ever asked me my preferred pronouns, but I almost wish they would, just so that I could express my love for 'iste, ista, istud' loud and proud...
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
@isam, who will no doubt shortly speak for himself, has in the past illustrated how immigration was central to Brexit, which conforms with any number of surveys on the matter.
You say: "oh just saying immigration doesn't mean people want to control or have less of it". I say: "is it time for your afternoon nap yet?"
I have no qualms with you saying immigration was central to Brexit.
I have a qualm with you saying "ending immigration" was.
Understand the distinction?
Ah you are inching towards an understanding. It's slow work but that's what makes PB so great.
As with @isam's point - do you think that the majority of those who cited immigration as a reason for voting Leave
a) wanted to control it only in theory so as to be able to determine who exactly comes in, keep numbers the same, and perhaps swap out Polish plumbers for Indian ones; or
b) wanted to reduce the number of foreigners coming to this country?
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
I thought that one of the immigration issues that surfaced was the difficulty curry houses were having, back in 2016 or so, in recruiting competent chefs.
Celebrating treating people "based on their skills, not where they're from" is a very good thing.
Or would you rather treat people based on where they're from, not their skills?
We are losing freedoms. That is the point. As from 1st January 2021, UK businesses and citizens (who do not hold dual nationality) will enjoy fewer freedoms than they do today.
Every year in the EU we lost "freedoms" as new regulations came in too.
Win some lose some.
Name 10, from any year of your choice.
Fish your own waters,
That is fucking great. I'll get my stern trawler out this weekend.
Whatever floats your boat Pugwash
As established, the fishing rights have been sold to Spanish, French and Dutch fishermen and they are not coming back. They may lease them back to UK fishermen but the UK government sold the rights and there is no mechanism for their return.
It wasn't the government was it? AIUI it was the big fishing companies.
Those dastardly Big Fish vested interests, and their insatiable desires for more Small Ponds.
Seriously, who are the big fishing companies? I've just Googled it and I've never heard of any of them.
As has been repeatedly pointed out UK Fishing is a comparatively tiny industry, so 'big fishing companies' should only be used advisedly. Perhaps it could be said that like fishing in the minds of Tories, Unionists and Brexiteers, they're symbolically big.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
I do not see what is outrageous about not using gendered language when you do not know the person's gender.
And it's not the law. Just food for thought. People getting in a tizz for no rational reason. It often seems to me that there is an order of magnitude more "PC gorn mad" flying around than there is PC gorning mad to trigger it.
What a massive coincidence that you happen to agree with every word of it...
It's hardly a coincidence when someone agrees with their own comment.
No, it's hardly coincidence when someone thinks that outrage over PC is excessive and at the same time they consider it to be an ideological good that should spread far and wide, no matter the wishes of the sane majority of the population...
Please just take your medication like a good girl.
Do you know BluestBlue is a girl or was that an inappropriate use of a gender pronoun?
Look out the WOKE police are out of teh doughnut shop.
Not at all, Madam. I just detected an aversion to gender-free language, and I'm doing my best not to offend you ladies!
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
It was about being able to control the level of immigration, not ending it completely. Farage and UKIP didn't want to end it completely.
Always a place for dashed good cheps from the Anglosphere I imagine. No danger of Farage being made uncomfortable if they moved in next door.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
Indeed. Angela Merkel's title is given in all German media as '(Bundes-) Kanzlerin'. If you tried calling her 'Kanzler', you might get a thumping!
The PC 'logic' seems to be: 'women are equal to men, therefore we must abolish all female-specific terms and refer to women as if they were men, because male terms are clearly superior... er, is this right?'
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
@isam, who will no doubt shortly speak for himself, has in the past illustrated how immigration was central to Brexit, which conforms with any number of surveys on the matter.
You say: "oh just saying immigration doesn't mean people want to control or have less of it". I say: "is it time for your afternoon nap yet?"
I have no qualms with you saying immigration was central to Brexit.
I have a qualm with you saying "ending immigration" was.
Understand the distinction?
Ah you are inching towards an understanding. It's slow work but that's what makes PB so great.
As with @isam's point - do you think that the majority of those who cited immigration as a reason for voting Leave
a) wanted to control it only in theory so as to be able to determine who exactly comes in, keep numbers the same, and perhaps swap out Polish plumbers for Indian ones; or
b) wanted to reduce the number of foreigners coming to this country?
I think many of them wanted to reduce the numbers coming to this country, that was never in dispute. That's not "ending immigration" though.
Now do you think that the majority of those who cited getting immigration into the tens of thousands as a reason for voting for David Cameron's Conservatives
(a) wanted to get migration into the tens of thousands in theory so as to be able to determine who exactly comes in, keep numbers the same, and perhaps swap out Polish plumbers for Indian ones; or
b) wanted to reduce the number of foreigners coming to this country?
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
A devastating point. It's amazing no one has ever made it before.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
I thought that one of the immigration issues that surfaced was the difficulty curry houses were having, back in 2016 or so, in recruiting competent chefs.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
A devastating point. It's amazing no one has ever made it before.
People have whenever this preposterous newspeak idiocy comes up.
Do you care to address any of the actual points raised before? EG do you think it is appropriate to believe a woman's "family name" is her "maiden name" rather than her actual family name she shares with her children?
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
Your argument appears to rest on the terms "man" and "human" being synonyms. This is obviously not true.
The UK's global tariff plans are the first vaguely conservative policy that has emerged from this government so far.
Liz Truss is the architect of this, and will be the architect of our trade agreements with all and sundry too.
One to watch?
When the implications of Boris & Co's state intervention on steroids become apparent the tories could huddle around someone offering thatcherite solutions. Especially if its a woman.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
It was about being able to control the level of immigration, not ending it completely. Farage and UKIP didn't want to end it completely.
He speaks!
And I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who cited immigration as a reason for their leave vote were happy with the numbers and just wanted to reclaim the abstract principle of being able to control it.
Why are you trying to introduce numbers into it? Your claim was "end" - that means no numbers.
Reducing numbers was government policy under David Cameron. Are you trying to bring him into it now? Make your mind up, you're all over the shop.
No. My original point was that a central strand of the Leave campaign was to reduce the number of foreigners coming to the UK. Or "immigration" as people responded when asked.
You said no, the racists were all in Vote Leave, whereas Leave.EU was full of foreigner-loving open society liberals (or somesuch). So you yourself accepted that a large number of Leave campaigners were "openly racist" (your words). Just not the particular grouping you favoured.
You then tried to argue that immigration was not a central strand of the Leave effort. Which is transparently bollocks.
And then you tried to say that when people said "immigration" as a reason for voting Leave what they actually meant was that they were happy with the numbers of foreigners here and just wanted to be able to control it and wanted Indian plumbers instead of Polish ones.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
For this reason woke women prefer the terms wimmin or even wombyn (google if you think I am making this up). The etymology of women is almost certainly womb men, i.e. chaps with wombs.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
I thought that one of the immigration issues that surfaced was the difficulty curry houses were having, back in 2016 or so, in recruiting competent chefs.
Where do I start with that one ?
Why don't hey just train people ?
There are no economically inactive people If they did exist, they don't want to work for such terrible wages If they did exist, they would be lazy, because white English people are lazy. If they ddi exist, they can't just be trained If they did exist, they are all disabled/fat/unusable/scum.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
I wonder if "actor " is a term like "Prince" that was once gender-neutral, but which became gendered. Elizabeth I referred to herself as a Prince, and at the time, it simply meant Head of State/Head of Government. In that sense, Angela Merkel is a Prince.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
Your argument appears to rest on the terms "man" and "human" being synonyms. This is obviously not true.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
Indeed. Angela Merkel's title is given in all German media as '(Bundes-) Kanzlerin'. If you tried calling her 'Kanzler', you might get a thumping!
The PC 'logic' seems to be: 'women are equal to men, therefore we must abolish all female-specific terms and refer to women as if they were men, because male terms are clearly superior... er, is this right?'
I think the point is that there is no valid reason to have special terms to distinguish between male and female actors. We don't use special words for female engineers, doctors or writers, so why the exception for actors?
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
It was about being able to control the level of immigration, not ending it completely. Farage and UKIP didn't want to end it completely.
He speaks!
And I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who cited immigration as a reason for their leave vote were happy with the numbers and just wanted to reclaim the abstract principle of being able to control it.
Why are you trying to introduce numbers into it? Your claim was "end" - that means no numbers.
Reducing numbers was government policy under David Cameron. Are you trying to bring him into it now? Make your mind up, you're all over the shop.
No. My original point was that a central strand of the Leave campaign was to reduce the number of foreigners coming to the UK. Or "immigration" as people responded when asked.
You said no, the racists were all in Vote Leave, whereas Leave.EU was full of foreigner-loving open society liberals (or somesuch). So you yourself accepted that a large number of Leave campaigners were "openly racist" (your words). Just not the particular grouping you favoured.
You then tried to argue that immigration was not a central strand of the Leave effort. Which is transparently bollocks.
And then you tried to say that when people said "immigration" as a reason for voting Leave what they actually meant was that they were happy with the numbers of foreigners here and just wanted to be able to control it and wanted Indian plumbers instead of Polish ones.
Which last I thought unlikely.
I don't disagree that a strand of the Leave campaign wanted to reduce numbers any more than a significant strand of David Cameron's voters wanted to reduce numbers. That was never disputed.
Words have meanings, if you wanted to say some wanted to reduce it then say that. Its not what you said. I never said anything about numbers, you've only just introduced numbers into the conversation.
I never disputed immigration being a central strand either. I disputed "ending immigration" was. As did isam.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
A devastating point. It's amazing no one has ever made it before.
People have whenever this preposterous newspeak idiocy comes up.
Do you care to address any of the actual points raised before? EG do you think it is appropriate to believe a woman's "family name" is her "maiden name" rather than her actual family name she shares with her children?
Sorry, madam, life's too short to "address any of the actual points raised" by the preposterous reactionary idiocy.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
Your argument appears to rest on the terms "man" and "human" being synonyms. This is obviously not true.
Man can be defined as humans of either gender.
When it is used without an article, as you have. "The man" or "a man" generally refers to the type of human with the Y chromosome.
@isam thank god you're here. Please tell @Philip_Thompson that Brexit was about the foreigners.
TIA.
Hold on! You never claimed it was "about the foreigners" for some like isam. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
It was about being able to control the level of immigration, not ending it completely. Farage and UKIP didn't want to end it completely.
He speaks!
And I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who cited immigration as a reason for their leave vote were happy with the numbers and just wanted to reclaim the abstract principle of being able to control it.
Why are you trying to introduce numbers into it? Your claim was "end" - that means no numbers.
Reducing numbers was government policy under David Cameron. Are you trying to bring him into it now? Make your mind up, you're all over the shop.
No. My original point was that a central strand of the Leave campaign was to reduce the number of foreigners coming to the UK. Or "immigration" as people responded when asked.
You said no, the racists were all in Vote Leave, whereas Leave.EU was full of foreigner-loving open society liberals (or somesuch). So you yourself accepted that a large number of Leave campaigners were "openly racist" (your words). Just not the particular grouping you favoured.
You then tried to argue that immigration was not a central strand of the Leave effort. Which is transparently bollocks.
And then you tried to say that when people said "immigration" as a reason for voting Leave what they actually meant was that they were happy with the numbers of foreigners here and just wanted to be able to control it and wanted Indian plumbers instead of Polish ones.
Which last I thought unlikely.
Surely the problem of skilled immigration is that we import our new masters and mistresses, thereby denying social mobility to our posterity?
Wouldn't we be better importing low skilled serfs, so that our own progeny have the opportunity of escaping the drudgery?
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
For this reason woke women prefer the terms wimmin or even wombyn (google if you think I am making this up). The etymology of women is almost certainly womb men, i.e. chaps with wombs.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
Your argument appears to rest on the terms "man" and "human" being synonyms. This is obviously not true.
Man can be defined as humans of either gender.
When it is used without an article, as you have. "The man" or "a man" generally refers to the type of human with the Y chromosome.
Indeed, but I believe there's no article in firemen is there? Just as there's not in saying like "all things to all men".
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
For this reason woke women prefer the terms wimmin or even wombyn (google if you think I am making this up). The etymology of women is almost certainly womb men, i.e. chaps with wombs.
As opposed to a cowgirl, who is a woman with chaps.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
Your argument appears to rest on the terms "man" and "human" being synonyms. This is obviously not true.
Man can be defined as humans of either gender.
When it is used without an article, as you have. "The man" or "a man" generally refers to the type of human with the Y chromosome.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
Indeed. Angela Merkel's title is given in all German media as '(Bundes-) Kanzlerin'. If you tried calling her 'Kanzler', you might get a thumping!
The PC 'logic' seems to be: 'women are equal to men, therefore we must abolish all female-specific terms and refer to women as if they were men, because male terms are clearly superior... er, is this right?'
I think the point is that there is no valid reason to have special terms to distinguish between male and female actors. We don't use special words for female engineers, doctors or writers, so why the exception for actors?
Roles in acting are often more gender specific than in medicine or engineering. Perhaps unnecessarily so at times, but at times useful. Casting Little Women for example.
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
I wonder if "actor " is a term like "Prince" that was once gender-neutral, but which became gendered. Elizabeth I referred to herself as a Prince, and at the time, it simply meant Head of State/Head of Government. In that sense, Angela Merkel is a Prince.
Wasn't it rather because almost all princes were male at that time so it wasn't seen as necessary to make any adjustment, and that exceptional women were accorded the honorary status of male? ER seems to acknowledge this in her Tilbury speech.
'I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king - and of a King of England too'
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
Indeed. Angela Merkel's title is given in all German media as '(Bundes-) Kanzlerin'. If you tried calling her 'Kanzler', you might get a thumping!
The PC 'logic' seems to be: 'women are equal to men, therefore we must abolish all female-specific terms and refer to women as if they were men, because male terms are clearly superior... er, is this right?'
I think the point is that there is no valid reason to have special terms to distinguish between male and female actors. We don't use special words for female engineers, doctors or writers, so why the exception for actors?
It's really just a historical quirk of language. English indeed doesn't bother to distinguish the gender of agent nouns in many instances, whereas some other Indo-European languages do as a matter of course.
And now the Académie Française has agreed to endorse the wholesale introduction of feminine alternatives for previously male-gendered job titles, because in France's version of PC culture, it was the lack of female-specific terms that was the outrage...
One thing that has always puzzled me about gendered pronouns and indeed gendered terms generally – why when we attempt to abolish them do we tend to use the masculine form as neuter?
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
The masculine term is the base term of the word frequently in English and thus appropriate for both men and women. The idea women can't be included with the "firemen" just because it includes the letters "men" is preposterous. I have news for these idiots, the word "women" includes the letters "men" too!
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
For this reason woke women prefer the terms wimmin or even wombyn (google if you think I am making this up). The etymology of women is almost certainly womb men, i.e. chaps with wombs.
As opposed to a cowgirl, who is a woman with chaps.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DrNeeltje/status/1262140984768389122
TIA.
While I have every hope that Moderna is successful with their vaccine, sell on the news is usually good advice (in the short term at least) for most biotechs.
Preferably in advance of the company's own efforts...
"This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."
But a billion dollar offering does provide some context.
Your preposterous claim you keep rowing back from is that it was central to all that it was about "ending immigration". Not reducing, not controlling, simply ending it.
So @isam do you believe that "ending immigration" completely was central to Brexit? Putting aside Farage etc that you supported do you think Gove, Boris etc were campaigning to "end immigration" completely?
TIA.
IKEA has that effect on me, too.
Chef says to the waitress, “have you got the thyme?” Waitress says, “yes, have you got the energy?” As this is PedanticBetting.com I should point out that he didn't use a gendered pronoun.
Strange to bring that up if you week seeking to end immigration.
And it was certainly shocking the way the Today prog and GMB no platformed Tories.
At the same time, I don't find a tweet saying "There is so much wrong with this commentary" very convincing in itself. Or, for that matter, one saying "this is badly done. Guess they need to sell their paper?"
It would be helpful to read a response written in a medium other than Twitter.
https://twitter.com/HeartScotNews/status/1262725434984337409?s=20
Seriously, who are the big fishing companies? I've just Googled it and I've never heard of any of them.
Welcome to "Civic" nationalism.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1262718609803169792?s=20
I suspect its the "equal" they are having difficulty with.....
You say: "oh just saying immigration doesn't mean people want to control or have less of it".
I say: "is it time for your afternoon nap yet?"
I have a qualm with you saying "ending immigration" was.
Understand the distinction?
There we go @TOPPING ... isam agrees with me. Are you prepared to concede defeat?
And I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who cited immigration as a reason for their leave vote were happy with the numbers and just wanted to reclaim the abstract principle of being able to control it.
The actor/actress thing is bizarre. In standard British English, an actor is male and an actress female. Yet there is pressure in some quarters to abolish the word actress and replace it with, erm, actor – the masculine form.
This seems to be the opposite of feminist.
She's apologised. Sturgeon has accepted the apology.
Why can't you?
Reducing numbers was government policy under David Cameron. Are you trying to bring him into it now? Make your mind up, you're all over the shop.
p.s. No one has ever asked me my preferred pronouns, but I almost wish they would, just so that I could express my love for 'iste, ista, istud' loud and proud...
As with @isam's point - do you think that the majority of those who cited immigration as a reason for voting Leave
a) wanted to control it only in theory so as to be able to determine who exactly comes in, keep numbers the same, and perhaps swap out Polish plumbers for Indian ones; or
b) wanted to reduce the number of foreigners coming to this country?
Why don't hey just train people ?
If women can't be firemen, then can women even be women in the first place?
The PC 'logic' seems to be: 'women are equal to men, therefore we must abolish all female-specific terms and refer to women as if they were men, because male terms are clearly superior... er, is this right?'
Now do you think that the majority of those who cited getting immigration into the tens of thousands as a reason for voting for David Cameron's Conservatives
(a) wanted to get migration into the tens of thousands in theory so as to be able to determine who exactly comes in, keep numbers the same, and perhaps swap out Polish plumbers for Indian ones; or
b) wanted to reduce the number of foreigners coming to this country?
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/michelin-restaurants-in-britain-how-will-brexit-impact-uk-fine-dining-1-4839214
Do you care to address any of the actual points raised before? EG do you think it is appropriate to believe a woman's "family name" is her "maiden name" rather than her actual family name she shares with her children?
Liz Truss is the architect of this, and will be the architect of our trade agreements with all and sundry too.
One to watch?
When the implications of Boris & Co's state intervention on steroids become apparent the tories could huddle around someone offering thatcherite solutions. Especially if its a woman.
Its worked before
You said no, the racists were all in Vote Leave, whereas Leave.EU was full of foreigner-loving open society liberals (or somesuch). So you yourself accepted that a large number of Leave campaigners were "openly racist" (your words). Just not the particular grouping you favoured.
You then tried to argue that immigration was not a central strand of the Leave effort. Which is transparently bollocks.
And then you tried to say that when people said "immigration" as a reason for voting Leave what they actually meant was that they were happy with the numbers of foreigners here and just wanted to be able to control it and wanted Indian plumbers instead of Polish ones.
Which last I thought unlikely.
If they did exist, they don't want to work for such terrible wages
If they did exist, they would be lazy, because white English people are lazy.
If they ddi exist, they can't just be trained
If they did exist, they are all disabled/fat/unusable/scum.
I think that's everything.....
Words have meanings, if you wanted to say some wanted to reduce it then say that. Its not what you said. I never said anything about numbers, you've only just introduced numbers into the conversation.
I never disputed immigration being a central strand either. I disputed "ending immigration" was. As did isam.
Wouldn't we be better importing low skilled serfs, so that our own progeny have the opportunity of escaping the drudgery?
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1262652866822635522?s=20
"All data below the 7 day moving average"
That's nice.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1262735818843512832?s=19
Even in the fifties there was a distinction: remember the death of the Chief Nazgul in the Lord of the Rings who cannot be killed by a man?
'I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king - and of a King of England too'
And now the Académie Française has agreed to endorse the wholesale introduction of feminine alternatives for previously male-gendered job titles, because in France's version of PC culture, it was the lack of female-specific terms that was the outrage...
https://www.france24.com/en/20190228-french-language-academie-francaise-feminisation-professions