Jump to content
Gracii Guns

British Politics

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, soon said:

If I get to visit England Id go everywhere other than London, ugh.

Multiculturalism is awesome and people can and do get on just fine. 

London is great, actually. No reason to avoid that city. Lots of great parks, museums, restaurants, historic buildings and streets, pubs, hotels, and all kinds of people from everywhere...really all you could want in a metropol, yet distinctly, lovingly British. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you are really, really, really lucky you can catch United on an away match against a London team. Come to think of it, all that is great about London can be found in Manchester so might as well just skip London and go directly to Manchester. Then you can visit Old Trafford and Dazey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The assumption that homogeneous communities are somehow ''ill'', ''incorrect'', ''in need of reform'' in accordance with multi-cultural values, I find deeply sanctimonious, bigoted and an imposition - a form of cultural cleansing and imperialist values in itself. 

I don't think anyone is saying that. At least not here. Another argument you have imported from twitter, perhaps?

That being said, I do consider societies that accept an influx of refugees more sympathetic and humane than societies that don't. And I consider societies that accept economic immigration more forward-seeing and wise than those that don't. Similarly, I will always mistrust societies that refuse immigration to have a xenophobic/racist undercurrent. It just makes little sense why they wouldn't except in the light of a feeling of nationalistic, cultural or genetic superiority. Because the budget of immigration goes far beyond just the costs of (possible) ethnic tension, which can anyway be suppressed if immigration is done properly (demonstrated by multicultural societies with little to no ethnic tension).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

London is great, actually. No reason to avoid that city. Lots of great parks, museums, restaurants, historic buildings and streets, pubs, hotels, and all kinds of people from everywhere...really all you could want in a metropol, yet distinctly, lovingly British. 

Oh, cool. It always seems snotty. I suppose Im seeing it through a narrow lens. People dont talk on the train? That piccadilly circus seems really rigid and police regulated. And Im not too fussed about the big cities to live in, but yeah I guess I enjoy a brief visit. Old timey english buildings and streets actually just brings to mind like the plague, cramped conditions and outhouse toilets. And sword fighting. 

But on the pro side - fancy hat ladies, restaurants and river boating. And Pink Floyd has ties I believe.

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And if you are really, really, really lucky you can catch United on an away match against a London team. Come to think of it, all that is great about London can be found in Manchester so might as well just skip London and go directly to Manchester. Then you can visit Old Trafford and Dazey. 

Fuck yeah, straight to Manchester for me then! Id go pie-for-pie in competition with Dazey :lol: Nah, sounds nice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely should visit Croydon. That's multiculaturalism for you. Where's our own Croydon resident, btw? He would probably take you on a guided tour of the area that would likely make you feel you were far away from England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Snotty? London? I have no idea. My general impression of the English is that they are quite friendly an accommodating. I can't say I have noticed any difference between Londoners and Mancunians. In my impression, from my travelling, the differences between individuals are much greater than the differences between populations when it comes to many personality traits, so I always end up finding nice welcoming people anywhere. I wouldn't worry about Londoners. Just remember to turn and flee if you hear, "little thwans, littleeee thwans, daddy got theeds!" followed by panicky squawking and the gush of wings flapping.

All that side eye that the priest got at the weeding, though. And how do y'all fit in those little taxis? But if Len is a Londoner then it must have its charms... oh wait, swans. Shit, I guess swans would be those charms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Snotty? London? I have no idea. My general impression of the English is that they are quite friendly an accommodating. I can't say I have noticed any difference between Londoners and Mancunians. In my impression, from my travelling, the differences between individuals are much greater than the differences between populations when it comes to many personality traits, so I always end up finding nice welcoming people anywhere. I wouldn't worry about Londoners. Just remember to turn and flee if you hear, "little thwans, littleeee thwans, daddy got theeds!" followed by panicky squawking and the gush of wings flapping.

When did my lisp suddenly turn into an inoperable cleft pallette, I can't pronounce N's now, fuckin' hell, what next :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

When did my lisp suddenly turn into an inoperable cleft pallette, I can't pronounce N's now, fuckin' hell, what next :lol:

It was supposed to be "seeds", but I see that "needs" works too.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It was supposed to be "seeds", but I see that "needs" works too.

I dropped myself in it a bit there eh? :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

I dropped myself in it a bit there eh? :lol: 

You never should have reacted to my post in the first place, when it still could have been about anyone.

Edited by SoulMonster
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SoulMonster said:

You never should have reacted to my post in the first place, when it still could have been about anyone.

The closest was chopped up and used for kindling long ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Living in a bubble is about someone living a secluded life devoid of much impulses ;) Jeez, Daisy.

Don't see how this is antithetical to what I wrote.

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, right, someone who gets triggered by someone in London being condescending to rural types, and replies by pointing out the beauty of rural region's monoculturalism, doesn't "provide [their] own environment preference" :D I suppose that post of yours was another of the 31,000 posts you have made here that says nothing about you, right? Just an empty thing that cannot be used by readers to ascertain what kind of human you are? How naive are you?

Nope. I have never, to my knowledge, said anything on mygnr pertaining to my preference of habitation, be that country, or level of urbanisation (farmstead, village, town, city, conurbation). You are obsessed with ascertaining subjectivity in my posting when none belong.

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Oh, poor you.

Nor have I ever specified desirable levels of immigration, but we again return to an earlier argument...

Just totally glossed over your ignorance of British history through editorial control I see?

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Really, are we having this discussion? You are going to proselytize over the beauties of monoculturalism and ethnically pure societies to me? No, thank you. It's enough to know what you are, I don't need to hear your reasonings for it.

I am merely pointing out the objective fact that homogeneous societies have the benefit of avoiding religious and ethnic tension. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think anyone is saying that. At least not here. Another argument you have imported from twitter, perhaps?

That being said, I do consider societies that accept an influx of refugees more sympathetic and humane than societies that don't. And I consider societies that accept economic immigration more forward-seeing and wise than those that don't. Similarly, I will always mistrust societies that refuse immigration to have a xenophobic/racist undercurrent. It just makes little sense why they wouldn't except in the light of a feeling of nationalistic, cultural or genetic superiority. Because the budget of immigration goes far beyond just the costs of (possible) ethnic tension, which can anyway be suppressed if immigration is done properly (demonstrated by multicultural societies with little to no ethnic tension).

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this but I would point out that historic chronology and geography has determined that certain societies are homogeneous, e.g., the Polynesian islands - and there you'll not find a friendlier welcome by all accounts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia says that many Polynesian Islands have some form of collectivity, colonial or statehood status with New Zealand, France, Britain, Chile and US. Hawaii is multicultural. And French Polynesia has a french slogan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, soon said:

Old timey english buildings and streets actually just brings to mind like the plague, cramped conditions and outhouse toilets. And sword fighting. 

This sentence to me is antithetical. The urban environment you describe in bold - which would be called ''Dickensean'' - is not really what you'd call, ''Old timey english buildings and streets', the type tourists visit anyhow. Firstly, the houses with ''cramped conditions and outhouse toilets'' are not really that ''old timey'' as they were all built in the 19th-early 20th centuries so are relatively recent; secondly, they're not that characteristically ''English'' either in that they were built for utilitarian purposes and similar houses were built in non-English cities undergoing the 19th century industrial revolution, e.g., Glasgow, Belfast, Berlin, New York, Chicago.

When somebody says things like ''Old timey english buildings'' I think of this,

shakespeare_birthplace.jpg
 

Spoiler

 

But it could even mean this if we are moving forward two hundred years,

Related image

 

But it certainly wouldn't be this,

200438_52329654.jpg

But maybe this is just my (mis)interpretation on what you wrote. I suppose in the technical sense of the term the latter is as ''English'' as the above two examples, just that this is not the image that is conjured up when somebody says something like ''Old timey english buildings and streets''.

3 minutes ago, soon said:

Wikipedia says that many Polynesian Islands have some form of collectivity, colonial or statehood status with New Zealand, France, Britain, Chile and US. Hawaii is multicultural. And French Polynesia has a french slogan. 

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/least-ethnically-diverse-countries-in-the-world.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

This sentence to me is antithetical. The urban environment you describe in bold - which would be called ''Dickensean'' - is not really what you'd call, ''Old timey english buildings and streets', the type tourists visit anyhow. Firstly, the houses with ''cramped conditions and outhouse toilets'' are not really that ''old timey'' as they were all built in the 19th-early 20th centuries so are relatively recent; secondly, they're not that characteristically ''English'' either in that they were built for utilitarian purposes and similar houses were built in non-English cities undergoing the 19th century industrial revolution, e.g., Glasgow, Belfast, Berlin, New York, Chicago.

When somebody says things like ''Old timey english buildings'' I think of this,

shakespeare_birthplace.jpg
 

It is pretty. I hope it has an indoor toilet.

Still evokes an austere vibe tbh. Im not accustomed to having to like sand down my outside walls or whatever every few years. :P But no, it really is a beautiful building. Thanks!

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Related image

 

I know you didnt highlight it, but this makes me wanna sword fight! Or like, toss Damiens nanny off the roof. The huge lawns seem like such a chore to traverse. Why no hot dog stand half way?

I bet they used to have to poo outside.

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

200438_52329654.jpg

But maybe this is just my (mis)interpretation on what you wrote. I suppose in the technical sense of the term the latter is as ''English'' as the above two examples, just that this is not the image that is conjured up when somebody says something like ''Old timey english buildings and streets''.

This is definitely what I was picturing - and you absolutely called it on the Dickson influence on my perception! haha

But yeah that just makes me picture Jack The Ripper, consumption and the plague.

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

the same page says this:

"While this question has yet to be concretely answered, there is a strong negative correlation in the US and Canada between diversity and and trust: the more likely a community is to be diverse, the less trusting the individuals living in this community tend to be. Diversity can be argued to alienate people in dense urban centres." Which is un-sourced for very good reason - its bollocks. Thats propaganda! Im friends with neighbours who Ive never spoken with because we dont share any languages.

But lets still trust the hard numbers, where it lists Yemen and Palestine among the most ethnically homogenous.  Clearly that doesnt free them from major conflicts within their borders - including race based conflict. Israel's rejection of multiculturalism promotes the ongoing conflict in fact. Earlier you mentioned inter faith conflict to speak agasint multiculturalism (N Ireland). But Palestine has Christians and Muslims. 

It also lists Puerto Rico which is in the midst of a class war.

All this makes me think that Eco-Socialist Multiculturalism is the only way to abolish the conflicts that capitalism and the state create around gender, class, racism and ecological displacement?

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

Why no hot dog stand half way?

You are worse than the Americans! 

I was appalled - you'd be pleased - that there was a Mickey Dees on Whitehall just up from the Banqueting House so they definitely cater for you, the English. Follow-up staring at Rubens' ceiling and the place where the execution of Charles I, one of the most dramatic incidents in British history, took place before a bit of ''Big Mac, Fries and Coke please''. 

1 hour ago, soon said:

But lets still trust the hard numbers, where it lists Yemen and Palestine among the most ethnically homogenous.  Clearly that doesnt free them from major conflicts within their borders - including race based conflict. Israel's rejection of multiculturalism promotes the ongoing conflict in fact. Earlier you mentioned inter faith conflict to speak agasint multiculturalism (N Ireland). But Palestine has Christians and Muslims. 

It also lists Puerto Rico which is in the midst of a class war.

All this makes me think that Eco-Socialist Multiculturalism is the only way to abolish the conflicts caused by gender, class and racism and ecological displacement?

I am not saying homogeneous states are less prone to having wars with other states - the Empire of Japan (1937-45) would refute that theory immediately, nor that homogeneity removes civil conflict in toto, being that there is enough to fight over besides race, e.g., feudal power, kingship, constitutional power, ideology and class. I'm not even saying that homogeneity lessens conflict. Homogeneity does however inherently remove internal religio-ethnic conflict, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination, state punitiveness against ''others'' within the same polity etc.

Are you saying the violence in Ireland would have occurred if there had not been two religio-sectarian groupings? Remove the Anglo-Scottish Unionist Plantation communities, and consequentially ''Auntie's'' obligation in defending those said communities, then there is no reason to believe that the Six Counties would have not joined the Irish Free State in 1922 (if ''Home Rule'' had not been granted sooner?). No sectarian divide. No ''Troubles''. 

Let's look at Yugoslavia which ''Balkanised'' itself in bloody conflict, turning into a plethora of smaller states?

Would the Third Reich have risen if not for the presence of 522,000 Jews in the Weimer Republik, against whom the Nazis drummed up incessant antisemitism, in the pages of Der Stürmer for instance, propelling themselves to die Machtergreifung. The Jews were a convenient example of ''otherness'' in the German Reich, a scapegoat for Germany's ''misfortunes''. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are worse than the Americans! 

I was appalled - you'd be pleased - that there was a Mickey Dees on Whitehall just up from the Banqueting House so they definitely cater for you, the English. Follow-up staring at Rubens' ceiling and the place where the execution of Charles I, one of the most dramatic incidents in British history, took place before a bit of ''Big Mac, Fries and Coke please''. 

Worse than the Americans? :max::lol:

I've never really considered what the proper 'historical execution site' cuisine pairing would be. In this case I believe its a Rueben sandwich though. With a respectful amount of space and time between ghost town and ultra english Ma and Pa sandwich shop. Neoliberal capitalism really is insidious and tentacled, claiming all space as its own. And the entire consumer marketplace is the Company Store. Its bullshit.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not saying homogeneous states are less prone to having wars with other states - the Empire of Japan (1937-45) would refute that theory immediately, nor that homogeneity removes civil conflict in toto, being that there is enough to fight over besides race, e.g., feudal power, kingship, constitutional power, ideology and class. I'm not even saying that homogeneity lessens conflict. Homogeneity does however inherently remove internal religio-ethnic conflict, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination, state punitiveness against ''others'' within the same polity etc.

I just meant to highlight that humans are so prone to conflict that 'even' an ethnically homogenous state like Palestine can still end up having race based conflict within its own borders. So why make a boogie man out of multiculturalism if ethno states have the exact same issues?

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Are you saying the violence in Ireland would have occurred if there had not been two religio-sectarian groupings? Remove the Anglo-Scottish Unionist Plantation communities, and consequentially ''Auntie's'' obligation in defending those said communities, then there is no reason to believe that the Six Counties would have not joined the Irish Free State in 1922 (if ''Home Rule'' had not been granted sooner?). No sectarian divide. No ''Troubles''. 

You had provided the list of ethically homogenous states which I took to represent your position, but you have been consistent in using the stricter term homogeneity. I gather you mean complete monoculture with no more than one religion. If thats the case then my point about Palestine being on the list and having two religions is mute. 

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Would the Third Reich have risen if not for the presence of 522,000 Jews in the Weimer Republik, against whom the Nazis drummed up incessant antisemitism, in the pages of Der Stürmer for instance, propelling themselves to die Machtergreifung. The Jews were a convenient example of ''otherness'' in the German Reich, a scapegoat for Germany's ''misfortunes''. 

Your using the example of the Nazis to demonstrate why you think state homogeneity is good? Im confused by that.

And Id also raise that the Nazis despised the disabled as well - even of their own race and potentially broader ideology. Is it hard to drum up a scape goat?

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just posting this to see all the UK posters get shocked at how expensive these are and all the US posters absolutely dumbfounded at how cheap. :lol: 

67447199_10158183168738475_3058312771142

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Don't worry, BoJo is currently negotiating a brilliant deal with the EU that will make NHS much cheaper. 

The same wonderful deal that the EU offered us three years ago but Theresa May turned down because this battleaxe was propping up her government at the time. :lol:

Looks like Bojo's about ready to throw the DUP under the bus.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/18/arlene-foster-signals-dup-shift-on-northern-ireland-border-issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, soon said:

Worse than the Americans? :max::lol:

I've never really considered what the proper 'historical execution site' cuisine pairing would be. In this case I believe its a Rueben sandwich though. With a respectful amount of space and time between ghost town and ultra english Ma and Pa sandwich shop. Neoliberal capitalism really is insidious and tentacled, claiming all space as its own. And the entire consumer marketplace is the Company Store. Its bullshit.

I just meant to highlight that humans are so prone to conflict that 'even' an ethnically homogenous state like Palestine can still end up having race based conflict within its own borders. So why make a boogie man out of multiculturalism if ethno states have the exact same issues?

You had provided the list of ethically homogenous states which I took to represent your position, but you have been consistent in using the stricter term homogeneity. I gather you mean complete monoculture with no more than one religion. If thats the case then my point about Palestine being on the list and having two religions is mute. 

Your using the example of the Nazis to demonstrate why you think state homogeneity is good? Im confused by that.

And Id also raise that the Nazis despised the disabled as well - even of their own race and potentially broader ideology. Is it hard to drum up a scape goat?

I'm not saying it is ''good'' - that is an oversimplification. I am saying that there are benefits that homogeneous societies possess which heterogeneous societies do not possess such as avoiding religio-ethnic discord, as well as greater communications and participation in a shared vernacular culture and values. Palestine exists de jure, not de facto. The tension - Palestine indeed proves my exact point - is between two different religio-ethnicities, Islamic Arabs and the Israelite Jews. It is arguably (I don't want to get into the whole Palestine-Israel debate) a colonial relationship.

Antisemitism is the core of National Socialism. It is impossible to envision National Socialism arising without antisemitism driving it forth - an Italio-Austrian form of clerico-fascism perhaps, but never Nazism? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×