Rayvin

Hope so!

We won't get the ECHR back, Labour won't push for it for the same reasons they won't push for Brexit. If the Tories bin it here, it's gone. Nothing you can do about it, no point saying anything now that in a few days time, once it goes through, you'll have to shut up about or risk offending the voters Labour needs to win. I hope I'm wrong.

I think the bar we have to stoop under keeps getting lower and lower.

Same question as for Tom - if he does it, will Labour bring it back?

I believe this too - but I agree with you on this mainly in that at some point someone needs to stand up and make case for what we actually believe in. We do need to win that argument at some stage. I think what others here seem to advocate for is a world where we win power and deliver what we believe in by stealth and idk, maybe that's the right play. But we did that with Blair and for all the progress made under new Labour, things are now worse than I've ever seen them. I think we could perhaps have done with cementing and defending our argument better instead of immediately abandoning it and running in fear of the right wing press. Who will relentlessly hound and attack Labour with or without Labour even doing anything. As we can see.

To be fair, it is quite clear that for all the safety winks in the world, that is a prevailing view on here It amuses me sometimes to watch people make these comments that clearly apply to other posters (I do this too tbf, in fact this may be an example of it) without actually naming them specifically. I'm fine though, I knew what was going to happen here when I went into this discussion I think it comes down to the sense of scale really - what concerns you more, the Tories or the trend. For me, I think it's the latter.

We accepted it.

Are Labour going to be reversing this on their manifesto, do you think?

You've missed my point and I honestly just don't have the energy to open this up to arguing with another person. No disrespect, but what you've just argued is not a pushback on what I said. Why won't we deal in hypotheticals, because it makes the broad sweeping statements about how everyone should vote Labour even if its only a slight improvement actually look a bit stupid? I introduced hypotheticals in an attempt to capture an issue that you feel as strongly about as I do with Brexit. So that you could potentially understand why your solution to me is not a good one. This does not appear to have worked but as far as I can see mate, your position is one of constant dynamic change. The bar gets lowered, you go down with it, still hoping that if you can just get under it once we'll be able to push up again. Meanwhile, the only current truth with this is... the bar is getting lower. The bar has dropped lower than I'm willing to go without compromising more or less everything I believe in. Who are you, I mean any of you really, to tell me that this is a stupid position? You're exactly the same as me about different issues. Your specific configuration of issues that you would stop supporting Labour over hasn't come up yet. How nice that must be. It exists though, and because it exists, I really can't see anything other than blind hypocrisy in this conversation.

It doesn't matter whether the differences are slight, that's not your position. Your position is that pragmatism trumps everything. You literally posted that. We can have that discussion, but that's not the one we're having. I'm being told by everyone here that I have to vote for them no matter what as long as they are slightly better.

Hypothetical - the Tories decide to fully privatise the NHS. Goes into their next manifesto. Labour take up the same position. Do we still vote for them because they're also offering free school meals? Or do we dig our heels in because otherwise we are consenting to losing the NHS? It happens either way, but if we vote Labour there is no pressure applied to defend it, so politicians believe that they can avoid returning to the issue - it's too divisive, not a vote winner. Alternative: The Tories start deporting people to Rwanda as part of some fucked up policy on handling immigration. Polls well though. Labour put that in too. Still offering free school meals though. Before anyone comes jumping down my throat, I am aware that Labour have not done these things, but I am asking you honestly if your pragmatism would still have you voting Labour if they did. Because if not, you're right where I am fucking am just on different issues. And even if you do hold true to your pragmatism in this scenario - which I am left to assume takes us right the way through to full on fascism as long as it comes with free school meals, then you must surely be able to see at the very least how this is a bit of a difficult fucking pill to swallow for anyone who really, deeply cares about an issue that Labour have fucking abandoned. -mic drop-

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.