Both seem rather too keen to cede people and territory to Russia.
The only thing I said was that it was reasonable to have a plebiscite in the Donbas (as suggested in Minsk 2).
(Russia would win a plebiscite in the Crimea).
Of course, territory would only be ceded in the Donbas, if Russia had *won* the plebiscite. If @rcs1000 twitter link is right, then the failure to have a plebiscite was very foolish.
It could have provided Ukraine with a very strong argument.
I also said if there was no plebiscite, the Ukraine would lose more territory than if a plebiscite was held. We will have to see how it all turns out.
I expect I will turn out to be -- unfortunately -- all too right.
The idea that any plebiscite post-2014 would be free and fair is ridiculous - just read the twitter thread below. It would have been a 110% vote to be part of Russia.
And then there would have been an insurgency in the next region, and the next, all fed by Putin and supported by his little helpers in the west.
Any plebiscite would have to be for the whole Donbas region. Salami slicing off bits to hold a vote in them is farcical, and would proceed as you describe.
See all the other plebiscites that have ever been conducted.
For example, Silesia, Schlewsig-Holstein, Cameroon.
Excitement at pretendy Scottish Conservativ econference
Stephen Kerr’s teeth fell out during his speech. 😂
The Scottish* Conservatives…..
Toothless in Scotland since 1955….
As opposed to Salmond...
Toadying to Putin since November 2017 (and possibly before)
Can you provide quotations?
I don't need to, and I did explain this to you the other day. He had a talk show on Putin's mouthpiece, RT. You seem to be in denial about this. He, and those like him in other parties, were (in as much as it is possible for someone as repulsive as Salmond) legitimising a propaganda machine.
Anyone who has ever seen a RT news program can tell it is propaganda for Putin's regime. Salmond, and the other useful idiots who appeared on it, must have known this. Salmond knew it more than most, particularly as he would have known that Putin is a strong supporter of Scottish separatism. Anyone who is an apologist for Salmond is an apologist for Putin.
I never did see the AS show, or indeed RT, so have to bow to your superior expertise. But you are talking about news programmes. Yet I thought he fronted a UK produced chat show about UK politics? Unwise as that was, as was made very clear by the SNP, it's not exactly what you are saying, is it?
Does that make it any clearer? What is it with you? You are clearly intelligent. Why do you wish to defend Salmond? Is it a tribal thing? I used to be a Tory, but you won't find me defending the lying scoundrel that currently (and ostensibly) *leads* the Conservative Party. Salmond has been described by his own QC and his successor as a sex pest. He had a program on the propaganda mouthpiece of Putin and you still wish to defend him. What would he actually have to do, for you to say "well, in spite of him being a nationalist, I think he is a tosser"?
I don't defend him. He's history. But I am extremely wary of commenting on him in public given the legal issues. And what you were saying didn't make complete sense to me.
https://twitter.com/avalaina/status/1504828138219581442 To "western experts" who offer us to surrender. I documenting war crimes in Crimea/Donbas for years. I interviewed hundreds who survived in captivity. They were beaten, raped, tortured with electric shocks, kept in basements with rats. Is this the alternative that you offer us?
Apoart from the points noted earlier, it's worth noting that most respondents don't favour incorporating anything beyond Crimea and the East, so if Putin decided to try to occupy all the way to Kyiv and even Lviv, he'd have a lot more domestic persuading to do, quite apart from the military challenge. In practice the negotiations are going to come down to (a) definitions of neutrality and security and (b) the future status of Crimea and the Donbas.
Maybe some sort of UN peacekeeping line as in Cyprus could make (b) negotiable (also thereby covering security), with final status kicked down the road for later resolution.
The shape of the ending peace deal seems pretty clear.
Ukraine gives up Crimea. Donbass/Luhansk have their status changed either through autonomy, devolution or referenda. Ukraine says it does not intend to join NATO but keeps open the right to join EU, or perhaps commits to not being a full member of the EU but not ruling out some form of closer links. Russia recognises Ukraine's right to exist and its right to have its own military. Sanctions start to be lifted, with reparations paid to Ukraine out of Russian assets frozen in the West.
Should be do-able quite quickly, think the war is over this time next month. It is a loss for Russia with them achieving virtually nothing they did not have before the (2022) invasion, but enough for Putin to claim a win back home given his control of state media and the false war objectives he told his home audience.
The trouble is that whilst that may bring an end to this episode it will encourage Putin into further adventures in places like Central Asia. I think that would be as bad, in its way, as the Versaille solution.
Yes. There may be no good options available, but any surrender of territory or foreign policy independence would in effect tell Putin this strategy works, he just needs to be better at it. In fairness it has worked until now.
I have two objectives for this conflict:
1. Putin and Russia in its current form must lose, and be seen to lose, so countries do not choose to invade neighbours, kill those populations and destroy cities. 2. We should do everything to support Ukraine, to help it remain a viable state and become a successful one if possible.
For the first objective - as long as it takes. Sooner is better, but ten years if need be. Which means the second objective of supporting Ukraine is more important right now than Putin losing. If a ceasefire or a peace agreement on less than ideal terms is the price of giving Ukraine a breathing space, they should get that. We can beat Russia down other ways and over time. Patience is a virtue here, I think.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
An effective electoral alliance between SLAB and SCON could make a real difference to end the stagnation. I think the SCONS would go for it but SLAB never - their hatred of the Tories trumps their support for the Union.
A [edit] significant proportion of Slab voters are pro-indy or at least sympathetic. Means that an electoral alliance would be a repeat of 2014-2015 as far as Labour is concerned. Front for the Tories = end up as their penal battalions.
There appear to be only four possible flavours for governance in Scotland.
SNP alone SNP/Green Lab/LDem Con/LDem
The last is effectively not possible right now under Boris etc. Unionists only hope for deposing the SNP therefore is Lab/LDem.
You win a coconut. Or at least a Bounty. That last is precisely what the Scottish Parlaiment voting system was fiddled by Dewar and Wallace etc to set in concrete forever.
A system that should be reformed. I don’t want a bounty, but my simple point often seems lost on commentators and even activists in Scotland, as far as I can tell.
Lab/Lib co-operation unlocks several critical issues across the UK, including “devo-max” in Scotland.
I hope there are smart people working on this stuff, but somehow I doubt it.
Trouble is that the LDs are the 5th party at Holyrood these days. Not a lot of coconuts to add to the pile there. Very different from the days of Dewar and Wallace.
Every penny counts, as if were.
The LDs primary enemy is the Cons, they need to take Con share.
SLAB need to focus on the SNP and to some extent the Greens.
Hmm, Slab are so right wing they maybe need to focus on the LDs.
Trouble is that if Slab focus on the SNP and Greens they shed voters becayse those two are pro-indy parties.
No easy answer. Especially because it depends what HQ is saying in London.
I disagree (while fully acknowledging that I don’t live in Scotland).
There are essentially two fault-lines in Scottish politics. One is pro/anti indy. The other is straightforward left/right.
There voters - maybe not many, but certainly some - who will be more motivated by left/right issues than indy.
SLAB’s job is to steal them away from SNP/Green with the right offer.
Easier said than done, of course, but at a macro level it’s the only strategy that makes sense.
Hmm, what I'd point out instantly is that the Tories have effectively caused the conflation of the two spectra - as does also, of course, the voting/age relationship. So they are not independent. The SNP strategy is fairly rational; the Tory one is too (but very dependent on old folk); Slab is split between the middle in two ways. And SLD is hard Unionist now anyway; so that's more competition for Slab.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
An effective electoral alliance between SLAB and SCON could make a real difference to end the stagnation. I think the SCONS would go for it but SLAB never - their hatred of the Tories trumps their support for the Union.
A [edit] significant proportion of Slab voters are pro-indy or at least sympathetic. Means that an electoral alliance would be a repeat of 2014-2015 as far as Labour is concerned. Front for the Tories = end up as their penal battalions.
There appear to be only four possible flavours for governance in Scotland.
SNP alone SNP/Green Lab/LDem Con/LDem
The last is effectively not possible right now under Boris etc. Unionists only hope for deposing the SNP therefore is Lab/LDem.
You win a coconut. Or at least a Bounty. That last is precisely what the Scottish Parlaiment voting system was fiddled by Dewar and Wallace etc to set in concrete forever.
A system that should be reformed. I don’t want a bounty, but my simple point often seems lost on commentators and even activists in Scotland, as far as I can tell.
Lab/Lib co-operation unlocks several critical issues across the UK, including “devo-max” in Scotland.
I hope there are smart people working on this stuff, but somehow I doubt it.
Trouble is that the LDs are the 5th party at Holyrood these days. Not a lot of coconuts to add to the pile there. Very different from the days of Dewar and Wallace.
Every penny counts, as if were.
The LDs primary enemy is the Cons, they need to take Con share.
SLAB need to focus on the SNP and to some extent the Greens.
Hmm, Slab are so right wing they maybe need to focus on the LDs.
Trouble is that if Slab focus on the SNP and Greens they shed voters becayse those two are pro-indy parties.
No easy answer. Especially because it depends what HQ is saying in London.
I disagree (while fully acknowledging that I don’t live in Scotland).
There are essentially two fault-lines in Scottish politics. One is pro/anti indy. The other is straightforward left/right.
There voters - maybe not many, but certainly some - who will be more motivated by left/right issues than indy.
SLAB’s job is to steal them away from SNP/Green with the right offer.
Easier said than done, of course, but at a macro level it’s the only strategy that makes sense.
Hmm, what I'd point out instantly is that the Tories have effectively caused the conflation of the two spectra - as does also, of course, the voting/age relationship. So they are not independent. The SNP strategy is fairly rational; the Tory one is too (but very dependent on old folk); Slab is split between the middle in two ways. And SLD is hard Unionist now anyway; so that's more competition for Slab.
I was mildly shocked to speak to a former Labour MP who told me without hesitation that he would vote SNP to defeat a Tory. As he claimed to be an adamant unionist I found this little short of bizarre but the dichotomy referred to does still exist to some extent. Personally, I blame Brown who encouraged hatred of the Tories in Scotland as a means of keeping SLAB top dog. Which, in fairness, worked very well until it didn't.
Blame Thatcher, not Brown. Brown appealed to existing enmities.
The fact you are shocked in your anecdote shows that a lot of politically active Scots don’t really seem to understand the key drivers of the vote up there. Unionists need to play a lot smarter.
45% of Scots are going to vote for independence regardless, as they did in 2014.
Most of them are leftwing. If Labour return to government and allow an indyref2 it will be up to them to keep their Scottish voters voting No again as they will be decisive.
SNP voters would of course virtually all vote Yes again
New: Rapper Lowkey to appear at the NUS’s annual conference at end of month.
Also appearing at the conference is Labour MP Zarah Sultana. Earlier, Lowkey said MSM has “weaponised the Jewish heritage” of Zelenskyy to “stave off” inquiries about far right groups in Ukraine.
You've got to be pretty twisted to see that as weaponising heritage rather than pointing out the absurdity of a key Putin delusion.
As for far right groups, read a piece on that on the BBC yesterday. I don't think anyone pretends there are no such groups active, but let's be honest, when an armed burglar is menacing you with a shotgun you might, in the moment, be less imminently concerned about the dodgy uncle with a blade trying to help fend him off.
There is, I think, a genuine concern with far-right/neo nazi nationalist groups in Ukraine, particularly centred around the Azov Militia. It's no coincidence that they are strong in Mariupol.
But for several reasons, Putin's insistence that Ukraine needs de-nazifying has no justification. Mainly because it's absolutely nothing to do with Putin. But also because Zelensky neither looks nor sounds like a neo-nazi sympathiser - quite the opposite, in fact. So in the media war the idea that Zelensky has to be defeated because of neo-nazism just makes Putin look stupid. The fact that Zelensky has Jewish heritage is not really relevant, but I suppose it is the icing on the cake.
In fact Zelensky's party is allied to our Liberal Democrats.
Ah, well that explains Putin's confusion.
You see, the Liberal Democrats in Russia *are* Nazis. So who can blame Putin for getting confused about Zelenskyy's party?
New: Rapper Lowkey to appear at the NUS’s annual conference at end of month.
Also appearing at the conference is Labour MP Zarah Sultana. Earlier, Lowkey said MSM has “weaponised the Jewish heritage” of Zelenskyy to “stave off” inquiries about far right groups in Ukraine.
You've got to be pretty twisted to see that as weaponising heritage rather than pointing out the absurdity of a key Putin delusion.
As for far right groups, read a piece on that on the BBC yesterday. I don't think anyone pretends there are no such groups active, but let's be honest, when an armed burglar is menacing you with a shotgun you might, in the moment, be less imminently concerned about the dodgy uncle with a blade trying to help fend him off.
There is, I think, a genuine concern with far-right/neo nazi nationalist groups in Ukraine, particularly centred around the Azov Militia. It's no coincidence that they are strong in Mariupol.
But for several reasons, Putin's insistence that Ukraine needs de-nazifying has no justification. Mainly because it's absolutely nothing to do with Putin. But also because Zelensky neither looks nor sounds like a neo-nazi sympathiser - quite the opposite, in fact. So in the media war the idea that Zelensky has to be defeated because of neo-nazism just makes Putin look stupid. The fact that Zelensky has Jewish heritage is not really relevant, but I suppose it is the icing on the cake.
In fact Zelensky's party is allied to our Liberal Democrats.
Excitement at pretendy Scottish Conservativ econference
Stephen Kerr’s teeth fell out during his speech. 😂
The Scottish* Conservatives…..
Toothless in Scotland since 1955….
As opposed to Salmond...
Toadying to Putin since November 2017 (and possibly before)
Can you provide quotations?
Additionally, as you have asked for "quotations" you probably can find plenty, but I think anyone who can say that they have "admiration" for a despotic psychopath like Putin can be accused of toadying as well as proving what many of us have known for a long time that he is a first class c*nt, just like the man he shows admiration of.
Up to you to do that, apart from a 2014 interview on checking, which seemed to be more about the various skills of world leaders. Though not reading any better for it.
Oh that is so weak. You seem to be an apologist for one of the most repulsive characters in British politics, in the same way that some on the left can't bring themselves to see Corbyn for what he was/is. And there was me thinking that maybe, just maybe, there were some right thinking people who believed in Scottish independence. Clearly not. I wonder how dark someone's history would have to be for you not to excuse them, so long as they believed in "the cause"?
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
Of course. I was dreaming.
It’s actually quite shit for Scotland. Labour really fucked up with Devolution
Perhaps when Sturgeon goes the tectonics might change…
"Indyref2 delay due to Ukraine would 'hand Putin veto over democracy in Scotland' claim SNP"
That SNP MSP should thank herself lucky she got her independence referendum in 2014 and Boris unlike Putin did not send in the armed forces to bring her nation firmly back within the bosom of the mother country.
She can then wait a generation until she is allowed an indyref2
That is an appalling thing to say. Lots of people are dying in Ukraine. You treat other people's lives as if they are nothing. I wonder how brave you would be if you were in the frontline rather than sitting behind your computer.
Oh your doing your liberal thought police whinging again.
I did not say Boris should have invaded Scotland to bring it back into the bosom of the mother country as Putin has invaded Ukraine did I? In fact I said precisely the opposite...
Saying that someone should be grateful Boris didn't invade is not 'precisely the opposite'. Though tbf "thank herself lucky" is incoherent, and could have meant anything, I suppose.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Could have got 4.9 at one stage in-running (BF). I just missed it.
Well done.
I’m astonished people bet in-running, off course. Surely the on-course punters have the market stitched up?
I actually find it impossible to do. The race moves faster and ahead of the prices. By the time you've processed it they've changed. Only way I do in-running for horses is to back pre race and leave an active unmatched lay at a shorter price (typically odds on). I often find this gets taken at a point when imo it's too short. Eg my horse loses and watching the race there never was a time it should have been odds on, yet I log on and get a pleasant surprise - my lay been taken and I haven't lost (or I've won even if it was for more than the stake). But doing it real time, no. I don't see how people do that. The great sports for in-running are cricket, golf and (especially) tennis.
The people who win in play horse racing are generally using bots and getting live pictures from drones at the course.
Really? That's interesting. I've been intrigued by how people do it but have never looked into it. Certainly it doesn't work for betfair as I use it. Too slow and sticky even for the jumps let alone the flat.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Both seem rather too keen to cede people and territory to Russia.
The only thing I said was that it was reasonable to have a plebiscite in the Donbas (as suggested in Minsk 2).
(Russia would win a plebiscite in the Crimea).
Of course, territory would only be ceded in the Donbas, if Russia had *won* the plebiscite. If @rcs1000 twitter link is right, then the failure to have a plebiscite was very foolish.
It could have provided Ukraine with a very strong argument.
I also said if there was no plebiscite, the Ukraine would lose more territory than if a plebiscite was held. We will have to see how it all turns out.
I expect I will turn out to be -- unfortunately -- all too right.
The idea that any plebiscite post-2014 would be free and fair is ridiculous - just read the twitter thread below. It would have been a 110% vote to be part of Russia.
And then there would have been an insurgency in the next region, and the next, all fed by Putin and supported by his little helpers in the west.
Any plebiscite would have to be for the whole Donbas region. Salami slicing off bits to hold a vote in them is farcical, and would proceed as you describe.
See all the other plebiscites that have ever been conducted.
For example, Silesia, Schlewsig-Holstein, Cameroon.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
Of course. I was dreaming.
It’s actually quite shit for Scotland. Labour really fucked up with Devolution
Perhaps when Sturgeon goes the tectonics might change…
"Indyref2 delay due to Ukraine would 'hand Putin veto over democracy in Scotland' claim SNP"
That SNP MSP should thank herself lucky she got her independence referendum in 2014 and Boris unlike Putin did not send in the armed forces to bring her nation firmly back within the bosom of the mother country.
She can then wait a generation until she is allowed an indyref2
That is an appalling thing to say. Lots of people are dying in Ukraine. You treat other people's lives as if they are nothing. I wonder how brave you would be if you were in the frontline rather than sitting behind your computer.
Oh your doing your liberal thought police whinging again.
I did not say Boris should have invaded Scotland to bring it back into the bosom of the mother country as Putin has invaded Ukraine did I? In fact I said precisely the opposite...
Saying that someone should be grateful Boris didn't invade is not 'precisely the opposite'. Though tbf "thank herself lucky" is incoherent, and could have meant anything, I suppose.
No it is. Otherwise I would have said Boris should have invaded Scotland like Putin invaded Ukraine.
Instead the SNP have been given 1 referendum already and can wait a generation until they get another.
Compared to Xi with Hong Kong or Putin with Ukraine or the Spanish with Catalonian Nationalists, Boris is being very reasonable with the Scottish Nationalists
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Could have got 4.9 at one stage in-running (BF). I just missed it.
Well done.
I’m astonished people bet in-running, off course. Surely the on-course punters have the market stitched up?
I actually find it impossible to do. The race moves faster and ahead of the prices. By the time you've processed it they've changed. Only way I do in-running for horses is to back pre race and leave an active unmatched lay at a shorter price (typically odds on). I often find this gets taken at a point when imo it's too short. Eg my horse loses and watching the race there never was a time it should have been odds on, yet I log on and get a pleasant surprise - my lay been taken and I haven't lost (or I've won even if it was for more than the stake). But doing it real time, no. I don't see how people do that. The great sports for in-running are cricket, golf and (especially) tennis.
The people who win in play horse racing are generally using bots and getting live pictures from drones at the course.
Really? That's interesting. I've been intrigued by how people do it but have never looked into it. Certainly it doesn't work for betfair as I use it. Too slow and sticky even for the jumps let alone the flat.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
New: Rapper Lowkey to appear at the NUS’s annual conference at end of month.
Also appearing at the conference is Labour MP Zarah Sultana. Earlier, Lowkey said MSM has “weaponised the Jewish heritage” of Zelenskyy to “stave off” inquiries about far right groups in Ukraine.
You've got to be pretty twisted to see that as weaponising heritage rather than pointing out the absurdity of a key Putin delusion.
As for far right groups, read a piece on that on the BBC yesterday. I don't think anyone pretends there are no such groups active, but let's be honest, when an armed burglar is menacing you with a shotgun you might, in the moment, be less imminently concerned about the dodgy uncle with a blade trying to help fend him off.
There is, I think, a genuine concern with far-right/neo nazi nationalist groups in Ukraine, particularly centred around the Azov Militia. It's no coincidence that they are strong in Mariupol.
But for several reasons, Putin's insistence that Ukraine needs de-nazifying has no justification. Mainly because it's absolutely nothing to do with Putin. But also because Zelensky neither looks nor sounds like a neo-nazi sympathiser - quite the opposite, in fact. So in the media war the idea that Zelensky has to be defeated because of neo-nazism just makes Putin look stupid. The fact that Zelensky has Jewish heritage is not really relevant, but I suppose it is the icing on the cake.
In fact Zelensky's party is allied to our Liberal Democrats.
Ah, well that explains Putin's confusion.
You see, the Liberal Democrats in Russia *are* Nazis. So who can blame Putin for getting confused about Zelenskyy's party?
I mean, that's a bit a strong. Too certain of their own intellectual superiority, apt to abuse statistics, intolerant of argument, and lacking a non-middle-class perspective, but that's hardly Nazism.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
"A hospital has finally admitted a woman may have been raped by a transgender patient after denying the possibility of an attack for almost a year, the House of Lords has heard.
"When police were called to the unnamed hospital in England, they were allegedly told by staff that 'there was no male' on the single-sex ward, 'therefore the rape could not have happened'.
But almost 12 months later, they revealed one of the patients had been trans. "
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Ah, I see Putin knows the one and only one MLK quote that right wingers know.
Could have got 4.9 at one stage in-running (BF). I just missed it.
Well done.
I’m astonished people bet in-running, off course. Surely the on-course punters have the market stitched up?
I actually find it impossible to do. The race moves faster and ahead of the prices. By the time you've processed it they've changed. Only way I do in-running for horses is to back pre race and leave an active unmatched lay at a shorter price (typically odds on). I often find this gets taken at a point when imo it's too short. Eg my horse loses and watching the race there never was a time it should have been odds on, yet I log on and get a pleasant surprise - my lay been taken and I haven't lost (or I've won even if it was for more than the stake). But doing it real time, no. I don't see how people do that. The great sports for in-running are cricket, golf and (especially) tennis.
Betfairs in betting delay is such that I've never managed to get it working correctly for horse racing.
Exactly. It's slower than the rhythm and dynamics of the race. You see 4 available in the blue when you think it should be 3 so you go for it, click, whirr, not matched, it's come in, now you have 4 offered in the pink and off market, which you have to cancel otherwise it might get taken 10 seconds later when it's struggling and iyo it should be 6. Or you try and anticipate what's going to happen, get your bid/offer in first, but that's not really pure inrunning betting, that's quasi trad betting.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Lavrov has been using the utterings of Putin as an argument closure. Who knows how the papacy has survived such idiocy, but Putin won't.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
So, wait, I am agreeing with something Putin doesn't actually believe? Therefore I am.... disagreeing with him?
OK. Got that. Alternatively, you also agree with him on this point, but find that uncomfortable, and you're too scared to admit it. Whatever
- Cases - UP. R is actually level or falling a bit, except in Wales and the South East. The big falls are among the unvaccinated young, though. In Scotland the big case peak seems to be reaching turn-around, with R falling there, fairly substantially now.
- In hospital - UP - MV beds - Flat(ish) - Admissions - UP. R is fairly level. - Deaths - Flat(ish), with a slight decline.
Ukrainians tentatively claiming one or two more Russian generals killed, this time from the 8th Army who are on the Kherson-Mariupol front. Apparently they were attacked in Kherson airport, which would be the 4th or 5th confirmed UA attack on the airport in the past week and a bit.
Needless to say, if true this is equally funny and damning.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Ah, I see Putin knows the one and only one MLK quote that right wingers know.
I'm old enough to remember when "treating everyone equally" wasn't considered "right-wing".
@Liveuamap Russian Ministry of Defense now accuse Ukraine in planting bomb inside Hospital #2 in Dnipro city, "and a plan to blow up it when Russian plane will fly over"
So, Russian Ministry of Defense, DO NOT FLY your plane over hospital in Dnipro city
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
It's a term of abuse to yell at non tories.
Sometimes. That doesn't work when someone pulls the 'what's wrong with being woke? I'm happy to be awake to racial/equalities issues' approach - it's not purely used perjoratively. But I should think we're all too worn out to pull on this thread.
Got to feel for the ITV 7 punter who got all 7 winners and in the tie break was only 0.25 of a length out of the winning distance in the 4.10 but was pipped at the post by another punter who was less than that out and is now £500,000 richer.
Posting without comment: "Russian Ministry of Defense now accuse Ukraine in planting bomb inside Hospital #2 in Dnipro city, "and a plan to blow up it when Russian plane will fly over"" https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1504863919021690893
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Ah, I see Putin knows the one and only one MLK quote that right wingers know.
I'm old enough to remember when "treating everyone equally" wasn't considered "right-wing".
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99-percent certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead. Please don't blame me for pointing this out--it's just science.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
It's a term of abuse to yell at non tories.
I don’t like the word “woke” just because it’s intended as a form of abuse and because the meaning varies, but I what I find interesting about the world we live in is that I used to be viewed as massively socially liberal (supported gay marriage 25 years ago to give one example) and yet these days I am seen as a social conservative for holding what I think are pretty mainstream views such as:
- I think everyone has a right to offend others, always, with no associated legal risk (the risk should be they get seen as a cock and barred from places by their owners).
- I oppose positive discrimination.
- If you have a sex change op then out of politeness I will address you as you want to be addressed, and mostly I will treat you as the gender you wish to be, but I think there are circumstances in which you cannot be treated as the gender you wish to be.
The fact that many of us feel we get demonised for thinking such thinks gives rise to the sense of a “woke mafia” that does so, I think.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Ah, I see Putin knows the one and only one MLK quote that right wingers know.
I'm old enough to remember when "treating everyone equally" wasn't considered "right-wing".
I'm old enough to remember gay people were vilified by the right wing. When it was illegal to mention gay relationships in a positive way in schools. That it was a "victory for common sense" to have such a ban.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
"A hospital has finally admitted a woman may have been raped by a transgender patient after denying the possibility of an attack for almost a year, the House of Lords has heard.
"When police were called to the unnamed hospital in England, they were allegedly told by staff that 'there was no male' on the single-sex ward, 'therefore the rape could not have happened'.
But almost 12 months later, they revealed one of the patients had been trans. "
Without getting into the Trans debate again, this is particularly bad behaviour by the hospital who only finally admitted that the rape had taken place after video evidence emerged to prove it. They knew it was possible he rape had taken place but preferred to call the woman a liar than admit their policy was wrong.
This would mean that the frontline of the war is now south of Kherson airport, and may explain those generals rumoured to have been killed in it (Ukrainians are reporting that the head of the 8th army, plus maybe 1-2 other of his generals were killed there. Stunning gains from Ukraine in the South over the past couple of days. Means Russia has their first dead Lieutenant General, and their 5th+ General of the war.
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99-percent certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead. Please don't blame me for pointing this out--it's just science.
That’s the sort of thing the Nazis would do - use dodgy science to make people too scared not to agree with them by labelling these people as a lower form of human.
"Russians of military age had relatively little attachment to the country even before the war: 43% of Russians between the ages of 18 and 24 said they wanted to leave the country for good."
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163 Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99-percent certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead. Please don't blame me for pointing this out--it's just science.
What a load of old bollocks. What is the point in posting shite like this? Does it advance your argument? Pff
"Russians of military age had relatively little attachment to the country even before the war: 43% of Russians between the ages of 18 and 24 said they wanted to leave the country for good."
max seddon @maxseddon · 30m Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's lead negotiator, says there is a "strange situation" as regards Moscow's demands to "denazify" Ukraine.
"The Ukrainian delegation think there aren't any Nazi groups in Ukraine and that it's not a thing in modern Ukraine."
Re immigration, Stephen Bush, formerly of the NS, is now at the FT. He started today.
https://www.ft.com/content/8e941a78-4d4f-4bdf-9e3a-2f290ab342ac Your country’s ability to do these things is a pretty good test of how effectively governed it is. If your planning and housing system doesn’t have enough flexibility and spare capacity to accommodate some refugees, you almost certainly have a sclerotic planning and housing system. If your community colleges can’t provide them with good enough language skills — people who were already working and living perfectly happily in another country — to enter your labour market, you almost certainly have a very bad adult education system. And if your political class doesn’t have the wit to allow anyone with a valid Ukrainian passport visa-free access to your country, then you almost certainly have a low-wattage political class.
If your country cannot do any of these things, congratulations! You are almost certainly the UK and you are almost certainly heading for a second successive lost decade.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
The most convincing analysis of Putin is that he has many faces. This is the 'face' he presents to court disillusioned westerners. We might think 'Putin is right', but it is really all just an elaborate stunt, and we are being played.
Re immigration, Stephen Bush, formerly of the NS, is now at the FT. He started today.
https://www.ft.com/content/8e941a78-4d4f-4bdf-9e3a-2f290ab342ac Your country’s ability to do these things is a pretty good test of how effectively governed it is. If your planning and housing system doesn’t have enough flexibility and spare capacity to accommodate some refugees, you almost certainly have a sclerotic planning and housing system. If your community colleges can’t provide them with good enough language skills — people who were already working and living perfectly happily in another country — to enter your labour market, you almost certainly have a very bad adult education system. And if your political class doesn’t have the wit to allow anyone with a valid Ukrainian passport visa-free access to your country, then you almost certainly have a low-wattage political class.
If your country cannot do any of these things, congratulations! You are almost certainly the UK and you are almost certainly heading for a second successive lost decade.
Bugger. I've got a sub for the Staggers but not FT.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Ah, I see Putin knows the one and only one MLK quote that right wingers know.
I'm old enough to remember when "treating everyone equally" wasn't considered "right-wing".
I'm old enough to remember gay people were vilified by the right wing. When it was illegal to mention gay relationships in a positive way in schools. That it was a "victory for common sense" to have such a ban.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
"A hospital has finally admitted a woman may have been raped by a transgender patient after denying the possibility of an attack for almost a year, the House of Lords has heard.
"When police were called to the unnamed hospital in England, they were allegedly told by staff that 'there was no male' on the single-sex ward, 'therefore the rape could not have happened'.
But almost 12 months later, they revealed one of the patients had been trans. "
Without getting into the Trans debate again, this is particularly bad behaviour by the hospital who only finally admitted that the rape had taken place after video evidence emerged to prove it. They knew it was possible he rape had taken place but preferred to call the woman a liar than admit their policy was wrong.
If you have the right kind of mindset, when there is conflict between Process and Reality, Process wins.
Back when ATMs were first introduced, the banks claimed they were un-hackable and never made a mistake. Therefore anyone claiming that they didn't get their cash was a fraudster. A number of people were prosecuted, until someone actually proved this was horseshit.
I had my own experience when a police officer told me to my face that it was impossible a racist incident could have taken place. Because the of the Rules.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
The most convincing analysis of Putin is that he has many faces. This is the 'face' he presents to court disillusioned westerners. We might think 'Putin is right', but it is really all just an elaborate stunt, and we are being played.
He tries to cloak his expansionism in ideological clothing in order to prevent democratic countries uniting against him.
This would mean that the frontline of the war is now south of Kherson airport, and may explain those generals rumoured to have been killed in it (Ukrainians are reporting that the head of the 8th army, plus maybe 1-2 other of his generals were killed there. Stunning gains from Ukraine in the South over the past couple of days. Means Russia has their first dead Lieutenant General, and their 5th+ General of the war.
Yes, the risk always is that they extend themselves too far but the Russians taking the remaining helicopters out of Kherson airport suggests they, at the very least, were worried about more attacks. Given the public protests in Kherson against occupation, I would imagine Russia would evacuate Kherson fairly quickly if the gains continue.
Also, one other point, if the Ukrainians do manage to continue their advance is it possible they trap the Russian attacker of Mariupol from the Western flank?
The NATO demand is relatively straightforward, but the disarmament one seems like it would be tricky to word, given I doubt it would be a reciprocal disarmament.
From BBC: Moscow and Kyiv are "halfway there" in agreeing on the issue of Ukraine's demilitarisation, and their views are most aligned on Ukraine's neutrality and giving up on joining Nato, Russian negotiator Vladimir Medinsky says.
The Russian Interfax news agency quotes Medinsky as saying negotiating teams have been discussing security guarantees should Ukraine no longer attempt to join the Western military alliance.
President Vladimir Putin yesterday told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan what Russia's precise demands were for a peace deal with Ukraine.
Chief among them is an acceptance by Ukraine that it should be neutral and should not apply to join Nato. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has already conceded this.
There are other demands in this category, which mostly seem to be face-saving elements for the Russian side. Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine.
It's notable that all the leaks come from the Russian side. I suspect this is because they want to paint the Ukrainians as unreasonable and garner international support for telling Zelenskyy to take the deal.
Quiz question. Which left winger of historical fame is most often used on here by right wingers seeking to make a facile point that actually misunderstands almost completely the point that the original author was making? Is it a) Martin Luther King, or b) George Orwell?
Re immigration, Stephen Bush, formerly of the NS, is now at the FT. He started today.
https://www.ft.com/content/8e941a78-4d4f-4bdf-9e3a-2f290ab342ac Your country’s ability to do these things is a pretty good test of how effectively governed it is. If your planning and housing system doesn’t have enough flexibility and spare capacity to accommodate some refugees, you almost certainly have a sclerotic planning and housing system. If your community colleges can’t provide them with good enough language skills — people who were already working and living perfectly happily in another country — to enter your labour market, you almost certainly have a very bad adult education system. And if your political class doesn’t have the wit to allow anyone with a valid Ukrainian passport visa-free access to your country, then you almost certainly have a low-wattage political class.
If your country cannot do any of these things, congratulations! You are almost certainly the UK and you are almost certainly heading for a second successive lost decade.
Bugger. I've got a sub for the Staggers but not FT.
I cancelled all my subs when I left the UK. I need to get the FT. I’ve resumed/redirected my LRB. I’m thinking about the NYRB and Atlantic.
Alan Rusbridger has taken over at Prospect, he may revitalise that rather faded organ.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
The most convincing analysis of Putin is that he has many faces. This is the 'face' he presents to court disillusioned westerners. We might think 'Putin is right', but it is really all just an elaborate stunt, and we are being played.
I believe it is both
I reckon Putin really does think this about Wokeness, but he has also identified it as a weakness in the West, to be exploited. Therefore by correctly analysing the problem with Wokeness, out loud, he can further stoke the Culture Wars which he believes are enervating us
Indeed, one reason he over-reached and invaded Ukraine was, perhaps, because he incorrectly decided the decadent Woke West was now too spineless to react.
As for his specific views on race, I sense he believes that too. He often references race and culture - he often boasts that Russia is multiracial and multicultural. He's not an "ethno-nationalist" in the strictest sense, tho he is happy to draw on Russian-ness when it suits him - cf his use of the Orthodox Church
This makes sense when you comprehend his ambition: which is to restore the Russian/Soviet Empire. That can only be multiracial and multicultural, by definition, it cannot be "pure Russia". And, when you have severe demographic problems, you also don't want to alienate minorities who might usefully join your army
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
The most convincing analysis of Putin is that he has many faces. This is the 'face' he presents to court disillusioned westerners. We might think 'Putin is right', but it is really all just an elaborate stunt, and we are being played.
He tries to cloak his expansionism in ideological clothing in order to prevent democratic countries uniting against him.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
"A hospital has finally admitted a woman may have been raped by a transgender patient after denying the possibility of an attack for almost a year, the House of Lords has heard.
"When police were called to the unnamed hospital in England, they were allegedly told by staff that 'there was no male' on the single-sex ward, 'therefore the rape could not have happened'.
But almost 12 months later, they revealed one of the patients had been trans. "
Without getting into the Trans debate again, this is particularly bad behaviour by the hospital who only finally admitted that the rape had taken place after video evidence emerged to prove it. They knew it was possible he rape had taken place but preferred to call the woman a liar than admit their policy was wrong.
I simply find it mind-boggling that we have reached this stage of lunacy
max seddon @maxseddon · 30m Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's lead negotiator, says there is a "strange situation" as regards Moscow's demands to "denazify" Ukraine.
"The Ukrainian delegation think there aren't any Nazi groups in Ukraine and that it's not a thing in modern Ukraine."
There was a good 'unherd' episode on this last week. In summary, Ukraine does actually have a Nazi problem. They have about 2000 Nazis fighting for the government against the Russians. They have their own battalion and organisation. Some of them were exiled from Russia as they fell foul of the authorities. Obviously the Russians are using this for propoganda and some people are overblowing the significance of the situation, but it is clearly a messy situation.
@Liveuamap Russian Ministry of Defense now accuse Ukraine in planting bomb inside Hospital #2 in Dnipro city, "and a plan to blow up it when Russian plane will fly over"
So, Russian Ministry of Defense, DO NOT FLY your plane over hospital in Dnipro city
I hope Ukrainians learn the lessons Syrians had to against Russia fast. Never reveal the locations of shelters for women and children, field clinics or breadlines. Russia will target them first. Don’t reveal the locations to the UN. Russia will access them, and target them first. https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1504208771027021832
max seddon @maxseddon · 30m Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's lead negotiator, says there is a "strange situation" as regards Moscow's demands to "denazify" Ukraine.
"The Ukrainian delegation think there aren't any Nazi groups in Ukraine and that it's not a thing in modern Ukraine."
There was a good 'unherd' episode on this last week. In summary, Ukraine does actually have a Nazi problem. They have about 2000 Nazis fighting for the government against the Russians. They have their own battalion and organisation. Some of them were exiled from Russia as they fell foul of the authorities. Obviously the Russians are using this for propoganda and some people are overblowing the significance of the situation, but it is clearly a messy situation.
Off topic, I think it’s a mistake from Ofcom to ban RT.
I don’t think there’s much evidence it’s particularly damaging, and the Russians are likely to retaliate by banning the BBC from operating in Russia which will be a big loss.
Quiz question. Which left winger of historical fame is most often used on here by right wingers seeking to make a facile point that actually misunderstands almost completely the point that the original author was making? Is it a) Martin Luther King, or b) George Orwell?
Orwell's non-fiction I find too turgid and obvious to read. The bits I see quoted - the praise of ghastly Kipling, and that plonking nationalism essay, are tory. 1984 and AF are profoundly anti-left. I have no idea how you have persuaded yourself otherwise.
Off topic, I think it’s a mistake from Ofcom to ban RT.
I don’t think there’s much evidence it’s particularly damaging, and the Russians are likely to retaliate by banning the BBC from operating in Russia which will be a big loss.
Are the BBC still in Russia? I thought most journalists got out when they passed a law that potentially endangered foreign journalists.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
It's a term of abuse to yell at non tories.
I don’t like the word “woke” just because it’s intended as a form of abuse and because the meaning varies, but I what I find interesting about the world we live in is that I used to be viewed as massively socially liberal (supported gay marriage 25 years ago to give one example) and yet these days I am seen as a social conservative for holding what I think are pretty mainstream views such as:
- I think everyone has a right to offend others, always, with no associated legal risk (the risk should be they get seen as a cock and barred from places by their owners).
- I oppose positive discrimination.
- If you have a sex change op then out of politeness I will address you as you want to be addressed, and mostly I will treat you as the gender you wish to be, but I think there are circumstances in which you cannot be treated as the gender you wish to be.
The fact that many of us feel we get demonised for thinking such thinks gives rise to the sense of a “woke mafia” that does so, I think.
Being seen as a social conservative is different to being demonised.
Your views are pretty mainstream, and we live in a socially conservative country, so yes you come across as a social conservative. It is just a matter of getting older and finding tastes and views have changed. It was ever thus.
max seddon @maxseddon · 30m Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's lead negotiator, says there is a "strange situation" as regards Moscow's demands to "denazify" Ukraine.
"The Ukrainian delegation think there aren't any Nazi groups in Ukraine and that it's not a thing in modern Ukraine."
There was a good 'unherd' episode on this last week. In summary, Ukraine does actually have a Nazi problem. They have about 2000 Nazis fighting for the government against the Russians. They have their own battalion and organisation. Some of them were exiled from Russia as they fell foul of the authorities. Obviously the Russians are using this for propoganda and some people are overblowing the significance of the situation, but it is clearly a messy situation.
Unheard has unfortunately been unsound on Ukraine. Before the war started they ran a piece saying that a Russian "shock and awe" campaign would have greater success than in Iraq.
As for Nazis, here's the head of the Russian space agency, appointed by Putin, giving Nazi salutes at a rally in Moscow:
Quiz question. Which left winger of historical fame is most often used on here by right wingers seeking to make a facile point that actually misunderstands almost completely the point that the original author was making? Is it a) Martin Luther King, or b) George Orwell?
Orwell's non-fiction I find too turgid and obvious to read. The bits I see quoted - the praise of ghastly Kipling, and that plonking nationalism essay, are tory. 1984 and AF are profoundly anti-left. I have no idea how you have persuaded yourself otherwise.
Well, he certainly self identified as "of the left". And these days self ID is the standard
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
It's a term of abuse to yell at non tories.
I don’t like the word “woke” just because it’s intended as a form of abuse and because the meaning varies, but I what I find interesting about the world we live in is that I used to be viewed as massively socially liberal (supported gay marriage 25 years ago to give one example) and yet these days I am seen as a social conservative for holding what I think are pretty mainstream views such as:
- I think everyone has a right to offend others, always, with no associated legal risk (the risk should be they get seen as a cock and barred from places by their owners).
- I oppose positive discrimination.
- If you have a sex change op then out of politeness I will address you as you want to be addressed, and mostly I will treat you as the gender you wish to be, but I think there are circumstances in which you cannot be treated as the gender you wish to be.
The fact that many of us feel we get demonised for thinking such thinks gives rise to the sense of a “woke mafia” that does so, I think.
"I think everyone has a right to offend others"
So, you'd be OK if the Daily Mail ran anti-Semitic cartoons like Der Stürmer?
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
The most convincing analysis of Putin is that he has many faces. This is the 'face' he presents to court disillusioned westerners. We might think 'Putin is right', but it is really all just an elaborate stunt, and we are being played.
I actually think it is both
I reckon Putin really does think this about Wokeness, but he has also identified it as a weakness in the West, to be exploited. Therefore by correctly analysing the problem with Wokeness, out loud, he can further stoke the Culture Wars which he believes are enervating us
Indeed, one reason he over-reached and invaded Ukraine was, perhaps, because he incorrectly decided the decadent Woke West was now too spineless to react.
As for his specific views on race, I sense he believes that too. He often references race and culture - he often boasts that Russia is multiracial and multicultural. He's not an "ethno-nationalist" in the strictest sense, tho he is happy to draw on Russian-ness when it suits him - cf his use of the Orthodox Church
This makes sense when you comprehend his ambition: which is to restore the Russian/Soviet Empire. That can only be multiracial and multicultural, by definition, it cannot be "pure Russia". And, when you have severe demographic problems, you also don't want to alienate minorities who might usefully join your army
It is a shame that I can't dig out the "unFascist Britain" threads from soc.history.what-if
This was an attempt by some very able amateur historians to conceive of a version of Fascism that would have worked in 30s Britain. They stopped, partly because it was worryingly plausible.
Part of it involved a variation on racism - an extension of the whole Kipling Imperial thing. As long as various races help out with The Empire, they would be Good Eggs, and should be Treated Decently*
I am getting a certain familiar vibe from Putin on this....
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Well I'm happy to be on the other side of this argument from you and Putin. To be antiracist you have to think about race and this does have pitfalls. But it's better to do that, and try and avoid the pitfalls, than it is to bank on ingrained white supremacy being best eradicated by pretending it doesn't exist.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
"A hospital has finally admitted a woman may have been raped by a transgender patient after denying the possibility of an attack for almost a year, the House of Lords has heard.
"When police were called to the unnamed hospital in England, they were allegedly told by staff that 'there was no male' on the single-sex ward, 'therefore the rape could not have happened'.
But almost 12 months later, they revealed one of the patients had been trans. "
Without getting into the Trans debate again, this is particularly bad behaviour by the hospital who only finally admitted that the rape had taken place after video evidence emerged to prove it. They knew it was possible he rape had taken place but preferred to call the woman a liar than admit their policy was wrong.
I simply find it mind-boggling that we have reached this stage of lunacy
And that people can think that finding this story equally hilarious and horrifying, is taking a position in a "trans debate." There isn't a real trans debate any more than there's a gay debate or a votes for women debate, there's simply boring prudent housekeeping measures which are obvious to anyone vaguely sane.
max seddon @maxseddon · 30m Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's lead negotiator, says there is a "strange situation" as regards Moscow's demands to "denazify" Ukraine.
"The Ukrainian delegation think there aren't any Nazi groups in Ukraine and that it's not a thing in modern Ukraine."
There was a good 'unherd' episode on this last week. In summary, Ukraine does actually have a Nazi problem. They have about 2000 Nazis fighting for the government against the Russians. They have their own battalion and organisation. Some of them were exiled from Russia as they fell foul of the authorities. Obviously the Russians are using this for propoganda and some people are overblowing the significance of the situation, but it is clearly a messy situation.
Unheard has unfortunately been unsound on Ukraine. Before the war started they ran a piece saying that a Russian "shock and awe" campaign would have greater success than in Iraq.
As for Nazis, here's the head of the Russian space agency, appointed by Putin, giving Nazi salutes at a rally in Moscow:
I watched the episode in question, it is a perfectly fair explanation of the situation from a guy who has been on the front line of that battle in Eastern Ukraine way before this current invasion.
Via @SavantaComRes 10-16 March, Changes w/ 24-28 February.
Some Labour gains in Scotland
This endless Scottish stasis may be about to shift
See the indypoll on the last thread. NO is ahead by 5. Sturgeon is obvs not going to call - or even try to call - indyref2 next year. It’s off the agenda
As this becomes obvious unease in the SNP will increase. There is a fundamental split between the gradualists who are content, for now, with devolution, and the maximalists who want Indy tomorrow
They might split as the next referendum recedes into the distant future
Who gains? Possibly Scottish Labour, if they are canny (which they generally aren’t, it must be said)
Article by an Indy-supporting journo on why she thinks Nicola may stand down. I'm not so sure. The Yes vote is down a little, but hasn't tanked. Politicians who get to the top generally have to be dragged out of office. All the same...
"The First Minister is therefore caught for now in a painful double bind, unable to delay a referendum campaign for much longer without alienating ever-larger groups of independence supporters, and yet unable to campaign actively for independence without a high risk of alienating the very undecided and fearful voters she most needs to persuade; and all of Scottish politics seems caught with her."
Actually quite a sensible article. She says indyref2 is half a decade away, I reckon it’s a decade away, but it is coming - eventually. A vote in the early 2030s answers the generation question, it also gives the SNP time to solve the currency and EU puzzles, which they demonstrably haven’t done, so far
The Union will be tested again. Just not yet
Perhaps. Assumes the currency and EU problems are solvable, of course. Which they aren't. Nor are pensions, tax, etc either apparently.
Perhaps the SNP need a spell out of power at Holyrood and then can come charging back in. No sign of that either, though.
That is probably what they do need. Defeat. The whiff of stagnancy and corruption is strong in Holyrood. No party should reign forever.
A good scenario for the SNP would be a narrow election defeat, then 5 years of incompetent Coalition/Unionist government in Holyrood. Then the Nats could point and say See?! - with a vigorous new leader they would then win a big majority, and a new mandate for an indyref. By that time - 15 years after 2014 - they could also argue: a new generation is here, Scotland has the right to ask once again
I don’t believe Westminster could or should resist in that situation. = Indyref2
Yeah, maybe.
BUT that would need SNP to lose power in 2026, which they won't, as they'll be put back in by the Greens whose growth will compensate for any SNP decline. You need to understand the electoral system for Holyrood, and the List vote. The stagnation at Holyrood is just going to continue ad infinitum.
An effective electoral alliance between SLAB and SCON could make a real difference to end the stagnation. I think the SCONS would go for it but SLAB never - their hatred of the Tories trumps their support for the Union.
A [edit] significant proportion of Slab voters are pro-indy or at least sympathetic. Means that an electoral alliance would be a repeat of 2014-2015 as far as Labour is concerned. Front for the Tories = end up as their penal battalions.
There appear to be only four possible flavours for governance in Scotland.
SNP alone SNP/Green Lab/LDem Con/LDem
The last is effectively not possible right now under Boris etc. Unionists only hope for deposing the SNP therefore is Lab/LDem.
You win a coconut. Or at least a Bounty. That last is precisely what the Scottish Parlaiment voting system was fiddled by Dewar and Wallace etc to set in concrete forever.
A system that should be reformed. I don’t want a bounty, but my simple point often seems lost on commentators and even activists in Scotland, as far as I can tell.
Lab/Lib co-operation unlocks several critical issues across the UK, including “devo-max” in Scotland.
I hope there are smart people working on this stuff, but somehow I doubt it.
Trouble is that the LDs are the 5th party at Holyrood these days. Not a lot of coconuts to add to the pile there. Very different from the days of Dewar and Wallace.
Every penny counts, as if were.
The LDs primary enemy is the Cons, they need to take Con share.
SLAB need to focus on the SNP and to some extent the Greens.
Hmm, Slab are so right wing they maybe need to focus on the LDs.
Trouble is that if Slab focus on the SNP and Greens they shed voters becayse those two are pro-indy parties.
No easy answer. Especially because it depends what HQ is saying in London.
I disagree (while fully acknowledging that I don’t live in Scotland).
There are essentially two fault-lines in Scottish politics. One is pro/anti indy. The other is straightforward left/right.
There are voters - maybe not many, but certainly some - who will be more motivated by left/right issues than indy.
SLAB’s job is to steal them away from SNP/Green with the right offer.
Easier said than done, of course, but at a macro level it’s the only strategy that makes sense.
In that case they should probably stop dropping left wing candidates who support a referendum and definitely stop adopting candidates that are ex Grand Masters of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Well I'm happy to be on the other side of this argument from you and Putin. To be antiracist you have to think about race and this does have pitfalls. But it's better to do that, and try and avoid the pitfalls, than it is to bank on ingrained white supremacy being best eradicated by pretending it doesn't exist.
I sort-of agree with you, but the problem is that concentrating on 'race' (as in anti-racist) leads to problems. For instance, you can be anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-disabled, anti-homophobia, etc, etc.
At the end of the day, it becomes better just to treat people as people. If you meet someone you don't know, try to treat them nicely unless you need to, until they prove otherwise. And hopefully they will do the same for you.
We all have more in common than that which divides us.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
It's a term of abuse to yell at non tories.
I don’t like the word “woke” just because it’s intended as a form of abuse and because the meaning varies, but I what I find interesting about the world we live in is that I used to be viewed as massively socially liberal (supported gay marriage 25 years ago to give one example) and yet these days I am seen as a social conservative for holding what I think are pretty mainstream views such as:
- I think everyone has a right to offend others, always, with no associated legal risk (the risk should be they get seen as a cock and barred from places by their owners).
- I oppose positive discrimination.
- If you have a sex change op then out of politeness I will address you as you want to be addressed, and mostly I will treat you as the gender you wish to be, but I think there are circumstances in which you cannot be treated as the gender you wish to be.
The fact that many of us feel we get demonised for thinking such thinks gives rise to the sense of a “woke mafia” that does so, I think.
"I think everyone has a right to offend others"
So, you'd be OK if the Daily Mail ran anti-Semitic cartoons like Der Stürmer?
Basically, yes, and the penalty would be to be viewed as the lowest of the low, and I’d hope lose all advertising and have no one prepared to print it. We can all agree that example is outrageous, but where do you draw the line?
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
I certainly wouldn't take anything he says at face value. You still haven't explained what you believe "woke" to be
It's a term of abuse to yell at non tories.
I don’t like the word “woke” just because it’s intended as a form of abuse and because the meaning varies, but I what I find interesting about the world we live in is that I used to be viewed as massively socially liberal (supported gay marriage 25 years ago to give one example) and yet these days I am seen as a social conservative for holding what I think are pretty mainstream views such as:
- I think everyone has a right to offend others, always, with no associated legal risk (the risk should be they get seen as a cock and barred from places by their owners).
- I oppose positive discrimination.
- If you have a sex change op then out of politeness I will address you as you want to be addressed, and mostly I will treat you as the gender you wish to be, but I think there are circumstances in which you cannot be treated as the gender you wish to be.
The fact that many of us feel we get demonised for thinking such thinks gives rise to the sense of a “woke mafia” that does so, I think.
"I think everyone has a right to offend others"
So, you'd be OK if the Daily Mail ran anti-Semitic cartoons like Der Stürmer?
I don't know the details of the cartoons but yes the law should allow it assuming they are not inciting violence.
If it happened though, then in return advertisers and newsagents should cease to stock it, and those who want to work there or buy it looked down on by the rest of society.
There is of course a huge gulf between being okay with something and wanting a law against it.
Makes a change from the Putin apologists of the right. We used to have one on here, who was an itinerant flint knapper.
With all due respect, doctor, fuck off
I have never been a "Putin apologist"
Is Putin right about Wokeness? Yes. Is he a fascist thug? Also yes
Hitler was good on cars and motorways; Stalin was a charismatic war leader; Fred West probably laid a fine patio. Life is full of paradoxes
You're trivializing it with those examples. Putin's reactionary views on social and cultural matters are integral to his politics and world view. It ought to give you - at the very very least - pause for thought that you share them.
No, it doesn't, Putin is right on this one subject: perhaps it takes a cold-hearted enemy to appraise us correctly.
Putin is also a war-mongering maniac who needs to be taken out
Meanwhile:
Explain for us what you believe "woke" is to be, and which bits of it you might find yourself agreeing with one of the most homicidal despots of our time on?
Stuff like this. I agree with Putin on this:
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
The most convincing analysis of Putin is that he has many faces. This is the 'face' he presents to court disillusioned westerners. We might think 'Putin is right', but it is really all just an elaborate stunt, and we are being played.
I actually think it is both
I reckon Putin really does think this about Wokeness, but he has also identified it as a weakness in the West, to be exploited. Therefore by correctly analysing the problem with Wokeness, out loud, he can further stoke the Culture Wars which he believes are enervating us
Indeed, one reason he over-reached and invaded Ukraine was, perhaps, because he incorrectly decided the decadent Woke West was now too spineless to react.
As for his specific views on race, I sense he believes that too. He often references race and culture - he often boasts that Russia is multiracial and multicultural. He's not an "ethno-nationalist" in the strictest sense, tho he is happy to draw on Russian-ness when it suits him - cf his use of the Orthodox Church
This makes sense when you comprehend his ambition: which is to restore the Russian/Soviet Empire. That can only be multiracial and multicultural, by definition, it cannot be "pure Russia". And, when you have severe demographic problems, you also don't want to alienate minorities who might usefully join your army
It is a shame that I can't dig out the "unFascist Britain" threads from soc.history.what-if
This was an attempt by some very able amateur historians to conceive of a version of Fascism that would have worked in 30s Britain. They stopped, partly because it was worryingly plausible.
Part of it involved a variation on racism - an extension of the whole Kipling Imperial thing. As long as various races help out with The Empire, they would be Good Eggs, and should be Treated Decently*
I am getting a certain familiar vibe from Putin on this....
*Not equally, of course.
Yes. Putin is a classic imperialist (along with much else). He probably believes that it will be good for the conquered people to be absorbed into the imperial embrace. I suspect he half-believes all this Ukraine=Nazi bollocks as well
Re immigration, Stephen Bush, formerly of the NS, is now at the FT. He started today.
https://www.ft.com/content/8e941a78-4d4f-4bdf-9e3a-2f290ab342ac Your country’s ability to do these things is a pretty good test of how effectively governed it is. If your planning and housing system doesn’t have enough flexibility and spare capacity to accommodate some refugees, you almost certainly have a sclerotic planning and housing system. If your community colleges can’t provide them with good enough language skills — people who were already working and living perfectly happily in another country — to enter your labour market, you almost certainly have a very bad adult education system. And if your political class doesn’t have the wit to allow anyone with a valid Ukrainian passport visa-free access to your country, then you almost certainly have a low-wattage political class.
If your country cannot do any of these things, congratulations! You are almost certainly the UK and you are almost certainly heading for a second successive lost decade.
Perhaps that suggests the country is already overpopulated for its housing, infrastructure and public services.
Comments
For example, Silesia, Schlewsig-Holstein, Cameroon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Silesia_plebiscite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Schleswig_plebiscites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_British_Cameroons_referendum
They divided the territory.
https://twitter.com/avalaina/status/1504828138219581442
To "western experts" who offer us to surrender. I documenting war crimes in Crimea/Donbas for years. I interviewed hundreds who survived in captivity. They were beaten, raped, tortured with electric shocks, kept in basements with rats. Is this the alternative that you offer us?
1. Putin and Russia in its current form must lose, and be seen to lose, so countries do not choose to invade neighbours, kill those populations and destroy cities.
2. We should do everything to support Ukraine, to help it remain a viable state and become a successful one if possible.
For the first objective - as long as it takes. Sooner is better, but ten years if need be. Which means the second objective of supporting Ukraine is more important right now than Putin losing. If a ceasefire or a peace agreement on less than ideal terms is the price of giving Ukraine a breathing space, they should get that. We can beat Russia down other ways and over time. Patience is a virtue here, I think.
Most of them are leftwing. If Labour return to government and allow an indyref2 it will be up to them to keep their Scottish voters voting No again as they will be decisive.
SNP voters would of course virtually all vote Yes again
You see, the Liberal Democrats in Russia *are* Nazis. So who can blame Putin for getting confused about Zelenskyy's party?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrainian-counteroffensive-near-mykolaiv-relieves-strategic-port-city-11647605489
Though tbf "thank herself lucky" is incoherent, and could have meant anything, I suppose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX6ISz0FotU
"Putin brought up Martin Luther King’s remarks about judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause,” Putin said, “but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into reverse discrimination, that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color.”"
https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/10/31/lucas-putins-poke-at-intolerance-by-woke-left-revealing/
Of course, he might have said all this just to stir trouble, and he doesn't mean it, yet we have all learned that when Putin says stuff - eg "I am going to invade Ukraine" - he often means it. So I take it at face value. And I agree with him
Instead the SNP have been given 1 referendum already and can wait a generation until they get another.
Compared to Xi with Hong Kong or Putin with Ukraine or the Spanish with Catalonian Nationalists, Boris is being very reasonable with the Scottish Nationalists
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/24/britains-spies-told-check-white-privilege-stop-saying-manpower/
He says the commander of Russia's 8th army and several more generals could have been eliminated
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1504861665434779651
Oh, in Russia. As you were.
"A hospital has finally admitted a woman may have been raped by a transgender patient after denying the possibility of an attack for almost a year, the House of Lords has heard.
"When police were called to the unnamed hospital in England, they were allegedly told by staff that 'there was no male' on the single-sex ward, 'therefore the rape could not have happened'.
But almost 12 months later, they revealed one of the patients had been trans. "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10625997/Hospital-said-rape-single-sex-ward-not-possible-revealing-one-patient-trans.html
OK. Got that. Alternatively, you also agree with him on this point, but find that uncomfortable, and you're too scared to admit it. Whatever
- Cases - UP. R is actually level or falling a bit, except in Wales and the South East. The big falls are among the unvaccinated young, though. In Scotland the big case peak seems to be reaching turn-around, with R falling there, fairly substantially now.
- In hospital - UP
- MV beds - Flat(ish)
- Admissions - UP. R is fairly level.
- Deaths - Flat(ish), with a slight decline.
the reaction in Russian high command 'can everybody stop getting shot' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8tpWoStiw8
Needless to say, if true this is equally funny and damning.
Russian Ministry of Defense now accuse Ukraine in planting bomb inside Hospital #2 in Dnipro city, "and a plan to blow up it when Russian plane will fly over"
So, Russian Ministry of Defense, DO NOT FLY your plane over hospital in Dnipro city
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1504863919021690893
12 entrants got all 7 winners!!
"Russian Ministry of Defense now accuse Ukraine in planting bomb inside Hospital #2 in Dnipro city, "and a plan to blow up it when Russian plane will fly over""
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1504863919021690893
Scottish Independence Voting Intention:
NO: 49% (+3)
YES: 44% (-1)
Undecideds: 7% (-2)
Undecideds Excluded:
NO: 53% (+2)
Yes: 47% (-2)
Via @SavantaComRes, On 10-16 March,
Changes with 24-28 February.
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1504756765161934848?s=21
Demanding nationalisation
https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1504687870006620163
Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99-percent certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead. Please don't blame me for pointing this out--it's just science.
- I think everyone has a right to offend others, always, with no associated legal risk (the risk should be they get seen as a cock and barred from places by their owners).
- I oppose positive discrimination.
- If you have a sex change op then out of politeness I will address you as you want to be addressed, and mostly I will treat you as the gender you wish to be, but I think there are circumstances in which you cannot be treated as the gender you wish to be.
The fact that many of us feel we get demonised for thinking such thinks gives rise to the sense of a “woke mafia” that does so, I think.
https://twitter.com/JaapTitulaer/status/1504816227033751584
This would mean that the frontline of the war is now south of Kherson airport, and may explain those generals rumoured to have been killed in it (Ukrainians are reporting that the head of the 8th army, plus maybe 1-2 other of his generals were killed there. Stunning gains from Ukraine in the South over the past couple of days. Means Russia has their first dead Lieutenant General, and their 5th+ General of the war.
"Russians of military age had relatively little attachment to the country even before the war: 43% of Russians between the ages of 18 and 24 said they wanted to leave the country for good."
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/03/12/vladimir-putin-is-pushing-russia-into-the-past
@maxseddon
·
30m
Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's lead negotiator, says there is a "strange situation" as regards Moscow's demands to "denazify" Ukraine.
"The Ukrainian delegation think there aren't any Nazi groups in Ukraine and that it's not a thing in modern Ukraine."
https://twitter.com/maxseddon
===
Well, apart from Putin's nazis of course.
https://www.ft.com/content/8e941a78-4d4f-4bdf-9e3a-2f290ab342ac
Your country’s ability to do these things is a pretty good test of how effectively governed it is. If your planning and housing system doesn’t have enough flexibility and spare capacity to accommodate some refugees, you almost certainly have a sclerotic planning and housing system. If your community colleges can’t provide them with good enough language skills — people who were already working and living perfectly happily in another country — to enter your labour market, you almost certainly have a very bad adult education system. And if your political class doesn’t have the wit to allow anyone with a valid Ukrainian passport visa-free access to your country, then you almost certainly have a low-wattage political class.
If your country cannot do any of these things, congratulations! You are almost certainly the UK and you are almost certainly heading for a second successive lost decade.
Back when ATMs were first introduced, the banks claimed they were un-hackable and never made a mistake. Therefore anyone claiming that they didn't get their cash was a fraudster. A number of people were prosecuted, until someone actually proved this was horseshit.
I had my own experience when a police officer told me to my face that it was impossible a racist incident could have taken place. Because the of the Rules.
Also, one other point, if the Ukrainians do manage to continue their advance is it possible they trap the Russian attacker of Mariupol from the Western flank?
I need to get the FT. I’ve resumed/redirected my LRB. I’m thinking about the NYRB and Atlantic.
Alan Rusbridger has taken over at Prospect, he may revitalise that rather faded organ.
I reckon Putin really does think this about Wokeness, but he has also identified it as a weakness in the West, to be exploited. Therefore by correctly analysing the problem with Wokeness, out loud, he can further stoke the Culture Wars which he believes are enervating us
Indeed, one reason he over-reached and invaded Ukraine was, perhaps, because he incorrectly decided the decadent Woke West was now too spineless to react.
As for his specific views on race, I sense he believes that too. He often references race and culture - he often boasts that Russia is multiracial and multicultural. He's not an "ethno-nationalist" in the strictest sense, tho he is happy to draw on Russian-ness when it suits him - cf his use of the Orthodox Church
This makes sense when you comprehend his ambition: which is to restore the Russian/Soviet Empire. That can only be multiracial and multicultural, by definition, it cannot be "pure Russia". And, when you have severe demographic problems, you also don't want to alienate minorities who might usefully join your army
In summary, Ukraine does actually have a Nazi problem. They have about 2000 Nazis fighting for the government against the Russians. They have their own battalion and organisation. Some of them were exiled from Russia as they fell foul of the authorities.
Obviously the Russians are using this for propoganda and some people are overblowing the significance of the situation, but it is clearly a messy situation.
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1504208771027021832
Aris Roussinos used to work for Vice News, on the front line in places like Syria and Iraq. Absolute balls of steel stuff.
e.g.
VICE News embeds with Kurdish peshmerga fighters defending the hills above the Islamic State-held city of Sinjar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0tl5-KmkgY
I don’t think there’s much evidence it’s particularly damaging, and the Russians are likely to retaliate by banning the BBC from operating in Russia which will be a big loss.
Your views are pretty mainstream, and we live in a socially conservative country, so yes you come across as a social conservative. It is just a matter of getting older and finding tastes and views have changed. It was ever thus.
As for Nazis, here's the head of the Russian space agency, appointed by Putin, giving Nazi salutes at a rally in Moscow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_EVTmPlSWI
So, you'd be OK if the Daily Mail ran anti-Semitic cartoons like Der Stürmer?
A national treasure!
This was an attempt by some very able amateur historians to conceive of a version of Fascism that would have worked in 30s Britain. They stopped, partly because it was worryingly plausible.
Part of it involved a variation on racism - an extension of the whole Kipling Imperial thing. As long as various races help out with The Empire, they would be Good Eggs, and should be Treated Decently*
I am getting a certain familiar vibe from Putin on this....
*Not equally, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorglub
We mustn’t think Ukraine was some kind of Scandinavian, participatory democratic paradise before the War.
It’s desperately poor and hideously corrupt, even by Eastern European standards.
Kelensky has an opportunity to cleanse Nazi elements as part of any peace-deal.
At the end of the day, it becomes better just to treat people as people. If you meet someone you don't know, try to treat them nicely unless you need to, until they prove otherwise. And hopefully they will do the same for you.
We all have more in common than that which divides us.
If it happened though, then in return advertisers and newsagents should cease to stock it, and those who want to work there or buy it looked down on by the rest of society.
There is of course a huge gulf between being okay with something and wanting a law against it.
He’s fascinated by it; half horrified, but strangely attracted to it.
More than most.
You know what I mean.
Fascist elements in Ukraine are quite well attested.