Rayvin
-
Posts
21974 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by Rayvin
-
-
It fucking would have as well. Maybe not directly into the comments but on some level they'd have been seething.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70rreer004o - Parental leave and pay for new parents to be reviewed
Gammons in the comments complaining about why they have to pay for other people to have kids. I guarantee that these idiots haven't connected this to immigration and will happily crow about that at the same time. Either we have more kids, or we have high immigration - which is it, you clueless fucking muppets. You can't whine about both things at the same time.
-
5
-
-
29 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:
Are you 100% sure about this, my reading suggests trans individuals in Iran have a horrific experience.
I'm sure they do on many levels but the actual legal situation I googled repeatedly because I didn't believe it either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Iran
Not perfect by any stretch but also not what I expected personally.
-
1
-
-
You know one interesting thing in the subject of Iran is how progressive they are on trans rights. They recognise gender dysphoria as a mental condition wherein someone is born into the wrong body and support gender reassignment, even with state subsidy. Legal documentation is apparently also updated to reflect this on official record. The Ayatollah himself decreed this.
That makes them more progressive on trans rights than the current US government
But also its just kinda funny to imagine given how we perceive them.
Its worth noting mind that they dont have such a positive relationship with homosexuality, and seem to confuse the two things in some quite problematic ways. But still i found it interesting and worth sharing since they were brought up.
-
I know we talk about fascism a lot and the word probably does get thrown around too easily but for real, at what point is it actually fascism?
-
They're banning British rappers from Glastonbury from entering the US now.
I suspect I'm currently banned from entering ffs, if they ever tied this place to me as a person.
Ironically probably not banned from Israel...
-
I still wonder if the club has more ducks lined up than we think and is just waiting for the PSR deadline to pass. At least I desperately hope that's it. If not then IMO what has held us back this summer has been chaos in the boardroom.
-
1
-
-
"Economists and analysts at Cambridge Econometrics found that, by 2035, the UK is anticipated to have three million fewer jobs, 32% lower investment, 5% lower exports and 16% lower imports, than it would have had been. The report states that the UK will be £311bn worse off by 2035 due to leaving EU."
Our old people did this to us. I also checked the yearly loss to the public purse and it's estimated to be about £25bn a year. How much of this shit we're currently doing wouldn't have been necessary if we weren't so stupid...
-
1
-
-
If they just came out and pointed the finger at Brexit, I think these conversations would be a lot easier...
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Renton said:
Ah, right. I'll be honest and ignore all discussion about that no matter who from. I don't think these culture war subjects, wedge issues, have any place in politics. It's a big reason politics is failing imo.
I agree with you ultimately but nonetheless, these are the sorts of issues he will lose support over and I'm not seeing where he gains it otherwise. The right quite literally will never vote for him.
-
2 minutes ago, Renton said:
Is still specifically about Bridgets comments? I read them in the Guardian and can't say I found anything to disagree on?
No, Starmer has come out droning on about trans people again but I didn't want to link it and end up in yet another back and forth about that, so I'm trying to keep it general.
-
I'm wondering at what point Labour are expecting things to improve for them in terms of popular support - this cannot possibly be the strategy they're going to stick to running into the next GE. All these policies and statements which seem designed to alienate young, progressive voters, how on earth is this going to benefit them? I could buy it if they were picking up votes somewhere to the right but there's no evidence that they are. It feels like the whole thing is designed to suffocate the Tories but how does that help once Reform merge/ally/flat out replace them.
-
5 minutes ago, Meenzer said:
A lot of vested interests there tbh. Labour MPs don't want the value of their homes and property portfolios to go down, and no floating voter is going to vote for it either. I fully agree though, house prices are one of the big issues crippling this country (and the west generally, it's not just a UK thing obviously).
If that is genuinely the reason this doesn't happen then we deserve the hellscape we're heading towards.
-
34 minutes ago, Renton said:
Declining birth rates are a huge issue, in fact, with climate change probably the biggest issue the west has. Not just the UK, in places like South Korea and Japan it's catastrophic. In the former, they have provided loads of incentives for people to have more kids to no avail. So it's not just financial, but this is undoubtedly important.
Without indigenous young people, you need to import people from places like India and Africa to fill the gap. Over time this will undoubtedly change the demographic makeup of the country and cause issues we are witnessing today.
So Bridget is probably right (frankly I can't be bothered to read what she says), but what's laughable is her thinking she can change things by just telling people what to do and without MASSIVELY incentivising having children.
It's absolutely crippling financially in this country. The cost of childcare, food, clothes, education, holidays. All the while the strain of it sets you back in your job as in my experience having children just isn't recognised as something that needs to be worked around. I also spent a decade so focused on the needs of my kids I kind of just let my career trundle on, not wanting more stress through responsibility. Only now trying to change that.
Sorry you feel the way you do about the UK, but most is down to 14 years of the last lot. We'll struggle to fix that now, maybe it's not possible. But on this issue, it's not UK specific. It's affecting the entire "first" world.
I honestly feel like if they just made homes affordable it would make things a lot better on this front. Labour seem to be doing absolutely nothing on that front and I've no clue why in all honesty.
As for hating the country, that followed Brexit specifically so I'm not exactly too worked up otherwise, but there are no solutions to any of this in the current administration. Treating symptoms and not causes.
-
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/bridget-phillipson-britons-children-birth-rates/
Bridget calling for people to have more kids. I guess thats the inevitable flip side of cracking down on immigration. Problem is many young people aren't interested because society is so fucked.
If I'd been born even ten years earlier I'm sure I would have had some myself, but its never materialised for me sadly. Money and stability just haven't permitted it even in my longer running relationships.
I really do hate this country tbh. Funny how that can happen, I loved it once.
-
Well I read it all and I'm not sure what it tells us. All looks fairly normal stuff considering the country they're in - 4 or 5 Iranians who are now incensed at how pointless the whole thing was and disappointed it didn't topple the regime. What in there is worthy of the fabled dismissive coffee emoji
We already know that 70% of Iranians wish for regime change.
-
4 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:
Matthew Syed is an utter cunt who's never been right about anything
I appreciate you.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:
Brentford are going to price Bryan out of a move
I thought Man Utd had that one done... interesting. But he did get 20 goals last year..
-
Just now, aimaad22 said:
I think the thought process is that while Elanga and Pedro are very good its doubtful if they can be consistently world class. Whereas with a relative mystery buy from Europe you're looking to see if we can find another Isak/Bruno/Tonali for the same price.
Man City seem to be going down that route now with Reijnders/Cherki etc.
Howe's teams work to systems though, making good players seem a lot better than they are because they're operating as part of a whole. He needs to find players who can operate in his system more than he needs world class players who can do their own thing. I get what we're saying but world class players don't grow on trees and we seem to be struggling to ensure we have the people in place to find them.
I would be happy with the players discussed, it would make us a lot stronger than we are now.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, strawb said:
Mental to me that some randoms from shite leagues are more exciting to some people than proven premier league players.
We have seen what Howe does with run of the mill premier league players (like Burn) he turns them into international players. Are all of our first 11 internationals now? Apart from Murphy who should be.
We have the best manager in the league at developing players. He has targets that he thinks he can develop. We should give him the grace the buy the players he wants and develop them.
This. This x 10. No idea what people are worrying about here. Fucking this.
-
3
-
-
Fucking amateur.
-
1
-
-
The real issue I have isn't with which state belongs where, it's that many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly kicked out of their actual homes. Their whole lives were stolen. Surely there was a better way. Surely integration was that way.
-
3 minutes ago, Renton said:
If you were absolutely convinced that the annihilation of Israel would guarantee you an infinite life in paradise, would it not be rational to do this?
We've had countless examples of jihadist suicide terrorists giving up their lives for this exact motivation. The prospect of a nuclear Iran is not one that gives me much comfort. I don't understand why you don't get they have a completely different mindset.
And no, they haven't achieved this - yet - due to a combination of many external pressures. But they are in contravention of treaties and have a large stock pile of uranium enriched far beyond what is useful for civilian use. Which has gone missing BTW. Comparisons with Iraq are bogus, this forum is old enough to record that most this board, me included, knew the WMD claims the were false (as did the inspectors of the time).
Really the US had to completely destroy their nuclear programme. If reports are true they have only caused a minor set back, i think the problem is much worse as inspectors will not be returning.
There was never any possibility that Iran's nuclear programme could be destroyed because they are a sufficiently educated country that the knowledge is just 'within' the state now. They are not an Islamic backwater. They seem to have decided back in the early 2000s not to pursue this anymore and genuinely must have stopped because if they didn't, they'd have achieved them by now.
I strongly suspect the Iranian government uses religion to motivate people in the same way everyone does - that does not mean they would take the same risks themselves. They will see themselves as an entity that safeguards their faith. What is more important to them, preserving Islam or destroying Israel? To me, I agree with you that it's now more likely that they will develop one, but how has Israel's interest been served here then? Trump and Iran were talking, why did Israel even do this? They wanted regime change, it's the best guess I've got, and because they've failed, they've made the world more dangerous. Would you agree with that much at least?
-
47 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:
yeah, i dunno if they'd be batshit enough to acquire a nuke, let alone launch one preemptively. not sure i agree with renton on that one, though nor would i want iran to get its hand on a nuke to test his theory
re: hamas, i dunno if i'd be as charitable to describe them as cornered animal, as if they don't bear some responsibility for Israel's retaliatory strikes. i hate hamas every bit as much as i hate netanyahu.
my position is this: there is zero justification for what netanyahu has done to gaza. none whatsoever. it pains me to say this as a pro-israeli, but it is ethnic cleansing. netanyahu and his cronies should stand trial for war crimes. the only longterm outcome for the next generation of israelis is more fear, insecurity and death. you can try and destroy then annex gaza but this isn't going away. his actions turned israel into a pariah state while recruiting the next generation of hamas terrorists. that's all it's achieved - along with the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians.
however, hamas - and by extension iran - knew exactly what they were doing when they launched the october 7 attacks. they knew the israeli response would be brutal. the truth is khameni/netanyahu and hamas all wanted the conflict. both netanyahu and hamas need it to cling to power, which is all they care about - neither side care about the people they represent.
The problem to a degree is October 7th has become something akin to the 'start of history' on this issue now, whereas I would argue Nakba was the start. 700,000 Arabs kicked out of their homes and driven out of regions of Palestine that they lived in. 15k dead. Everything that has followed has been in response to that - Hamas are monsters, but they're monsters born out of a hatred that I can understand - not justify, but understand. If my family, my community, had been purged in the way that Palestinians were - driven from their homes and ethnically cleansed - I would also likely be very hateful. That says nothing about Israel's right to exist, but simply looks at the consequences of their actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
Since Nakba there have been 140,000 Palestinians killed by Israel. I've seen reports of small children being shot in their mother's arms by the IDF, little girls climbing over rubble and being shot twice (double tap to make sure), 10 year olds being taken out by snipers - all of this before October 7th. Just routine stuff. You do not need religion to make people hate in this situation. You just don't. The hate is automatic in response to the sorts of things the IDF have been perpetrating for decades. And to be really, really clear - if our children and families were suffering random executions, poisoned water supplies, forcible theft of property and so on.. we'd hate them too. Whoever that external force was, we'd hate them. That's why I view Hamas differently - because they're the product/consequence of that situation.
Politics
in General Chat
Posted
I was reading Labour's guidelines on antisemitism which are informed by the IHRA. I don't understand how we've gotten to where we are:
13. In contrast, discussion of the circumstances of the foundation of the Israeli State (for example, in the context of its impact on the Palestinian people) forms a legitimate part of modern political discourse. So does discussion of – including critical comment on – differential impact of Israeli laws or policies on different people within its population or that of neighbouring territories. It is not racist to assess the conduct of Israel – or indeed of any other particular State or government – against the requirements of international law or the standards of behaviour expected of democratic States (bearing in mind that these requirements and standards may themselves be contentious).
14. However, care must be taken when dealing with these topics. The fact of Israel’s description as a Jewish State does not make it permissible to hold Jewish people or institutions in general responsible for alleged misconduct on the part of that State (see paragraph 9.g.). In addition, it is wrong to apply double standards by requiring more vociferous condemnation of such actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others – a form of racist treatment also all too common in other contexts, eg. holding Muslims or Muslim organisations to a higher standard than others as regards condemnation of illegal or violent acts by self-defining “Islamic” organisations or States (such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan). It is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
15. The term “Zionism” is intimately bound up in the history of Israel’s foundation as a State and in its role in international relations more generally. It is inevitable that the expressions “Zionism” and “Zionist” will feature in political discourse about these topics. The meaning of these expressions is itself debated. It is not antisemitism to refer to “Zionism” and “Zionists” as part of a considered discussion about the Israeli State. However, as the Chakrabarti Report advised, it is not permissible to use “Zionist” (and still less any pejorative abbreviation such as ‘zio’ which the Chakrabarti report said should have no place in Labour Party discourse) as a code word for “Jew”. Chakrabarti recommended that Labour Party members should only use “the term `Zionist’ advisedly, carefully and never euphemistically or as part of personal abuse”. Such language may otherwise provide evidence of antisemitic intent.
I would fundamentally agree on every word of that. What I'm struggling with is why the IDF are some sort of protected characteristic. It's in poor taste to chant for their death absolutely, I don't condone it and I would never say it (same as for Russian troops) - but at the same time it doesn't feel like antisemitism per these definitions.
In the end though I think we just need to make peace with this - the government has chosen a side and it's Israel/Trump. I'm increasingly concerned about being watchlisted over expressing views about this in case I need to travel to the US tbh, or indeed being charged with terrorism by the UK.