Snap General Election called

[Digby]

You discredit yourself with this whole money tree nonsense. I don't know how you can criticise the executive for being incompetent but use their childish rhetoric at the same time...

I'm happy using terms like magic money tree. Certainly it's far more childish to imagine you don't need to pay for things and can simply have magical access to money without cost(s)

The alternative is redistribution of money. You know that capitalism sticks money up to the top. That leads to lack of demand at the bottom.

What alternative sees in effect a redistribution, what is the redistribution, and is that desirable?

And I don't know that capitalism sticks money to the top, we've had that happen under every political system including communism.

[Which Tyler]

After yesterday's revelation that the cabinet haven't discussed what they want from Brexiteers (courtesy of our chancellor)
Today, he's blaming Britain's low productivity on disabled people.

Is he TRYING to lose his job? Is this his play to be next PM?

[morepork]

It is comforting to know there are mongs in charge on the other side of the pond too. Maybe "Politician" could be a new category in the next special olympics. They do appear to be disabled.

[Which Tyler]

It is comforting to know there are mongs in charge on the other side of the pond too. Maybe "Politician" could be a new category in the next special olympics. They do appear to be disabled.

Ever your faithful allies.
You've decided political incompetence is what you want? Well, suddenly, so do we.
You've decided that outing yourself for purgery is desirable? Well, no problem.
Making enemies of your closest allies? Hello Brexit!
An absolutely insane healthcare system that decides that profit motive is the best thing ever? Would you like to meet Jeremy Hunt?
Nepotism in high office? Hi, have you heard of "royalty".

[Which Tyler]

Meanwhile in Cardiff Bay:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-42343250

UKIP AM Gareth Bennett has been barred from speaking in Senedd debates in 2018 following a speech about transgender rights.

Mr Bennett refused to apologise for saying society could implode if there was too much "deviation from the norm".

Presiding Officer Elin Jones said on Wednesday some of the comments were "particularly hateful".

Ms Jones wants the AM to say sorry before he can contribute again, but he said he had no intention of doing so.

...

[Mellsblue]

Not that I agree with him but what’s the point of having a debate if you’re going to censor someone for stating their opinion.

[Mellsblue]

Not that I agree with him but what’s the point of having a debate if you’re going to censor someone for stating their opinion.

You’ve missed the point of a debate, in a debating chamber in a national legislature. A representative democracy doesn’t work if you censor the representatives’ opinions just because you disagree with them.

[Mellsblue]

You’ve missed the point of a debate, in a debating chamber in a national legislature. A representative democracy doesn’t work if you censor the representatives’ opinions just because you disagree with them.

When your argument hinges on denying the rights to exist of one of the most maligned and targeted groups in society (broadly speaking, trans people are six times more likely to be targeted for hate crimes, for example), then you can go fuck as far as I'm concerned.

Would you have the same response if this UKIP fuckknuckle was going on in the same way about non-whites?

Yes, I would. As I said, it's the national legislature and he's representing his constituents - though hopefully 99% will say he doesn't represent them on this. You can't just ban someone for a year because you don't like their opinion. By all means point out their idiocy, pick at the obvious holes in their argument and make them look silly, but if you're getting offended that badly by an idiot like that then politics was a bad career choice. That's before you get to the point that these sort of people and their supporters thrive on 'the liberal elite don't listen to us' line and banning them just plays in to their hands.

[Digby]

In some ways maligned, in others not so much. Plenty of attention for trans people in modern media and politics, albeit not all positive, and they must be a much smaller % of the population than all that attention warrants.

[Stom]

You’ve missed the point of a debate, in a debating chamber in a national legislature. A representative democracy doesn’t work if you censor the representatives’ opinions just because you disagree with them.

When your argument hinges on denying the rights to exist of one of the most maligned and targeted groups in society (broadly speaking, trans people are six times more likely to be targeted for hate crimes, for example), then you can go fuck as far as I'm concerned.

Would you have the same response if this UKIP fuckknuckle was going on in the same way about non-whites?

Yes, I would. As I said, it's the national legislature and he's representing his constituents - though hopefully 99% will say he doesn't represent them on this. You can't just ban someone for a year because you don't like their opinion. By all means point out their idiocy, pick at the obvious holes in their argument and make them look silly, but if you're getting offended that badly by an idiot like that then politics was a bad career choice. That's before you get to the point that these sort of people and their supporters thrive on 'the liberal elite don't listen to us' line and banning them just plays in to their hands.

He's not been banned for a year, though, has he? He's been banned until he retracts his hate speech. Which seems eminently fair to me.

It's not like he's saying: "I think a disproportionately large amount of attention is being given to a very vocal minority when we should be concentrating on the rights of traditional families". While that still expresses the same sentiment, it's not name calling. It's a respectful way of expressing an opinion you may not agree with.

[Stom]

In some ways maligned, in others not so much. Plenty of attention for trans people in modern media and politics, albeit not all positive, and they must be a much smaller % of the population than all that attention warrants.

Define "much smaller % of the population." The Office of National Statistics' official position appears to be "our methodology needs updating so we haven't the foggiest," while UCLA's Williams institute estimates that the number in the US is around .6%, which is about 1.4 million - about on par with people with ginger hair.

What we are also seeing is an ongoing rise in the number of hate crimes being perpetrated against trans, non-binary, etc. people in the US went up by around 40%, and the number of trans people murdered this year surpassed last year's number back in November.

In the UK, based on Stonewall's polling done via YouGov, there has apparently been an 80% increase in incidents involving LGBT victims, but the number of actual incidents is estimated to be significantly higher considering massive underreporting of such incidents to authorities due to discrimination faced on that front as well. With trans people specifically, 2 in 5 (but probably more) have been targets of hate-crimes or incidents.

It's fine and well to argue that a fucking subhuman piece of shit evolutionary glitch like Gareth Bennett should have their chance to have their say, but doing so not only provides hatemongers like him a soapbox to preach their filth from, but it also runs the risk of normalising that sort of bullshit and lending it an unearned legitimacy. If cutting off his microphone and telling him to go sit in the corner like the fucking dunce that he is while the grown-ups have their discussion is the price to pay in order to combat that sort of shit, then it's no price to pay at all.

P.S. Pardon fucking me if I come of like I am of the opinion that hatemongers like this Bennett cunt apparently is don't deserve any sort of platform to have their say. It's just that I have this wacky notion that hatemongers are human garbage and evidence that perhaps the gene pool needs a healthy dose of chlorine. God forbid cunts like him have their feelings hurt.

With the risk of derailing this, when it comes to "non-binary", how do you define that? I mean, when do you cross over from someone genuinely being bi, for instance, and someone "in love with a furry"?

[Mellsblue]

When your argument hinges on denying the rights to exist of one of the most maligned and targeted groups in society (broadly speaking, trans people are six times more likely to be targeted for hate crimes, for example), then you can go fuck as far as I'm concerned.

Would you have the same response if this UKIP fuckknuckle was going on in the same way about non-whites?

Yes, I would. As I said, it's the national legislature and he's representing his constituents - though hopefully 99% will say he doesn't represent them on this. You can't just ban someone for a year because you don't like their opinion. By all means point out their idiocy, pick at the obvious holes in their argument and make them look silly, but if you're getting offended that badly by an idiot like that then politics was a bad career choice. That's before you get to the point that these sort of people and their supporters thrive on 'the liberal elite don't listen to us' line and banning them just plays in to their hands.

He's not been banned for a year, though, has he? He's been banned until he retracts his hate speech. Which seems eminently fair to me.

It's not like he's saying: "I think a disproportionately large amount of attention is being given to a very vocal minority when we should be concentrating on the rights of traditional families". While that still expresses the same sentiment, it's not name calling. It's a respectful way of expressing an opinion you may not agree with.

Well that’s just semantics. He’s not going to apologise - those who have imposed the ban know this - so it’s a ban for a year. Name calling?!?!? It’s not a play ground. It’s the national legislature where representatives should be free to give their opinion without fear of being banned for a year. Censure him, send him to standards and get him to explain himself whilst tearing him to shreads but don’t censor him.

[Stom]

With the risk of derailing this, when it comes to "non-binary", how do you define that? I mean, when do you cross over from someone genuinely being bi, for instance, and someone "in love with a furry"?

Furry is a fetish related to anthropomorphism, not a gender identity or sexuality.

Traditionally genders tend to be seen as binary - male/female. Non-binary means that person doesn't really belong to either, for whatever reason* and have, for a lack of a better way to put it, opted out and choose not to identify as either male or female. Keep in mind that gender and biological sex tend to be conflated, but they're not actually the same thing.

*This can be due to medical reasons such as gender identity dysphoria or being intersex.

Look, I run the LGBT support group at my school, having inherited it from a Scottish lesbian when she moved elsewhere (apparently I was at the top of the students' shortlist), so it's something that I really, really, really give a shit about.

I know it's a mile off topic for the thread, but I'd be very interested in a study (though no idea how they'd manage) on whether the sudden rush of non-binary is due to it being easier and more acceptable, with more material out there, so people who would previously have either not known they were non-binary or people who would previously have been scared to "come out" have now come out. Or whether it's artificial - whether it's come about because it's hip and cool.

Not the same, but here in Hungary around 1 in 3 people now seem to be gluten intolerant and lactose intolerant, which is statistically incredible...leading to believe it's artificial...

[Digby]

Traditionally genders tend to be seen as binary - male/female. Non-binary means that person doesn't really belong to either, for whatever reason* and have, for a lack of a better way to put it, opted out and choose not to identify as either male or female. Keep in mind that gender and biological sex tend to be conflated, but they're not actually the same thing..

Traditionally gender was seen a grammatical thing assigning a class of common, neutral, masculine or feminine, things change.

[Zhivago]

Meanwhile in Cardiff Bay:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-42343250

UKIP AM Gareth Bennett has been barred from speaking in Senedd debates in 2018 following a speech about transgender rights.

Mr Bennett refused to apologise for saying society could implode if there was too much "deviation from the norm".

Presiding Officer Elin Jones said on Wednesday some of the comments were "particularly hateful".

Ms Jones wants the AM to say sorry before he can contribute again, but he said he had no intention of doing so.

...

This is absurd. He is clearly a massive turd, but somehow he was elected so he should not be banned, unless he is convicted. If his speech was hate speech then he should be prosecuted and then expelled.

[Stones of granite]

With the risk of derailing this, when it comes to "non-binary", how do you define that? I mean, when do you cross over from someone genuinely being bi, for instance, and someone "in love with a furry"?

Furry is a fetish related to anthropomorphism, not a gender identity or sexuality.

Traditionally genders tend to be seen as binary - male/female. Non-binary means that person doesn't really belong to either, for whatever reason* and have, for a lack of a better way to put it, opted out and choose not to identify as either male or female. Keep in mind that gender and biological sex tend to be conflated, but they're not actually the same thing.

*This can be due to medical reasons such as gender identity dysphoria or being intersex.

Look, I run the LGBT support group at my school, having inherited it from a Scottish lesbian when she moved elsewhere (apparently I was at the top of the students' shortlist), so it's something that I really, really, really give a shit about.

Was she hounded out because of her red hair?

[Mellsblue]

With the risk of derailing this, when it comes to "non-binary", how do you define that? I mean, when do you cross over from someone genuinely being bi, for instance, and someone "in love with a furry"?

Furry is a fetish related to anthropomorphism, not a gender identity or sexuality.

Traditionally genders tend to be seen as binary - male/female. Non-binary means that person doesn't really belong to either, for whatever reason* and have, for a lack of a better way to put it, opted out and choose not to identify as either male or female. Keep in mind that gender and biological sex tend to be conflated, but they're not actually the same thing.

*This can be due to medical reasons such as gender identity dysphoria or being intersex.

Look, I run the LGBT support group at my school, having inherited it from a Scottish lesbian when she moved elsewhere (apparently I was at the top of the students' shortlist), so it's something that I really, really, really give a shit about.

Was she hounded out because of her red hair?

This made me lol

[Which Tyler]

Furry is a fetish related to anthropomorphism, not a gender identity or sexuality.

Traditionally genders tend to be seen as binary - male/female. Non-binary means that person doesn't really belong to either, for whatever reason* and have, for a lack of a better way to put it, opted out and choose not to identify as either male or female. Keep in mind that gender and biological sex tend to be conflated, but they're not actually the same thing.

*This can be due to medical reasons such as gender identity dysphoria or being intersex.

Look, I run the LGBT support group at my school, having inherited it from a Scottish lesbian when she moved elsewhere (apparently I was at the top of the students' shortlist), so it's something that I really, really, really give a shit about.

Was she hounded out because of her red hair?

This made me lol

Me too - we're going straight to hell aren't we?


Is it worth pointing out that, from that same article - UKIP have gone the #MeToo route; and claimed that UKIP is also a minority and deserves protection from this sort of thing.

[Digby]

Makes me laugh anyway

[Mellsblue]

Was she hounded out because of her red hair?

This made me lol

Me too - we're going straight to hell aren't we?


Is it worth pointing out that, from that same article - UKIP have gone the #MeToo route; and claimed that UKIP is also a minority and deserves protection from this sort of thing.

It is, becauses that another thing I lol’d at.

[Digby]

I'm not entirely against the UKIP stance on minority parties, but then I much prefer the idea of PR to FPP

[Banquo]

I'm not entirely against the UKIP stance on minority parties, but then I much prefer the idea of PR to FPP

bit bloody ironic, given their stance on minorities in general. Mind, Farage has now said he's going to live in Europe in the event of a 'bad brexit', whilst drawing his pension, paid for in part by the divorce bill.

All politicians can just fck off; the backbench rebellion yesterday was driven more by remain tories giving the tory hardline brexiteers a bloody nose than anything else. None of those turds in the house give a flying fck about those they serve.

[Digby]

So Damian Green lied, a lot. Preusmably Davis will resign now too.

[Which Tyler]

So Damian Green lied, a lot. Preusmably Davis will resign now too.

We can only hope; but... David Davis? A man of principals? That just doesn't sound likely to me.

[Digby]

So Damian Green lied, a lot. Preusmably Davis will resign now too.

We can only hope; but... David Davis? A man of principals? That just doesn't sound likely to me.

I'm confident he's not the sort to lie to parliament or anyone else