The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[SecretPro]

10 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

So, the WHO, Bill Gates and the Chinese are going to have control over pretty much all Countries response to the next pandemic. And there will be nothing we can do about it. That terrifying thought is about to become reality. What the heck is all this about. They will have the power to enforce mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns,the lot! Is this how others on here understand it?

This is a WUM post right?

 

 

 

 

Right?

 

 

 

 

No?

 

 

 

 

OK. Shoot me. 

[Facecloth]

10 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

So, the WHO, Bill Gates and the Chinese are going to have control over pretty much all Countries response to the next pandemic. And there will be nothing we can do about it. That terrifying thought is about to become reality. What the heck is all this about. They will have the power to enforce mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns,the lot! Is this how others on here understand it?

Great to see Matt Le Tissier has joined the forum.

[Bryn]

11 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

So, the WHO, Bill Gates and the Chinese are going to have control over pretty much all Countries response to the next pandemic. And there will be nothing we can do about it. That terrifying thought is about to become reality. What the heck is all this about. They will have the power to enforce mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns,the lot! Is this how others on here understand it?

 

The sad reality for you absolute cretins is that the various powers that be are absolutely trying to control and suppress you in many ways, you're just obsessed with the wrong things, Making it even easier for them to manipulate you.

Edited 17 May 2022 by Bryn

[Fazzer 7]

49 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Great to see Matt Le Tissier has joined the forum.

Lol. I was quoting a certain Mr Oliver. I won’t provide the link but it’s on his GB news thing. 

[SecretPro]

2 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Lol. I was quoting a certain Mr Oliver. I won’t provide the link but it’s on his GB news thing. 

[Daggers]

13 hours ago, foxile5 said:

Yeah you can't. 

 

It's just all so performative and done for clout that I find her a tool. 

 

Take messaging her lawyer on twitter, publicly, 'got a job for you' or whatever it was. That's absolutely not the way that business is done; It's just done for public clout and I find folk like that very tedious.

Yeh, imagine that, someone dedicating their life to campaign about food poverty actually having the temerity to campaign publicly about food poverty. Worse, responding to unjustifiable and vicious online attacks online in order to keep everything open. 
 

Funny that some men find strong women so challenging.

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

Jesus. Fvcking. Christ. 

He’s in on it too. And Buddha and the ghost of Mussolini. And the international league of evil corner shops. And Philip Schofield.

 

I know. They all meet up on a Tuesday evening in our village hall once a month to plot how the whole world domination thing is going.

[foxile5]

45 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Yeh, imagine that, someone dedicating their life to campaign about food poverty actually having the temerity to campaign publicly about food poverty. Worse, responding to unjustifiable and vicious online attacks online in order to keep everything open. 
 

Funny that some men find strong women so challenging.

I don't find her challenging as a women; I find her grating as a personality.

 

I would if it were a male, too, as it's the performative nature of her rhetoric I find grating NOT the rhetoric itself.

 

The fact you've tried to make it into a sexist matter is just insulting and speaks to your lack of character as much as anything. Have an opinion that differs to mine? You MUST be sexist. It's funny that you feel the need to white knight so hard you'll resort to ad hominin attacks inserting spurious accusations of sexism.

 

Funnily enough that accusation verges on the exact type of accusatory garbage Monroe would disagree with.

 

As an aside - what Anderson said was partially true. Whilst she probably ISN'T a millionaire she does make her living from the existence of poverty. If we were to eradicate poverty that she'd find herself seeking a new area of income for the vast majority of her income. Writing books for the impoverished is making profit from the impoverished - she writes on how to live IN poverty rather than how to get away from it. That is a form of profiteering though I think Anderson has vastly over-salted it.  

[Greg2607]

is there a more odorous MP than Andrew Brigden? He's suddenly started chirping up nonsense on Twitter. 

 

I can't abide the man.... so glad he is my local MP. 

[leicsmac]

46 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I don't find her challenging as a women; I find her grating as a personality.

 

I would if it were a male, too, as it's the performative nature of her rhetoric I find grating NOT the rhetoric itself.

 

The fact you've tried to make it into a sexist matter is just insulting and speaks to your lack of character as much as anything. Have an opinion that differs to mine? You MUST be sexist. It's funny that you feel the need to white knight so hard you'll resort to ad hominin attacks inserting spurious accusations of sexism.

 

Funnily enough that accusation verges on the exact type of accusatory garbage Monroe would disagree with.

 

As an aside - what Anderson said was partially true. Whilst she probably ISN'T a millionaire she does make her living from the existence of poverty. If we were to eradicate poverty that she'd find herself seeking a new area of income for the vast majority of her income. Writing books for the impoverished is making profit from the impoverished - she writes on how to live IN poverty rather than how to get away from it. That is a form of profiteering though I think Anderson has vastly over-salted it.  

I don't think this is a necessarily unethical thing, because getting away from poverty requires an element of power and luck that Munroe doesn't have and cannot grant either way. Therefore, a second best option is to help people who are in that situation and make their lives at least a little easier.

 

I wonder what Anderson has significantly done for those in poverty rather than just firing snide critique.

[Finnegan]

53 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I don't find her challenging as a women; I find her grating as a personality.

 

I would if it were a male, too, as it's the performative nature of her rhetoric I find grating NOT the rhetoric itself.

 

The fact you've tried to make it into a sexist matter is just insulting and speaks to your lack of character as much as anything. Have an opinion that differs to mine? You MUST be sexist. It's funny that you feel the need to white knight so hard you'll resort to ad hominin attacks inserting spurious accusations of sexism.

 

Funnily enough that accusation verges on the exact type of accusatory garbage Monroe would disagree with.

 

As an aside - what Anderson said was partially true. Whilst she probably ISN'T a millionaire she does make her living from the existence of poverty. If we were to eradicate poverty that she'd find herself seeking a new area of income for the vast majority of her income. Writing books for the impoverished is making profit from the impoverished - she writes on how to live IN poverty rather than how to get away from it. That is a form of profiteering though I think Anderson has vastly over-salted it.  

 

The amount of MGTOW dog whistling coming off this is verging on hilarious 

[foxile5]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The amount of MGTOW dog whistling coming off this is verging on hilarious 

What's MGTOW?

 

It's not intended as a dog whistle to any branch at all. I just find the woman grating. That's it. Her politics are admirable and I'm sure she's got the right heart however I should be allowed to say that she's grating without having accusations of sexism levelled at me.

[Voll Blau]

Some of the recipes she does are great, by the way.

[Strokes]

I’m absolutely astonished that this has descended into a row about sexism, can’t see anything in the OP that would lead to the accusation. Can anyone enlighten me, and dissect it please?

[Strokes]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't think this is a necessarily unethical thing, because getting away from poverty requires an element of power and luck that Munroe doesn't have and cannot grant either way. Therefore, a second best option is to help people who are in that situation and make their lives at least a little easier.

 

I wonder what Anderson has significantly done for those in poverty rather than just firing snide critique.

Totally agree, nice to see someone on here has decided to play the ball, rather than the man.

Edited 17 May 2022 by Strokes

[foxile5]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m absolutely astonished that this has descended into a row about sexism, can’t see anything in the OP that would lead to the accusation. Can anyone enlighten me, and dissect it please?

I criticised Jack Monroe as being tedious and boring and it was unfairly insinuated that I was sexist. I argued that I wasn't and it kinda rolled from there, I suppose.

 

For the balance of argument Lee Anderson is a tool, also. 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

I don't find her challenging as a women; I find her grating as a personality.

 

I would if it were a male, too, as it's the performative nature of her rhetoric I find grating NOT the rhetoric itself.

 

The fact you've tried to make it into a sexist matter is just insulting and speaks to your lack of character as much as anything. Have an opinion that differs to mine? You MUST be sexist. It's funny that you feel the need to white knight so hard you'll resort to ad hominin attacks inserting spurious accusations of sexism.

 

Funnily enough that accusation verges on the exact type of accusatory garbage Monroe would disagree with.

 

As an aside - what Anderson said was partially true. Whilst she probably ISN'T a millionaire she does make her living from the existence of poverty. If we were to eradicate poverty that she'd find herself seeking a new area of income for the vast majority of her income. Writing books for the impoverished is making profit from the impoverished - she writes on how to live IN poverty rather than how to get away from it. That is a form of profiteering though I think Anderson has vastly over-salted it.  

 

Dear oh dear.

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[Charl91]

4 hours ago, foxile5 said:

 

she writes on how to live IN poverty rather than how to get away from it. That is a form of profiteering though I think Anderson has vastly over-salted it.  

So how does one get away from poverty? 

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

So how does one get away from poverty? 

Don't vote Tory? Encourage others not to vote Tory?

[foxile5]

54 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Don't vote Tory? Encourage others not to vote Tory?

I'm woefully underqualified to comment but I'd wager this would be the best step in ensuring parity of circumstance for the under privileged.

[FoxesDeb]

59 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

So how does one get away from poverty? 

Education 

[Bryn]

1 hour ago, Charl91 said:

So how does one get away from poverty? 

 

Think this is a critical debate at the moment that just isn't happening. It feels to me that it's increasingly easy to slip into poverty and becoming impossible to get out of it.

Capitalism is failing as an economic system in the 21st century. Through the 20th century, certainly since the 30s and 40s, in most developed nations it lead to economic development and broadly speaking wealth did trickle downwards enough that overall living standards increased.

 

Now, instead of modern advances leading us to a post-scarcity era, we're seeing wealth concentrate in the upper echelons of society. Failure to grow the economy cannot be countenanced as that way everything would lose value. Raise wages and prices simply go up. The cost of fundamentals such as housing, food and clothing goes up and up but wages stay the same, lest companies fail to carve out an ever larger share of the total wealth. People struggle to afford even basic housing as private landlords and corporations gobble up accommodation and land, leasing them out to cover their mortgage and turn a profit on top. Our democracy fails as industries successfully lobby the Government for greater protection from "the harmful effects of competition" (to quote Ofgem this week) even as people are starving because they can't afford food, holding us to ransom by threatening to withhold investment if we don't care. Basic social security is eroded to protect profit margins

I've become increasingly convinced that we will face a revolution in our time. Either because Government, corporations and industries smother democracy to protect themselves from the whims of the general public, or because that same public rises up and strikes them down. I strongly suspect the former and that autocracy and oligarchy become the dominant leadership structures in the modern developed world.

Edited 17 May 2022 by Bryn

[urban.spaceman]

 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

Think this is a critical debate at the moment that just isn't happening. It feels to me that it's increasingly easy to slip into poverty and becoming impossible to get out of it.

Capitalism is failing as an economic system in the 21st century. Through the 20th century, certainly since the 30s and 40s, in most developed nations it lead to economic development and broadly speaking wealth did trickle downwards enough that overall living standards increased.

 

Now, instead of modern advances leading us to a post-scarcity era, we're seeing wealth concentrate in the upper echelons of society. Failure to grow the economy cannot be countenanced as that way everything would lose value. Raise wages and prices simply go up. The cost of fundamentals such as housing, food and clothing goes up and up but wages stay the same, lest companies fail to carve out an ever larger share of the total wealth. People struggle to afford even basic housing as private landlords and corporations gobble up accommodation and land, leasing them out to cover their mortgage and turn a profit on top. Our democracy fails as industries successfully lobby the Government for greater protection from "the harmful effects of competition" (to quote Ofgem this week) even as people are starving because they can't afford food, holding us to ransom by threatening to withhold investment if we don't care. Basic social security is eroded to protect profit margins

I've become increasingly convinced that we will face a revolution in our time. Either because Government, corporations and industries smother democracy to protect themselves from the whims of the general public, or because that same public rises up and strikes them down. I strongly suspect the former and that autocracy and oligarchy become the dominant leadership structures in the modern developed world.

And as resources become ever more scarce in a rapidly heating word, such pressures to form oligarchies and "tribes" will only become more pronounced.

 

Let us hope, for the sake of human civilisation itself, that this is wrong.