British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I think there's a variety of factors at play. Think they don't like that she's American, divorced, "doesn't know her place" and yes I think there's an element of racism there too. 

If they don't have it in for her then why is she getting slated for doing exactly the same things that they're praising Kate for?

 

Kate Middleton has been criticised widely in the media also,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2664060/Your-bill-refurbish-Kates-palace-4MILLION-New-kitchen-nursery-bathrooms-quadruples-cost.html

Was this because Kate is white?

Megan in the media: where is the racism? It is utter bollocks. She is being attacked just like Diana and Fergie were attacked, because she is a royal and it is the tabloids basically. 

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Of course not, but you say London is the most multicultural. And maybe you're right, but please provide me a link or something.

And you say Britain is probably the most non-racist and tolerant country in the world. Maybe you're right about that too, but I have no idea where you get that information from.

I don't believe there is a scientific way to determine the latter point outside demographics, stuff like this (areas where 50% were born abroad),

There are similar things to pull up. Just search ''London demographics''.

But obviously it is difficult to judge harmonious relations and acculturation - I make no apologies for there being more than an element of subjectivity in what I stated. 

 

[EvanG]

17 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And I don't see why you could doubt me regarding travel considering you do not know me, but you are free to think whatever you want.

You have said more than once on here that you hate travelling. There are 44 countries in Europe, I can't imagine someone who hates travelling having been to almost 44 countries in one continent. Even I haven't been to nearly all European countries and I live in Europe and I love travelling and I've done it quite a bit. But yes, I have no way of knowing obviously.

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you are supporting so zealously this guy,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/13/jeremy-corbyn-not-involved-munich-olympics-massacre-wreath-laying

It actually rather does!

What I find really funny here is that instead of applauding a politician fighting against racism and sexism, you try to cancel her because she belongs to a political movement you despise. Basically, it is more important to you to attack politicians you hate than supporting a fight against racism and sexism. It is really revealing about your priorities.

[EvanG]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I don't believe there is a scientific way to determine the latter point outside demographics, stuff like this (areas where 50% were born abroad),

There are similar things to pull up. Just search ''London demographics''.

But obviously it is difficult to judge harmonious relations and acculturation - I make no apologies for there being more than an element of subjectivity in what I stated. 

 

I think Toronto may be up there, New York City for sure. But I have no statistics. I can't say for sure, I have only been there once, but I don't think Canada is a very racist country either, although maybe @soon can shed some light on that.

Edited January 21, 2020 by EvanG

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, EvanG said:

You have said more than once on here that you hate travelling. There are 44 countries in Europe, I can't imagine someone who hates travelling having been to almost 44 countries in one continent. Even I haven't been to nearly all European countries and I live in Europe and I love travelling and I've done it quite a bit. But yes, I have no way of knowing obviously.

I think you misquoted me and some of my humour has been taken in earnest by yourself when it was in fact facetiousness - NB., I discussed travelling to Prague last year, and am currently discussing travelling to Krakow this year in the general discussion. I do hate the act of travelling, flying, etc. Indeed, I hate travelling domestically also. 

I perhaps should have said Western Europe. I have been to France, Spain, Italy, German, Czech Republic, Portugal, Greece, Austria. A few of these on multiple occasions (seen all of Spain!!). It is currently now that I am beginning to explore Eastern Europe. 

Never been to Holland strangely - I say it is strange because of its proximity and popularity among Brits. Never fancied it. 

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

I think Toronto may be up there, New York City for sure. But I have no statistics. I can't say for sure, I have only been there once, but I don't think Canada is a very racist country either, although maybe @soon can shed some light on that.

The problem with the United States is its situation with black people is so entirely different from any European country with black people. 

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What I find really funny here is that instead of applauding a politician fighting against racism and sexism, you try to cancel her because she belongs to a political movement you despise. Basically, it is more important to you to attack politicians you hate than supporting a fight against racism and sexism. It is really revealing about your priorities.

You should have realised awhile back on here that I loath hypocrisy, whether that applies to frequent fliers such as yourself lecturing people on climate change, or members of Momentum hectoring about racism?

[DieselDaisy]

Evan,

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-diverse-cities-in-the-world.html

[EvanG]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I think you misquoted me and some of my humour has been taken in earnest by yourself when it was in fact facetiousness - NB., I discussed travelling to Prague last year, and am currently discussing travelling to Krakow this year in the general discussion. I do hate the act of travelling, flying, etc. Indeed, I hate travelling domestically also. 

I perhaps should have said Western Europe. I have been to France, Spain, Italy, German, Czech Republic, Portugal, Greece, Austria. A few of these on multiple occasions (seen all of Spain!!). It is currently now that I am beginning to explore Eastern Europe. 

Never been to Holland strangely - I say it is strange because of its proximity and popularity among Brits. Never fancied it. 

I didn't misquote you, and I knew what you meant back then about the actual ''travelling'' part. I was in Strasbourg last weekend, a city relatively close to me, but I still spent a total of 12 hours on several trains, but if you don't like that you shouldn't go travelling because that's a big part of it, especially when you're doing the backpacking thing. Fortunately I don't mind it. I even enjoy the train rides.

But it's ok, you misspoke. Happens often in a discussion. Evidently I have been to more European countries than you, but I still haven't seen half of them so I wouldn't say that I have been to ''nearly'' every country in Europe.

And for a history buff not to fancy the Netherlands? Okay!

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Evan,

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-diverse-cities-in-the-world.html

Hm... did you write this?

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I didn't misquote you, and I knew what you meant back then about the actual ''travelling'' part. I was in Strasbourg last weekend, a city relatively close to me, but I still spent a total of 12 hours on several trains, but if you don't like that you shouldn't go travelling because that's a big part of it, especially when you're doing the backpacking thing. Fortunately I don't mind it. I even enjoy the train rides.

But it's ok, you misspoke. Happens often in a discussion. Evidently I have been to more European countries than you, but I still haven't seen half of them so I wouldn't say that I have been to ''nearly'' every country in Europe.

Sadomasochist. Try using the Transpennine service, Newcastle to Durham, often, or standing on a train from Newcastle to York, and you will soon have a rather different opinion on train travel!

You seem to put a big premium on how many countries one has visited? To be honest I prefer to see a place in detail.

7 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Hm... did you write this?

No.

Edited January 21, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You should have realised awhile back on here that I loath hypocrisy, whether that applies to frequent fliers such as yourself lecturing people on climate change, or members of Momentum hectoring about racism?

I don't think it has anything to do with hypocrisy. Because only really stupid people would be blind to a good idea like fighting racism when it happens to come from someone who could only through a really half-assed argument be construed to be a racist herself, and I don't think you are quite that stupid. No, your use of hypocrisy is just a conversational cop-out. Whenever you struggle in a discussion you turn to accusing your opponents of being hypocrites as if that renders their otherwise sensible arguments automagically invalid. Like now, you attempt to cancel this politician's admirable determination to fight racism and sexism because you hate her political movement and so by the stupid's propensity for moronic association you hate her too, and when called out for this you claim that somehow her opinion is invalid because you can present a rather tenuous argument for her being a racist too. It is hilarious. And when I argue that we should do our job in recycling and that you are a disgrace for not caring about this particular issue, then I am a hypocrite because I happen to have a job where I fly quite a bit (as if these things are even connected). So no, you don't loath hypocrisy, you love it. You love it because you believe it presents you with a polemic get-out-of-jail card whenever you make a fool of yourself, so quite often, although most people would see right through such unintellectual argumentation.

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think it has anything to do with hypocrisy. Because only really stupid people would be blind to a good idea like fighting racism when it happens to come from someone who could only through a really half-assed argument be construed to be a racist herself, and I don't think you are quite that stupid. No, your use of hypocrisy is just a conversational cop-out. Whenever you struggle in a discussion you turn to accusing your opponents of being hypocrites as if that renders their otherwise sensible arguments automagically invalid. Like now, you attempt to cancel this politician's admirable determination to fight racism and sexism because you hate her political movement and so by the stupid's propensity for moronic association you hate her too, and when called out for this you claim that somehow her opinion is invalid because you can present a rather tenuous argument for her being a racist too. It is hilarious. And when I argue that we should do our job in recycling and that you are a disgrace for not caring about this particular issue, then I am a hypocrite because I happen to have a job where I fly quite a bit (as if these things are even connected). So no, you don't loath hypocrisy, you love it. You love it because you believe it presents you with a polemic get-out-of-jail card whenever you make a fool of yourself, so quite often, although most people would see right through such unintellectual argumentation.

If you believe in the urgency of climate change you wouldn't fly, or at best seriously curtail your flying. It is that simple. Otherwise you are a gross hypocrite. 

If however climate change isn't an urgency, and is in fact a load of nonsense, well...

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you believe in the urgency of climate change you wouldn't fly, or at best seriously curtail your flying. It is that simple. Otherwise you are a gross hypocrite. 

If however climate change isn't an urgency, and is in fact a load of nonsense, well...

It is a urgent that politicians adopt recommendations from the experts on mitigating factors. It is not urgent that people stop flying.

How can this be so hard for you to fathom? 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

It is a urgent that politicians adopt recommendations from the experts on mitigating factors. It is not urgent that people stop flying.

How can this be so hard for you to fathom? 

Yet plane travel is a significant contributor.

Listen, Soul. Just admit it is a load of nonsense and you can fly to your heart's content free of hypocrisy. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You seem to put a big premium on how many countries one has visited? 

Not at all. I don't even think I have been to that many countries myself compared to a lot of people. I just didn't believe what you said (even though I have no proof that you hadn't actually seen nearly every European country because I obviously don't know you). But from your posts and the way you often exaggerate in them, I took a gamble of calling you out on your statement and it turns out I was right. You often say to people on here that they know nothing about you, and you're right in a way, but judging from your posts one can make a fairly right assumption regarding certain things. 

(and yes, those high-speed trains are rather comfortable, even for people with my height, so I don't have much to complain, I spent 12 hours listening to music and watching the German landscape, not too shabby for Evan.)

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet plane travel is a significant contributor.

Despite this, the experts don't call for abolishment of air travel, how can that be? This is a rhetorical question of course, I don't suspect you, or even encourage you, to try to answer this. It is obviously somewhere beyond your grasp.

Like the experts, I have never called for or argued for a stop to air travel, nor condemned other for flying, and hence I cannot be a hypocrite for flying myself. I have called you out for being a lazy slouch who won't recycle, which I do, hence I am not a hypocrite. 

It must be frustrating when you are so incompetent at wielding your primary weapon of argumentation. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, EvanG said:

Not at all. I don't even think I have been to that many countries myself compared to a lot of people. I just didn't believe what you said (even though I have no proof that you hadn't actually seen nearly every European country because I obviously don't know you). But from your posts and the way you often exaggerate in them, I took a gamble of calling you out on your statement and it turns out I was right. You often say to people on here that they know nothing about you, and you're right in a way, but judging from your posts one can make a fairly right assumption regarding certain things. 

You are another pedant I see regarding language?

I would say I have been to a lot. Was in Spain for three months and worked in Asia - those are not everyday experiences. Do you want my airline receipts? It is really of no concern irrespective because you know bugger all about me. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Despite this, the experts don't call for abolishment of air travel, how can that be? This is a rhetorical question of course, I don't suspect you, or even encourage you, to try to answer this. It is obviously somewhere beyond your grasp.

Like the experts, I have never called for or argued for a stop to air travel, nor condemned other for flying, and hence I cannot be a hypocrite for flying myself. I have called you out for being a lazy slouch who won't recycle, which I do, hence I am not a hypocrite. 

It must be frustrating when you are so incompetent at wielding your primary weapon of argumentation. 

Probably because they're hypocrites also, attending those cushy science summits like the numerous WOKE celebrities and Harry and Megan.

If I was polluting the water stream, no matter how minor, I would certainly be determined to eradicate the source - my transgression - of that pollution.

[EvanG]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You are another pedant I see regarding language?

No, I merely stated that I didn't believe you. You responded to that and therefore we are still going on about it now.

Quote

I would say I have been to a lot. Was in Spain for three months and worked in Asia - those are not everyday experiences. Do you want my airline receipts? 

I'll pm you my e-mail, you can send them to me if you want.

Quote

It is really of no concern irrespective because you know bugger all about me.

I don't. That's what I said. I don't even know whether you are really bald or not because I have never seen your picture.

But regarding to certain things one who has read enough of your posts will be able to make a fair assumption of the character that is you. But I am the first one to stand corrected if I am wrong.

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I'll pm you my e-mail, you can send them to me if you want.

I am going to assume this is in jest, or this is Soul Monster - contacting a lecturer of a university that he mistakenly thought was mine - levels of creepy stalkerdom!

Rather than conjecture you could have actually read my posts. If you stroll over to the general discussion I was inquiring - unsolicited - about Krakow, which would be a strange post to make if I was the itinerant ignoramus you make me out to be. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am going to assume this is in jest, or this is Soul Monster - contacting a lecturer of a university that he mistakenly thought was mine - levels of creepy stalkerdom!

Rather than conjecture you could have actually read my posts. If you stroll over to the general discussion I was inquiring - unsolicited - about Krakow, which would be a strange post to make if I was the itinerant ignoramus you make me out to be. 

Of course, don't worry, I'm not going to send you my e-mail.

And I am not making you out to be some kind of ignoramus either. I know you have been to some European countries, I just didn't take you as someone who has been to almost the entire continent, (most people haven't really), but that is what you claimed and that is all I responded to. Nothing more, nothing less. It's really no big deal. 

[SoulMonster]

34 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Probably because they're hypocrites also, attending those cushy science summits like the numerous WOKE celebrities and Harry and Megan.

If I was polluting the water stream, no matter how minor, I would certainly be determined to eradicate the source - my transgression - of that pollution.

With that flawed logic we should end all CO₂ emissions no matter how small, which would be the end to all kinds of motorized transportation, including electric trains, the end to all kinds of freight transportation so basically every consumer good transported internationally would disappear (in my case that would mean no cars, no medicine, no computers, no phones, no kitchen appliances, no bikes, basically nothing we don't already produce ourselves here in Norway, or here in Trøndelag), the end to consumption of everything that is transported or produced in a carbon negative way (basically changing our diet to how it was in the stone age), the end to having pets (because they breathe), the end to heating or cooling our houses (we would all have to move to equator), the end to any strenuous activity like sports (not cricket of course, so you are good there), because sports speed up metabolism and leads to more CO₂ emission, end to having children (those miniature hypocrites breathe while still being all snotty faced about recycling), and of course, the end to respiration altogether since that is an unescapable outcome of existing. 

Fortunately we don't have to do all that.  Experts have looked at what will make the greatest impact in regards to carbon emission while causing the lowest negative outcome on critical aspects society, mostly involving reducing pollution from the industry but also incentivizing consumers to adopt more environmentally friendly behavior. And it is these mitigating steps that politicians are now so slow to put into effect and get deserved flack for.

All this nonsense about people being hypocrites if they fly yet still are concerned about climate change, is just something either very stupid people say who don't get it, or people who object to making any changes themselves so they cynically try to make it seem like the entire climate movement is comprised of hypocrites and hence their sensible advice is somehow, by magic I presume, made insensible.

Doesn't work that way, of course.

52 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are another pedant I see regarding language?

It must be frustrating being surrounded by people who take you seriously when you claim to have been to most of Europe. Such pedants! When will they just let you lie and exaggerate in peace?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

With that flawed logic we should end all CO₂ emissions no matter how small

We rather should if, as scientists claim, the world will end in x number of days or less.

Taken to its logical conclusion...

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

We rather should if, as scientists claim, the world will end in x number of days or less.

Taken to its logical conclusion...

Logic is a scary weapon in the hands of the ignorant. Because scientists don't claim what you claim they do.

55 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is really of no concern irrespective because you know bugger all about me. 

There are just so many things we know about you, and now also that you don't like being called out for exaggerating your travelling. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Logic is a scary weapon in the hands of the ignorant. Because scientists don't claim what you claim they do.

So by merely removing transport you solve 23% of the problem? Solving the climate change crisis is simple once hypocrisy and selfishness are removed.  

Why don't you follow through with your own convictions Soul? Too keen on those airmiles freebies? Easier to hector against people who do not fly as frequently than follow through with what you so espouse? Too keen on fish spunk?