Rayvin

Renton man, that's not what I said. I was attempting to portray my understanding of your position. That if Labour is even just slightly better than the Tories, even in just a single policy, we should vote for them. That must be your view because otherwise we're agreeing that there is a line in the sand for people on a personal level, for what they will and won't vote for, but that you think my line is wrong - and presumably that your line is right. And I mean, ok, but that's an entirely subjective view. My position is: I cannot vote for something which crosses certain lines Your position is: You can vote for anything as long as it is even slightly better than the Tories. That is what you are currently arguing for, and that's fine, but that's a really zealous attachment to pragmatism. A purist attachment, I would argue.

If you remove the labels you leave people to sort themselves by views which would be fine if individual people weren't fucking idiots, but they are (myself included). Accordingly then, you have people adopting contradictory positions because they are looking at the world entirely through their own lens and without a universal framework to support their arguments. Thus you get people on the right who believe that corporations must be eliminated whilst proudly proclaiming themselves as believers in free market capitalism; people who claim to be anti-imperialist while facing one direction and strangely permissive facing another way; people who champion diversity and inclusivity on one hand while finding acceptable paths to hatred and intolerance for people outside their hierarchies on the other. People are confused as fuck and it's not helped by this grand effort to destroy all of our frames of reference for what anything even means. Yes, obviously people are not 'pure' one thing or the other, but understanding the complementary frameworks that pin a school of ideological thought together is important for being able to appreciate and act upon your principles in a holistic sense. I'm an internationalist but I'm also very much a believer in holding together local/regional and national cultures. Internationalism is a threat to this position, so I have to determine which of those things matters more to me, because I cannot simply occupy both positions. Without a framework, I could. Labels have been weaponised, you're right about that - but the evolution in what they mean has come from the very thing I am warning about - the collapse of shared frames of reference. Because everyone has become uncertain about what truth is, what reality is. It's now just a case of who shouts loudest and most often - that's the person whose truth seems to prevail. They can bend reality as they see fit because our understanding of the world and how positions and views link together is fragmented. Putin has recognised this and has been distributing corruptive information campaigns on both the left and right, I would argue, for almost a decade - which is why we now live in a ridiculous world where both the far left and far right agree that NATO is the enemy and Russia is not an imperialist thundercunt of a nation that EVEN RUSSIA SAYS IT IS, but actually a hard done by victim of left/right (eliminate depending on your label) wing attempts on global domination. On the food thing - I'm aware of Monsanto and their domination of global food markets. I'm even aware of the seed issue you referenced. Zizek's claim was that as arctic passages become more feasible through the progress of climate change, Russia will stand to gain significantly as the corridor to the north of their nation will become the main thoroughfare for goods flowing from the West to the East and vice versa. This will give them significant control over food supplies. So he's talking about the future, not the now. On that basis I'm not really sure why you brought them up. Going to rallies and donating things etc are not doing nothing on an individual level, but they are doing nothing at a systemic level. I'm not criticising people who do this, I think it's admirable - I just think it's unfortunately also not really ever going to be the solution that improves the world. That will come from sustained pressure for political change that has a compelling enough narrative to force itself through all the walls and barriers that will be put in front of it. I don't believe this will ever happen, and so I don't really believe the world will ever get better. It will simply get worse. I think "they" permit rallies because "they" understand how harmless they really are. Like I said earlier, I see the world through logical positions which, and I'll really stress this - aren't necessarily the de facto truth of anything - but which seem to make the most logical sense to me at any given time, until a better position or framework comes along that makes more sense. All any of this is, is how I see it.

That day will never come, and you know it. Every subsequent election it'll be the same argument "yeah but the Tories look really scary this time, just suck it up and we can look at what you want next time". No. I have my lines in the sand and frankly, so do the rest of you. I appreciate that the prevailing wisdom on here is that if Tory manifesto = Tory manifesto and Labour manifesto = Tory manifesto +1 good policy then we can happily vote for Labour, but for me it's not good enough. I have no faith at all that this approach leads us to "Labour manifesto = Labour manifesto" because there is no vision to suggest that this is the case. I am tired of watching good people bending over backwards to avoid scrutiny and misrepresentation from fucking morons. I am tired of watching good people needing to hide their values - especially when, as "Labour's train strikes" prove, it doesn't even make any fucking difference.

I don't demand perfect. That's an unfair characterisation. I could take all manner of bullshit if I felt that the overall strategic aim got us closer to a world I want to see. I demand more than what they are offering. It isn't my fault that Labour is unable to articulate their strategy, that they are scared of their principles, and that they are stuck in old, dead ways of thinking. If they back PR I'll vote for them, because that gets us closer to me not having to make this fucking compromise again. It'll be the end of the party though so I'm not at all convinced they're brave enough to do it. Power > everything else.

That's fair but I think the only bits I really agree with are "we are two different people" and "we'll have to agree to disagree". Actually, also the bit about how even the 'worst' people believe they are doing the right thing. I think you could take that all the way up to Hitler. Its basically what I was saying in the General Random Convo thread the other day. I've seen a number of people on the right claiming there is no left or right anymore (please note that I'm not putting this at your door, whether you believe in the positions or not, I do not see you as right wing) and I have been wholly unconvinced by this. It seems to be a post truth assertion to make it easier for people to reconcile positions they hold that seem to blur across both sides because they find that they're caught up in inconsistencies. Part of a right wing tactical strategy to entrench the notion that all of this is about points of view and that all opinions are equal. They aren't. Some opinions are stupid. Again, just my view. I see it quite a bit and am yet to see any convincing argument for it. They're general terms to capture overall weightings of political leaning. The determination to move past them seems to come from the desire to obliterate all forms of shared reference to get to some point where we all agree that nothing matters, that truth is subjective. As for the article, I mean yeah I did imagine it would rile you since it solidly disagrees with you. I just wanted to see what your arguments against those positions were. I'm not going to push further on it as you've responded on some issues.

I'm not "infighting" with Labour because I'm not in Labour. I'm someone whose vote they want to win. The sentence would be better phrased as "the problem with Labour is that they don't stand for things that people believe in, and let them down at the worst possible times. They rely too much on taking their true believers for granted and wonder why they can't seem to move forward". My issue with Labour is something Labour has done to me, not something I've done to them.

Did you read that article? I'm actually interested in your processing on it because he's calling you out. That aside, going to a rally changes nothing in isolation. We need political representation that understands the battle we are in or it's all misdirected energy. We do not have this. We are fighting a war known only to the side that is winning. So when I say "we" back off, this is what I mean. You want to back off from Putin, Starmer wants to back off from anything that might offend or hurt the feelings of his right leaning voters. I'm not someone who can change their mind on something by trying to find a sunnier outlook. I look at truth or as close as I can get to it with the information I have at the time. I'll accept any argument that is logically superior to a position I hold, which is why I'm one of the few people on here who will comment that I have been wrong about something or address an inaccuracy or flaw in my thinking. I expect the same from everyone else but it's not often forthcoming.

What infighting? They look fairly solid on that front at the moment.

I'll keep a seat free for you.

We don't know what the alternative timeline would have looked like of course but I agree. I can follow this particular argument rationally though which is enough for me. I still do not believe Putin would risk the annihilation of Russia over Ukraine - even if it was mutual annihilation. Appeasement of psychopaths. We back off from Putin, we back off from the Tories, we back off from the media, we back off from the argument. When do we stand our ground? It's all the same conflict IMO. Western liberal internationalism in Europe - that's what is at stake.

Did you read the article? Zizek is a world renowned political theorist so he does have something of value to say on this. He's not just a random guardian journalist. He covers environmental catastrophe if we don't act, the splitting and isolation of Europe between two competing global powers etc. It's not just "let's go to war". It's what happens if we don't. I strongly recommend considering the points raised if you didn't read it.

Zizek has weighed in on this and I agree with almost every word. Huge as far as the left goes because he's someone the far left very much respect. His pragmatism and ability to see reality is incredible (IMO). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/21/pacificsm-is-the-wrong-response-to-the-war-in-ukraine?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

What's the point man, seriously. Enough of this bullshit will get through. It's just hopeless.

Although I'm very aware that this is just something I believe/want to be true - not something that absolutely "is". Fish mate, you could well be right.

This is the thing. Most people, bizarrely, are pretty decent human beings. They're just fucking idiots. The day the right wing media monopoly comes down is the day this country shines IMO.

Not disputing any of the above but I do want to point out that he can work to shed light on all of that and still be a Kremlin asset. He has consistently resisted publishing Kremlin focused information, criticised the Panama Papers publication as focusing too much on Russia, and of course helped other Russian asset Donald Trump secure victory over Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/mueller-report-confirms-it-assange-is-not-whistleblower-or-journalist/ Acknowledging all of this as relevant information in judging his motives does not mean our governments have won and control our minds, it simply means that the world is full of cunts. It also doesn't mean that what he revealed wasn't important or necessary. It does perhaps suggest that his motives were not "pure".

This. This x 100. Fucking this.

It really is, the last line wrapping it up so nicely We are lucky to have so many posters skilled in the art of mackem takedowns.

I still believe that "anything but Trump" won in the US. That might work here but it doesn't fix the issue. We need to stop being short termist and actually start working towards a vision. Starmer might win next time on an "anything but Johnson" ticket but Labour really needs to buck it's ideas up on where it thinks society needs to go. We need 10-20 year plans to entrench progress and a concept of what society should look like. This should be proudly stated. I wish we would stop running scared of what we believe in.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/17/keir-starmer-boris-johnson-lie-personality-politics?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Hyde on Starmer. Hard to argue the view.

I think he's probably a Kremlin asset on balance of information, a witting one or otherwise. That said, he made some important contributions to showcasing US war crimes that you would hope will have resulted in some serious policy changes in their military and perhaps fewer instances of such things in future. That's positive. Not sure he should be going down for that. I also think he's wasted 8 years of his life in voluntary prison in the hope of avoiding a lesser sentence in the US. Could be proven wrong there but I doubt he's going away for the rest of his life. Should have just faced the music IMO, wasted a lot of his credibility and sanity trying to avoid it.

Villa are spending money that basically has to pay off next year or the year after given the age of the players they're bringing in. It's a ridiculous approach IMO. They'll simply be outcompeted by more athletic teams.

Same. Its the only condition I'd rejoin for but I would do so willingly.

Though I agree that the right will pivot from issue to issue manufacturing outrage in response to attempts to treat people compassionately. That's baked in.

I'm not sure I agree on the point about being self interested. I really do think a lot of people only receive messaging on issues like this by "their paper" or relevant TV or YouTube channels. So the message doesn't come through as "Trans people have daily struggles reconciling their identifies with their lived experience and this is the cause of significant stress and turmoil within their lives, leading to high rates of suicide and mental health problems. We hope that by creating awareness of these issues and encouraging people to talk to and interact with the trans community, we can create a better society for everyone". They come through as "trans people demand that you use these words when talking to them and you face the sack if you refuse! Another example of free speech being curtailed and sacrificed at the altar of wokeness. Next they're coming for Christmas, 'real' women, and your very manhood!!" And I really do think that this messaging issue can be attributed to a reasonable enough size of right wing voters so as to deliver majorities to people like Trump and Johnson. I don't think they're any more or less self interested than you or I, they are just only getting information filtered to them by bigots - and they've had it for so long they just think it's normal. Something like 85% of the country believes the NHS should be free to all - yet 40% vote for a government that is systematically privatising it. 90% profess to be happy to live next to immigrant families, yet 52% voted for brexit to keep out immigrants. If you survey people policy by policy in this country, instead of by party, the Tories get 12% of the vote. The difference between that number and the one we see is media bullshit and narrative pushing, IMO. Most people are decent, just woefully uninformed and stubbornly sticking to it. This means messaging from the left really does matter. In my view at least.