*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wait... does this mean my trip to the UK next May will be more expensive?
or less expensive?

'cause if less expensive... I can buy ong a gift or smth. IDK. Like a new hat, maybe? Or a beer?

[OngBonga]

It's good for you, assuming the pound remains this weak for six months. By then we'll know if the gamble paid off. This could be a kneejerk market reaction or it could be a genuine revaluation of the pound.

A beer is definitely better than a hat. I can't drink a hat.

[OngBonga]

The pound isn't helped by a particularly strong dollar. It's making it looks worse. But that's also not to hide the fact that the pound is performing worse against the dollar than other currencies, so there is a crash. But there was a crash when Thatcher announced a similar budget, that was followed by boom. I'm sure poop is salivating at the prospect of a Tory induced collapse of the economy, but it's too early to tell if this is long term damage. At this point in time I still trust the Tories more than Labour when it comes to the economy. That's a reflection of the state of British socioeconomic politics rather the an endorsement of the Tories. We're really do have a choice between dog shit and cat shit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A beer is definitely better than a hat. I can't drink a hat.

OMG, you're so right!

Also... I hear you pre-yankee's do a thing with apples you call ... cider?

Might have to try one of those.

[OngBonga]

I can definitely show you cider. I'll have to be careful how much of that I drink though because after a certain threshold I start talking louder and I find everything funny. Loopy juice.

[Poopadoop]

But there was a crash when Thatcher announced a similar budget, that was followed by boom.

There's not going to be a boom this time. There MIGHT be a short period of growth due to the stimulus effect of pumping all that money in, but it's not sustainable. It's fantasy economics, even Rishi Sunak said that during the hustings.

I'm sure poop is salivating at the prospect of a Tory induced collapse of the economy,

The only thing I'm looking forward to is Labour getting voted in in two years and having halfway competent people running the country again. Obviously I'd prefer the Tories didn't have to completely destroy the country and cost me my house before that happened.

but it's too early to tell if this is long term damage.

Kwarteng met with the bankers today and didn't want to talk about what they talked about. Speculation is they were telling him what an idiot he is. He will either have to reneg on his goofy plan or Truss will have to sack him, or they'll bankrupt the country.

Every economist out there is saying what a shit budget this is. There isn't one economist who isn't a Tory shill that defends it. Economists never agree on anything, so if all economists can agree on something, that's a sign.

At this point in time I still trust the Tories more than Labour when it comes to the economy. That's a reflection of the state of British socioeconomic politics rather the an endorsement of the Tories. We're really do have a choice between dog shit and cat shit.

Labour taxes more but they do things with the money like build schools and hospitals. Everyone benefits from that. The Tories bleed public services to give money to bankers and other high earners, and try to pretend the money will trickle-down to others. It doesn't. And it's just now people are finally getting over 2008 and giving Labour credit for actually being better with money than the Tories.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and IMF is telling Truss to reverse the tax cuts. So even they think her plan is fucked.

[Poopadoop]

Mortgage providers are pulling their products because they don't know wtf is going on. This is 2008 level fuckedupittiness. Only this time it's the government doing it, not the financiers.

[The Bean Counter]

The mini-budget is madness and it's frightening that two people can fuck over a country like that. At least with brexit it was 30-somethjng percent of voters.

When the IMF tell come out and tell you it's bad, it's a disaster.

At best this is pig-headed ignorance with fundamental logic fails about trickle down economics. At worst, it's shorting the pound with insider knowledge and making a ton. I'd love to see how much Ress-Mogg's hedge has made from his insider knowledge and ERG influence. That's the same pro-brexit JRM that set up funds in Dublin post-brexit.

[The Bean Counter]

We need a mass protest against these idiots.

We also need a party to position itself close to the centre with a clear plan. I haven't seen that yet, and we may not have long until the next election.

[OngBonga]

Every economist out there is saying what a shit budget this is.

Yeah like in the 80s when a bunch of economists wrote to Thatcher to protest her budget.

Not that I'm saying the same will happen, but history shows us that economists can be motivated by politics rather than, well, economics.

[Poopadoop]

https://conservativehome.com/2022/09...h-of-tax-cuts/

Thanks a lot Keir Starmer! See what you've done?

[Poopadoop]

Yeah like in the 80s when a bunch of economists wrote to Thatcher to protest her budget.

Not that I'm saying the same will happen, but history shows us that economists can be motivated by politics rather than, well, economics.

Don't forget the goddamn lefties in the IMF all doing the wokey cokey.

[oskar]

She's appealing to conservatives by saying this. Trans people are not attacking women, but trans activists are. If you disagree, fair enough, but this view is shared by a lot of people, particularly conservative women. The trans rights movement comes across as extremely misogynistic. And that's because it is. We've got activists demanding lesbians date women with cocks, and calling them bigots if they don't. We've got people using "suck my trans cock" as a slogan. That's where we're at. Traditional feminists are now considered bad people, even labelled as "radical" (the R in TERF), which is extremely ironic since feminism is no longer radical, it's the trans activists who are radical.



It's not just about identity. Nobody really cares what someone identifies as. Well, maybe Meloni does, idk, but I certainly don't. Trans people aren't the problem. Trans activists are. I can't think of a more counterproductive group of activists in history. With their behaviour and their attitude, they have done a great deal more damage to trans people than good. People associate trans people with the activists. That really hurts the image of trans people, which in turn creates more social turmoil for them, not less.

If the trans activists weren't going after women's rights, there wouldn't be a problem.

We're talking about a group of people that's less than 1% of any agiven population, and then a subset of those. More accurately the subset that's trolling J.K. Rowling on twitter. Meloni is playing it up like this is a core issue plaguing society today, when in reality, the few trans people you've met in your life, you probably didn't even notice they were trans.

[oskar]

Basically, all the experts told Truss and Kwarteng "Don't do this, you'll crash the economy," and they did it anyways. It's quite incredible really.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status...86705659412480

The whole economy thing is very unintuitive to me. Both US and UK markets seem to be crashing because central banks have increased rates to battle inflation. How any of this is supposed to work, I have no clue to be honest.

[OngBonga]

More accurately the subset that's trolling J.K. Rowling on twitter.

I consider myself a Twitter troll, and I've never sent anyone a death threat or tried to cancel anyone. A troll for me is simply someone who takes a conflicting position for the sake of argument. People who go out of their way to make other people feel bad, they're not trolls, they're cunts.

Meloni is playing it up like this is a core issue plaguing society today, when in reality, the few trans people you've met in your life, you probably didn't even notice they were trans.

Well it's an issue for a lot of women who feel their rights and spaces are being encroached by men, in an incredibly misogynistic way. Whether that's justified is open to debate, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a genuine issue for these women. And where there's an opportunity for politicians to play identity politics, they'll take it. idk how many women voted for Meloni based on her gender critical views, but I'll bet it's more than there are trans people in Italy.

And sure, I'm in no doubt that I've met trans people without even realising it. This isn't an issue for me. But I'm not a woman. I think it's bad form for men to be telling women how they should feel about this matter. Men don't have to worry about rape, voyeurism, and general misogyny. Women do, and that's the fault of men. So it doesn't surprise me that when a man puts a dress on, declares himself a woman, and then demands access to women's spaces and lesbian girlfriends, that it pisses women off.

[Poopadoop]

The whole economy thing is very unintuitive to me. Both US and UK markets seem to be crashing because central banks have increased rates to battle inflation. How any of this is supposed to work, I have no clue to be honest.

Not sure what's going on with the stock markets, but the US dollar is doing great, the UK pound is not.

[Poopadoop]

And sure, I'm in no doubt that I've met trans people without even realising it. This isn't an issue for me. But I'm not a woman. I think it's bad form for men to be telling women how they should feel about this matter. Men don't have to worry about rape, voyeurism, and general misogyny. Women do, and that's the fault of men. So it doesn't surprise me that when a man puts a dress on, declares himself a woman, and then demands access to women's spaces and lesbian girlfriends, that it pisses women off.

I agree with all of this, apart from the idea of a trans woman "demanding" a lesbian girlfriend, as if the other person has no option to refuse.

But, the whole trans debate is an issue that is probably overblown compared to the number of people it affects. I reckon people will get bored with it in a couple more years and find something else to fight over.

[OngBonga]

I agree with all of this, apart from the idea of a trans woman "demanding" a lesbian girlfriend, as if the other person has no option to refuse.

Well obviously people have a choice. But the choice they are given from some people (activists, not trans people) is to consider dating trans people or be a TERF. It's like BLM saying to a white woman "date black men or you're racist". It's even more baffling because not all white women will reject advances from black men, it's a matter of preference. However, it's a fair assumption that the vast majority of lesbians are not interested in sexual relations with people who have a penis. And those that are don't need to be bullied into it.

I suspect there's an element of incels jumping on the trans bandwagon in an effort to get laid, and when it doesn't work the misogyny comes pouring out. These people resent women because they don't get the attention they want from women. That's what an incel is, someone who turns to misogyny out of resentment. These people are hurting genuine trans people, and those who legitimately identify as non-binary.

[oskar]

If someone is sending death threats to JK Rowling on twitter, that's bad, but I don't think it should affect the broad national politics of the nation of Italy.

Once again you are saying "women" feel they are being encroached by trans women when you should be saying "JK Rowling". I don't think she speaks for all women or even a majority of women. I would even dare say most people who vote for anti trans, reactionary religious nutjobs like Meloni, are not women who worry about bathroom etiquette, but men who want to do away with actual women's rights like abortion and work place equality which Meloni is certainly threatening.

When you start to enact anti-trans legislation in the real world, what you get is nonsense like this: https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/7...oom-campground
Do you really think women feel less encroached on when "real women" like Buck Angel stroll into the woman's bathroom and go: gal's it's alright, I am woman.

[oskar]

Not sure what's going on with the stock markets, but the US dollar is doing great, the UK pound is not.

It is my understanding that dollar inflation is actually quite bad, it's just that most other currencies are doing much worse. At least Powell must be thinking so since he's willing to nuke the markets to get inflation in check.

[Poopadoop]

Well obviously people have a choice. But the choice they are given from some people (activists, not trans people) is to consider dating trans people or be a TERF. It's like BLM saying to a white woman "date black men or you're racist".

Yeah well those people are completely unreasonable. I don't think we'll ever manage to stamp that out unfortunately.

[Poopadoop]

It is my understanding that dollar inflation is actually quite bad, it's just that most other currencies are doing much worse. At least Powell must be thinking so since he's willing to nuke the markets to get inflation in check.

I mean theoretically having a strong $ should be good because it costs them less to import things, which should bring inflation down as the US runs a trade deficit. More widgets for the same $ and all that. The US is raising interest rates like everyone else to combat inflation, which is standard practice afaik. What you're not supposed to do is give everyone more money like we're doing here, unless you want inflation to get out of control.

Today the central UK Bank bought up a bunch of the gov'ts debt, which seemed to help. The whole thing here seems pretty messed up though. The budget didn't have the usual check by the economists at the Office for Budget Responsibilty, which normally runs the numbers and confirms they're legit. The chancellor (treasurer/finance minister depending on what your country names this person) also hasn't offered the sums for how it's meant to work, he just suddenly announced a boatload of borrowing and spending and neither him nor the PM have been seen since.

So it all seems pretty chaotic and unprofessional, and maybe that's why the markets are reacting so badly to it here.

[OngBonga]

If someone is sending death threats to JK Rowling on twitter, that's bad, but I don't think it should affect the broad national politics of the nation of Italy.

I'm not. Note that you brought JKR into this convo, not me. This has very little to do with JKR.

Once again you are saying "women" feel they are being encroached by trans women when you should be saying "JK Rowling".

Do you really think that JKR is the only person with concerns? Do you think it's her that's leading this counteroffensive against trans activists?

No, when I say "women" i mean a very large amount of actual women, not a single person.

I would even dare say most people who vote for anti trans, reactionary religious nutjobs like Meloni, are not women who worry about bathroom etiquette, but men who want to do away with actual women's rights like abortion and work place equality which Meloni is certainly threatening.

I think you're very wrong here. It's not men who have a problem with trans activism, because the activists are not coming after men.

Well, men who respect women's boundaries and support them do have a problem with this activism, and of course there will be some "ew trannies" type men who also vote along these lines. But if you think that "bathroom etiquette" (it's a lot more nuanced than that but I'll accept that term) isn't a factor that concerns women, you couldn't be more wrong.

When you start to enact anti-trans legislation in the real world, what you get is nonsense like this: https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/7...oom-campground

This sucks, just like it sucks when a man in a dress goes into a women's toilet and preys on women. It happens too. I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat exchange of links supporting different sides of the debate because neither of us are in the wrong to be alarmed by what we see, and in both cases its rare.

The solution is transgender facilities, but the activists oppose this. This opposition is hurting trans people because it slows down real social progress.

idk who Buck Angel is, not sure of its relevance.

[oskar]

I'm not. Note that you brought JKR into this convo, not me. This has very little to do with JKR.

Yah I did that to marginalize your position. Unfortunately nothing slips by you.

The solution is transgender facilities, but the activists oppose this. This opposition is hurting trans people because it slows down real social progress.

idk who Buck Angel is, not sure of its relevance.

I think it is relevant because accordinng to you, these girls have to use the womans bathroom:



And women are supposed to be comfortable with that, but freak out when this man walks in:

[OngBonga]

I think it is relevant because accordinng to you, these girls have to use the womans bathroom:

I'm sorry, what part of "transgender facilities" confuses you?

Not that it matters to me. The first three people, I wouldn't even notice if they were in the dude's toilets. If they're lacking male genitals, it's not like they're going to squat over the urinal in full view of everyone. My position is that we should respect women when they say these first three people would make them uncomfortable if they saw them in the ladies toilet or shower.

The last one, kinda cute, I'd consider sucking her cock. I mean, assuming she has a cock, then do you think it's socially acceptable for her to be naked around young girls in a public shower at the swimming pool? We wouldn't expose these young girls to naked men, even though the vast majority of men have absolutely no intention of raping anyone.

Gender segregation is important in contexts where privacy is required. Maybe it shouldn't matter what genitals a person has, but it does. Me personally, if I accidentally walked into a room and saw you naked, I'd be somewhat horrified, and want to erase that image from my memory. On the other hand, if I accidentally walked into a room to see a hot woman naked, I'd make my apologies and walk away with a smile. Genitals certainly matter to me.

[oskar]

Segregated bathrooms for a <1% demographic is not going to happen. They could use the handicapped stall if it really is an issue to real people which I still doubt, but not every place has a handicapped bathroom either. You're talking about this like there's an epidemic of transgender women who use their gender identity to follow women into bathrooms and listen to them pee I guess. What's the actual concern here?

[MadMojoMonkey]

TIL oskar is not a hot woman naked

Sad times

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd say its a minor issue and if you're scared by the mere presence of anyone at all, regardless of their gender, you should leave that space. Prob. report to the management
And if the actual case is that someone who needed to pee went into the potty to pee and someone else was offended, then the offended party can fucking wait until they're not offended anymore.

[oskar]

the offended party can fucking wait until they're not offended anymore.

Wow! Victim blaming... wait until JK Rowling hears about this.

[OngBonga]

But mojo the problem with that is, if I, a man who identifies as a man, walks into a woman's toilet for no reason other than to piss, and that offends a woman who is in there washing her hands, it's her problem and I'm doing nothing wrong? You can't say it's ok for a man who identifies as a woman to go in there, but not a man who identifies as a man. Neither are a problem, or both are.

[OngBonga]

Segregated bathrooms for a <1% demographic is not going to happen.

Why? 1% of a city is still a lot of people. Maybe it's asking too much for every business like pubs to provide facilities for trans people, but the few that do will become popular venues for trans people.

They could use the handicapped stall

Dude you can't say "handicapped" these days you horrible bigot. I think it's "disabled" now but I might be being a horrible bigot too using that word.

You're talking about this like there's an epidemic of transgender women who use their gender identity to follow women into bathrooms and listen to them pee I guess. What's the actual concern here?

I think the concern is that if self identity is all that matters, then predatory men and misogynists can use it as an excuse to prey and harass women. You'll have to ask a woman if you want a better answer than that. Go on Twitter, find a gender critical woman who isn't a moron, and ask her why she has a problem with trans people using the same facilities as her.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But mojo the problem with that is, if I, a man who identifies as a man, walks into a woman's toilet for no reason other than to piss, and that offends a woman who is in there washing her hands, it's her problem and I'm doing nothing wrong? You can't say it's ok for a man who identifies as a woman to go in there, but not a man who identifies as a man. Neither are a problem, or both are.

I don't care where you pee, as long as it's not on me or my stuff.

I've been in women's rest rooms, I've seen women in men's restrooms. Not common, but not unheard of. Just depends on what the restroom lines look like at a packed event. I've not had or seen anything but accommodation.

If someone's offended, then good for them. We all have the right to be offended about things. Isn't that something.
The problem is that people want to have the right to not be offended, and that's utterly impossible. Get over yourself.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think the concern is that if self identity is all that matters, then predatory men and misogynists can use it as an excuse to prey and harass women.

These are 2 different things. One is not a problem and causes no harm to anyone and the other is not only a problem, but a crime.

Asserting that trans people are criminals is prob. not what you're trying to say, but the implication that group X can't have human rights because some unrelated group are criminals - and sure, some trans people are criminals, too - isn't right.

[OngBonga]

The problem is that people want to have the right to not be offended, and that's utterly impossible.

I understand this position but there are some things that people are within their rights to be offended, and by that I mean it's perfectly reasonable. An obvious example is if I go downstairs right now and ask my best friend's wife to suck my dick. If she then tells my best friend and he gets angry with me about it, it's just a case of "get over yourself", right?

But that isn't how it works in the real world. You offend someone, there are consequences. In my case I'd be asked to leave my home.

The question is if it's reasonable for a person to be offended by a given situation. And while it's easy for you to say, as a man, that it's unreasonable for a woman to be offended by the presence of a man in the ladies toilet, by doing so you're not putting yourself in her shoes.

Asserting that trans people are criminals is prob. not what you're trying to say, but the implication that group X can't have human rights because some unrelated group are criminals - and sure, some trans people are criminals, too - isn't right.

Right, so by this same logic I can just walk into the ladies showers at the swimming baths and because I have no criminal intent (other than perhaps voyeurism but let's pretend I'm gay and have no interest in naked women), because I have declared myself to be innocent in my intentions (I just want to shower), any woman who has a problem with me in the showers is being unreasonable?

This isn't how society works.

[OngBonga]

I know the vast majority of trans people have no criminal intent. But the same is true of men, that doesn't mean men can share public facilities like toilets and showers with women.

[OngBonga]

By saying to a man "you can't use the women's showers" you are not taking away human rights from the man. That's ridiculous. Why doesn't the same apply for trans people?

[MadMojoMonkey]

We're not talking about showers. Though it does up the stakes and there are trans people who want to swim in public pools, too, I assume, so fine.

It's a fair point, and it is what it is. Telling someone they can't use a public facility because you haven't made accommodations for their gender is BS. Imagine going into any establishment and it having only women's restrooms or only men's restrooms. And telling the other, "Hey sorry, it's too expensive to offer anything more." That's clearly just as wrong.

People are people and claiming that a minority shouldn't get the same basic public accommodations as everyone else is fucked up.

[OngBonga]

Telling someone they can't use a public facility because you haven't made accommodations for their gender is BS.

Yes, it is. But so is forcing women to share their gender-specific spaces with other genders.

...claiming that a minority shouldn't get the same basic public accommodations as everyone else is fucked up.

Sure it is. So provide suitable facilities.

We're not talking about showers.

Public showers are the extreme example, the most obvious case where having different genders together is problematic. But there's a great deal more to it than this. We've spoken about sports in the past, and didn't really reach an agreement other than to agree to disagree. There's also the problem of things like domestic abuse and rape support groups. These kind of places are sanctuaries for women who are much more likely than average to feel uncomfortable around men. But if a man in a dress can call himself a woman, he can turn up at such a support group and claim a hate crime is happening when people get upset about it.

You can't just say "deal with it" to women who have a problem with this. That's basically doing precisely what you don't want to do to trans people. You don't want to exclude trans people. That's understandable. But that can't come at the expense of excluding women. And if a woman no longer feels safe in a space she previously did feel safe, then she is essentially excluded. Just like you exclude trans people if you provide a space for them and then allow anyone to use that space.

There are support groups for trans people who have been subjected to violence. Do you think anyone should be allowed to attend these support groups? Or should they be exclusively for trans people who have experienced violence? If you're choosing the latter, than you simply have to remain consistent and allow women to have such support groups too.

And then apply that across the board.

If you don't think women should have their own spaces, then neither should trans people, or men. Let's just have no gender segregation at all. Do you think that would improve society?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes, it is. But so is forcing women to share their gender-specific spaces with other genders.

I said no such thing. I said if you don't want to share the space then wait your turn like any other civilized person.
Complain to the management if you like that they have failed to accommodate all genders and you feel entitled to more.
Fine by me.

It's not fine to tell someone what their gender is, or what pee room they should pee in. That's fucked up.

You're just trying to single out ugly bitches with hairlip aren't you?

Suggesting that someone has to prove their gender in order to use a public room is nonsense. No one wants that. Pretending you can assume someone's gender by looking at them is utter nonsense.

Sure it is. So provide suitable facilities.

Exactly my point. And if you refuse to do so, then don't blame the victim. Don't encourage anyone else to blame the victim. Don't change the subject to some people having irrational impatience and entitlement from the asshole who didn't provide adequate accommodations for the public in a public place.

Public showers are the extreme example, the most obvious case where having different genders together is problematic. But there's a great deal more to it than this. We've spoken about sports in the past, and didn't really reach an agreement other than to agree to disagree. There's also the problem of things like domestic abuse and rape support groups. These kind of places are sanctuaries for women who are much more likely than average to feel uncomfortable around men. But if a man in a dress can call himself a woman, he can turn up at such a support group and claim a hate crime is happening when people get upset about it.

That entire post was acknowledging that public showers are a good point to address.

You moving the goalpost to private spaces is irrelevant non sequitur. Private spaces can choose to not accommodate whoever they choose based on almost any criteria.

You can't just say "deal with it" to women who have a problem with this. That's basically doing precisely what you don't want to do to trans people. You don't want to exclude trans people. That's understandable. But that can't come at the expense of excluding women. And if a woman no longer feels safe in a space she previously did feel safe, then she is essentially excluded. Just like you exclude trans people if you provide a space for them and then allow anyone to use that space.

I can. I am. I will continue to do so. It's not all women. It's bigoted women.
I will tell bigots to back the fuck off all day, every day. You want to choose to hate / be afraid of / vilify someone based on literally nothing of any threat to anyone, then fuck off. You can cry about it all you like, but I'm on the side of the person who isn't being an asshole.

You act like all women are butthurt over this. That's simply not the case. Most women don't give a fuck. Women's restrooms are far less open than men's rooms as far as the chance of accidentally seeing someone else's privates. Women's restrooms have full stalls on every toilet. What do they have to be worried about from someone who is just using a restroom as its intended to be used? They don't.

Let's not pretend that some few bigots are representative of a majority of women.

There are support groups for trans people who have been subjected to violence. Do you think anyone should be allowed to attend these support groups? Or should they be exclusively for trans people who have experienced violence? If you're choosing the latter, than you simply have to remain consistent and allow women to have such support groups too.

And then apply that across the board.

If you don't think women should have their own spaces, then neither should trans people, or men. Let's just have no gender segregation at all. Do you think that would improve society?

Again. This nonsense about private clubs and institutions is irrelevant and off topic.

It's public spaces that have a responsibility to serve the whole public. Public spaces cannot pick and choose to exclude blacks or gays or women or trans people. We don't do that, here. At least, we say we don't. It's worth living up to. It's the right way to be.

[OngBonga]

Exactly my point. And if you refuse to do so, then don't blame the victim.

I'm sorry but trans people aren't the only victims here. You're ignoring the fact that women too are victims, and in the process you're essentially blaming them for being unreasonable.

You moving the goalpost to private spaces is irrelevant non sequitur. Private spaces can choose to not accommodate whoever they choose based on almost any criteria.

I think we're getting confused about what a "private space" is. I don't mean private property when I use that term in this context. I mean a public space where privacy is expected.

I can. I am. I will continue to do so. It's not all women. It's bigoted women.

I find this attitude to be more problematic than accommodating trans people. It is not bigoted for a woman to want gender segregation in certain contexts. It is not bigoted for a woman to say that someone with different genitals to them is a different gender.

I will tell bigots to back the fuck off all day, every day. You want to choose to hate / be afraid of / vilify someone based on literally nothing of any threat to anyone, then fuck off.

I don't understand how you can apply this thought process to trans people using women's facilities, but not men who identify as men using women's facilities.

If you have a problem with women who are afraid of someone for no reason other than them being a different gender in their space, then you must be ok with regular men using these same facilities. And with that you utterly destroy gender segregation.

You act like all women are butthurt over this. That's simply not the case. Most women don't give a fuck.

I don't think either of us can know this with any certainty. But even if it's a significant minority, we should still listen, right? We can't just assume it's motivated by bigotry. In my case, my position on this matter is most certainly not motivated by bigotry. I'll extend the benefit of the doubt to gender critical women.

Most women care where it's obvious that someone is trans. Most women don't care where it's not obvious. That would be my assumption. But I haven't polled women on this matter.

Let's not pretend that some few bigots are representative of a majority of women.

I don't think it's fair to call anyone who you disagree with on this subject a bigot. For me a bigot is someone who is motivated by hate, not fear. I don't think all that many people are truly motivated by hate.

Again. This nonsense about private clubs and institutions is irrelevant and off topic.

It's absolutely not irrelevant. We're talking here about being able to self identify as whatever gender you choose. And if this has legal standing, then to tell a trans person they are not welcome at a women's support group would be a hate crime. This is relevant.

It's public spaces that have a responsibility to serve the whole public.

Sure, but every person and business is subject to discrimination laws. A barman can't refuse to serve someone for being black, even if the bar is a private place.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm sorry but trans people aren't the only victims here. You're ignoring the fact that women too are victims, and in the process you're essentially blaming them for being unreasonable.

If those women are actually victims, and not pretending to be victims by the fact that their eyes saw something they didn't expect/want to see, then that's a problem to solve.

The difference is between telling someone they do not have the right to pee in a facility and telling someone that their choice not to pee in the facility is someone else's problem. Your choice to be offended has consequences. If your chosen consequences mean that you do not choose to use the restroom, then so be it.

Funny that your argument would be that *someone* shouldn't be allowed to pee. That someone can be you.
Oh, now you're oppressed... but you're oppressed by yourself. The alternative is to allow you to oppress someone else.
My choice is easy in that case.

I think we're getting confused about what a "private space" is. I don't mean private property when I use that term in this context. I mean a public space where privacy is expected.

If it's a public space where people have the reasonable expectation to have equal accommodations as everyone else present, like having a restroom provided if any restrooms are provided, then its wrong to not accommodate anyone.

If the appropriate accommodations do not exist, then hopefully people can figure out how to share what accommodations there are.
If anyone feels entitled to exclude anyone else entirely from accommodations, then that's their problem, not the person expected to be treated with the same "normal" accommodations as everyone else.

I find this attitude to be more problematic than accommodating trans people. It is not bigoted for a woman to want gender segregation in certain contexts. It is not bigoted for a woman to say that someone with different genitals to them is a different gender.

If they've been shown someone's genitals in a public space, then that's probably a crime.
Exposing your genitals to others is often a sex crime, even if you whipped out your dick to piss in a back alley, and someone walked past and saw your dick.
If they're guessing, and being offended, then fuck them.

What genitals you have is NOT what gender you have. Those are different things.
This is antiquated thinking based on misinformation and cultural manipulation against minorities.
The notion that gender is based on genitals isn't a scientific fact. In fact, plenty of studies have shown that gender is a psychological identity, not a physical property. Even if we want to talk about biological organs, there are more than 2 configurations of human genitals.

By any measure, gender is not a binary thing. Asserting it is or that people have the right to oppress anyone who is non-binary is BS.

We don't have the right to tell anyone else what their gender is.
We don't have the ability to look at someone and assume their gender with 100% precision.

So who cares? If someone is being harassing or engaging with people in the restroom in a way that is making people feel uncomfortable, then let's talk and take action to fix that. If someone is minding their own business, no matter how ugly they are, then leave them to it.

I don't understand how you can apply this thought process to trans people using women's facilities, but not men who identify as men using women's facilities.

If you have a problem with women who are afraid of someone for no reason other than them being a different gender in their space, then you must be ok with regular men using these same facilities. And with that you utterly destroy gender segregation.

You seriously don't understand that? Seriously?
You can't see the difference between someone being honest and someone being dishonest to perv on women?

'Cause it seems pretty easy to understand for me.

It's not destroying gender segregation at all. It's making it appropriate for humans.
I'm not arguing to eliminate gendered restrooms. I'm arguing that if our society has decided to only provide a fraction of gendered restrooms as there are human genders, then for those humans who are not being accommodated, let them just pick whatever makes them feel least oppressed.

And don't then blame them for the fact that they already had to make a choice with more of an edge on it than most when choosing to use a restroom.

I don't think either of us can know this with any certainty. But even if it's a significant minority, we should still listen, right? We can't just assume it's motivated by bigotry. In my case, my position on this matter is most certainly not motivated by bigotry. I'll extend the benefit of the doubt to gender critical women.

Most women care where it's obvious that someone is trans. Most women don't care where it's not obvious. That would be my assumption. But I haven't polled women on this matter.

I never said I wouldn't listen.

I said if as I listen, your argument comes down to a personal choice to have someone get oppressed, and that my choice is be comfortable with that oppressed person being you... at least for the few minutes it takes that person using the restroom to finish. That's another thing that makes my choice easy. 1 person cannot use the restroom ever, or another person cannot use the restroom temporarily. The latter choice causes less harm.

I don't think it's fair to call anyone who you disagree with on this subject a bigot. For me a bigot is someone who is motivated by hate, not fear. I don't think all that many people are truly motivated by hate.

:shrugs:
I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot.

I'm saying if your getting offended because someone looks different than you expected and you're arguing that your offense means I should deny someone else a basic human kindness... then fuck off.

It's absolutely not irrelevant. We're talking here about being able to self identify as whatever gender you choose. And if this has legal standing, then to tell a trans person they are not welcome at a women's support group would be a hate crime. This is relevant.

So your argument is that we're so deeply wrong on this as a society
that stopping the oppression of our citizens will not be a 1-shot fix
so that means we should just keep oppressing people?

I'm not into it.

Sure, but every person and business is subject to discrimination laws. A barman can't refuse to serve someone for being black, even if the bar is a private place.

If it's a private bar, then they do not have to allow black people into the bar. Just like I can choose who to allow in my home, based on whatever criteria I choose.

If it's not a private bar, then they cannot make that choice.
This is not hard.

[OngBonga]

You can't see the difference between someone being honest and someone being dishonest to perv on women?

Of course I can see the moral difference. But what's the legal difference? Maybe I want to use the women's toilets because some dodgy looking guys just went into the men's, I might not be going in to perv. And any woman who thinks I might be there to perv is being a bigot.

This is what I don't understand. How a woman who has a problem with this is a bigot. Her reason for being uncomfortable might not be motivated by hate. I consider her objections reasonable.

...let them just pick whatever makes them feel least oppressed.

Then this applies to all across the board, equally. Including men who identify as men, if they so choose. And we're giving people the benefit of the doubt as to why they're making the choices they do. We're trusting people to be honest. I don't see how this works.

so that means we should just keep oppressing people?

I don't want to keep oppressing people. I want solutions that works for everyone, including women who don't want to shar their spaces with men who self identify as women. Forcing that on these women, that's oppression.

If it's a private bar, then they do not have to allow black people into the bar.

Well I don't know about USA but if you're a bar manager in the UK and you're stupid enough to tell someone they are not welcome because they are black, then you're in for a whole world of pain, both real world and legally. You can refuse to serve anyone for almost any reason, but race certainly is not one of them. If you're a racist asshole that doesn't want to break the law, you can refuse to serve a black person for being rude to a customer, even if he wasn't. You can make up bullshit, but you definitely don't say it's because they're black. And if you're regularly making up bullshit excuses to not serve black people, then it's all going to unravel sooner or later.

That applies to any protected group under the discrimination act, including trans people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Of course I can see the moral difference. But what's the legal difference? Maybe I want to use the women's toilets because some dodgy looking guys just went into the men's, I might not be going in to perv. And any woman who thinks I might be there to perv is being a bigot.

Often the legal difference has to do with actual harm being caused.
Not perceived harm. I'm talking endangering health and safety.
Or that a reasonable person would say expressed a reckless disregard for the health and safety of others.

Being a woman (trans or otherwise) in a women's room isn't that.

Note: in this example, you're the one who doesn't want to use a restroom based on some perceived threat of "dodgy-looking men."
Your argument would be equivalent to you going up to the management and complaining that dodgy-looking men do not have the right to use the men's room, and you demand they be expelled from the space you're entitled to.
It's a BS argument.

This is what I don't understand. How a woman who has a problem with this is a bigot. Her reason for being uncomfortable might not be motivated by hate. I consider her objections reasonable.

If seeing someone just being in a place causes you to be offended - not them behaving in any way that is threatening or malicious - and you're only explanation for why you're offended is irrational fear on your part, then that's bigotry. Especially when your assumption is that trans = threat to health and/or safety. You can choose to live a lie and pretend that what you're doing isn't driven by hate, fear, ignorance, and entitlement... and I can't stop that. It is your choice. I will not humor the consequences of your self-destructive choice and elevate that into causing actual oppression of someone who is just being themselves.

Insisting that a person is not some gender because they weren't always that gender is malicious.
It's scientifically false to assert gender is either binary or not fluid. Insisting otherwise isn't rational.
Insisting your irrational, false beliefs mean you get to oppress someone is, in fact, often criminal.

Calling a trans person by their dead gender is malicious.
You don't get to decide what gender someone is. They do.
They can change their mind, or have a fluid gender identity.
That's humans being humans.
Telling humans they aren't humans with the same rights as other humans is immoral.

We're trusting people to be honest. I don't see how this works.

It's called a society, ong.

I don't want to keep oppressing people. I want solutions that works for everyone, including women who don't want to shar their spaces with men who self identify as women. Forcing that on these women, that's oppression.

Your entire argument is predicated on guessing someone's gender by looking at them.
It's stupid, and I don't understand what you're arguing for.
Do you want people to show a gender ID card in order to use a restroom? How are people meant to be identified in a legal sense, here?
Do you want people to be required to flash their genitals to someone in order to be confirmed for the appropriate pee room?
It makes no sense to me.

You can't tell someone's gender by looking at them unless they want you to. Gender is a social construct and you can choose to present strongly or weakly on whatever side you like. That's you, your style, your chutzpah lighting up the world.
You can present feminine, and be a man. Or you can present feminine and be a woman. Or you can present masculine and be a man or a woman. Or any combination thereof. It's a continuum of human identity and personal expression. People are people doing people things.

Well I don't know about USA but if you're a bar manager in the UK and you're stupid enough to tell someone they are not welcome because they are black, then you're in for a whole world of pain, both real world and legally. You can refuse to serve anyone for almost any reason, but race certainly is not one of them. If you're a racist asshole that doesn't want to break the law, you can refuse to serve a black person for being rude to a customer, even if he wasn't. You can make up bullshit, but you definitely don't say it's because they're black. And if you're regularly making up bullshit excuses to not serve black people, then it's all going to unravel sooner or later.

That applies to any protected group under the discrimination act, including trans people.

I'm not sure you understand the word private. A private club can exclude blacks. The KKK is a private club.

[MadMojoMonkey]

FWIW, I talked to my gal about this conversation and she doesn't even think it's women who have the most butthurt voices in the conversation. She thinks is a lot of men getting all white-knighty about a non-issue that women don't care about. She thinks it's more about the male patriarchy telling women what a woman is and how women should present themselves in society.

She doesn't think it's about women feeling upset or bothered by people who see themselves as women doing woman things.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Obv. the primary takeaway from chess is that changing genders is the optimal move.

[OngBonga]

If seeing someone just being in a place causes you to be offended - not them behaving in any way that is threatening or malicious - and you're only explanation for why you're offended is irrational fear on your part, then that's bigotry.

Again, apply this logic to regular men in the women's room and tell me you still stand by this.

Especially when your assumption is that trans = threat to health and/or safety.

Especially when your assumption is that men = threat to health and/or safety.

I'm not trying to belittle you by replying like this. I'm trying to make the point that we already separate people based on these fears you consider to be bigotry. Women don't want men in their toilets. As a society, we understand that and it's not a problem. If a man in a dress makes them feel the same degree of discomfort or even fear, why is this now bigotry when it wasn't before he put the dress on?

Insisting that a person is not some gender because they weren't always that gender is malicious.

Ok it's easy to get lost in gender vs sex in this debate. I'm not insisting anyone is any gender. I don't want a society that insists anyone is any gender. But woman is not a gender. It is a sex. And so when I talk about "gender segregation", that's me using the wrong word. I'm promoting same-sex facilities for women. That, as best I understand it, is what women want.

I agree with your points about gender. It is not binary. If I give the impression I think otherwise, I'm using the wrong word. I'll try not to do that.

It's called a society, ong.

And people are not honest in society.

Your entire argument is predicated on guessing someone's gender by looking at them.

It's not. My entire argument is muddle by me using the word gender when I mean sex.

Do you want people to show a gender ID card in order to use a restroom?

No. I want trans facilities.

I'm not sure you understand the word private. A private club can exclude blacks. The KKK is a private club.

Right, but in the UK these "clubs" are illegal, banned, if you're a member of a banned group you're in a world of shit.

Racism is quite literally illegal in the UK. And it's enforced, if it can be proven.

FWIW, I talked to my gal about this conversation and she doesn't even think it's women who have the most butthurt voices in the conversation. She thinks is a lot of men getting all white-knighty about a non-issue that women don't care about.

There might be an element of truth to this. Certainly this is largely my motivation. Being a white knight isn't really an insult, at least not for me. It's a respect for women's rights.

I know women who feel very differently about it, and they are not people I would describe as bigots. Far from it. Perhaps I'm influenced by these friends. Their concerns tend to be less about genuine trans people who have either transitioned or are in the process of doing so, and more about men who have no intention of transitioning... part time trans people, cross dressers if you like. And it's less about toilets and more about public showers, support groups and sports. Are these concerns legitimate? I certainly sympathise with such concerns. They are motivated by a perceived threat to their safety, or in the case of sports, fairness.

Toilets are an issue because, along with sports, they represent the first real battleground between trans activists and feminists.

She doesn't think it's about women feeling upset or bothered by people who see themselves as women doing woman things.

I would certainly agree here. It's about the threat posed by dishonest people. If it was purely about feminine people doing feminine things then I would agree that is motivated by bigotry.

If we lived in an honest society this really wouldn't be a problem. We don't. Women have fears. Maybe not all women, and maybe these fears are unjustified, but having fears is not bigotry. Not when you live in a society where such fears might have some basis, even if social media might have blown those fears out of proportion.

Bigotry for me is a conscious effort to discriminate, it's motivated by a hatred of a group. I don't think that is a large amount of people. I think most people who want same-sex spaces for women are motivated by fear, not hate. And so the conversation is about if these fears are justified or not.

I wish I could say they weren't justified, but I just don't believe it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Again, apply this logic to regular men in the women's room and tell me you still stand by this.

If you identify as male and there's a men's room that is available, then you should use the room that is designated for people who consider themselves male. If it's not available, then politely use whatever you can so you don't piss yourself in public.

Especially when your assumption is that men = threat to health and/or safety.

My point is that any such assumption is clearly unfair and bigoted.


Why are you trying to argue that ugly women with hairlip shouldn't be allowed into the women's room?
Obv. you're not, but this is a perfectly foreseeable conclusion to your argument that other people judging your appearance gets to mandate if and which restroom you can use.

If a man in a dress makes them feel the same degree of discomfort or even fear, why is this now bigotry when it wasn't before he put the dress on?

A "he" in a dress is not a "she." A trans woman is a "she."
It's not up to me. It's up to them.
It's about identity and what someone feels is their Truth.

If they're a man in a dress sometimes and a trans woman in a dress other times and they go back and forth at their heart's content, that's fine. They are what they are when they feel what they feel. Unless your base assumption is that anyone who feels this way is a charlatan trying to crime on women, which I don't think it is, then none of this matters.

If any person is a "she," then she should use the women's room or a unisex room.
If any person is a "he," then he should use the men's room or a unisex room.
What matters is how they see themselves, not how anyone else sees them.

But woman is not a gender. It is a sex.

I agree with your points about gender. It is not binary. If I give the impression I think otherwise, I'm using the wrong word. I'll try not to do that.

Neither is binary. Neither is any of our business unless that person chooses to make it so.

Asking someone to *prove* either to use a toilet is nonsense.

And people are not honest in society.

And it's not a problem until/unless it is.
What you're talking about being worried about is already criminal.
Nothing's stopping any man from going into a ladies room and doing crimes aside from the fact that nearly no men are interested in doing crimes on women in a ladies room.
It's a non-issue.

Not that the sex or gender of the criminal matters in any part of law I've heard of.

It's not. My entire argument is muddle by me using the word gender when I mean sex.

It doesn't change anything about my position, whichever issue you've been discussing.

No. I want trans facilities.

Obv. we both want that. In the light of the fact that is not the current reality, we discuss.

Moving on.

Right, but in the UK these "clubs" are illegal, banned, if you're a member of a banned group you're in a world of shit.

Racism is quite literally illegal in the UK. And it's enforced, if it can be proven.

Well, we believe in freedom of speech over here, and that includes the freedom to be an offensive twat, provided there is no clear and present danger to the health and safety of others.

more about men who have no intention of transitioning... part time trans people, cross dressers if you like. And it's less about toilets and more about public showers, support groups and sports. Are these concerns legitimate?

Of course they're not legitimate.

I mean... unless there's a serial criminal in the area, whom there is a legitimate reason to be afraid of.

Being afraid of the boogeyman under your bed is fine and all. Until you start insisting someone else doesn't have the same rights as you do because you've made them your boogeyman.

I would certainly agree here. It's about the threat posed by dishonest people. If it was purely about feminine people doing feminine things then I would agree that is motivated by bigotry.

Then you just happen to bring up this issue in relation to trans rights, why?
Trans people are dishonest?
It is OK for your first impression of hearing that someone is trans that they are dishonest?

'Cause that's not OK with me.
We're all dishonest about certain things, especially with strangers.
Especially when we are something that strangers sometimes are assholes about.
(As if I'm remotely honest about my depression when I'm out in public.)
Calling out dishonesty on its own as some kind of mark of badness is unfair by any measure.

What's the assumption? That since you looked at them and assumed one gender, then later found out your assumption was wrong that is somehow them playing a trick on you? They've deceived you? What utter bullshit, if that's the claim.

If we lived in an honest society this really wouldn't be a problem. We don't. Women have fears. Maybe not all women, and maybe these fears are unjustified, but having fears is not bigotry. Not when you live in a society where such fears might have some basis, even if social media might have blown those fears out of proportion.

Dude. Being afraid of an innocent person who is clearly by their actions and nature of no threat to you, and defending said fear when the utter truth of the situation is known... that's bigotry.

Being uninformed and assuming what best protects you from the unknown is great.
Continuing to insist that a person is a threat to you when they're obviously not is bigotry.

Bigotry for me is a conscious effort to discriminate, it's motivated by a hatred of a group. I don't think that is a large amount of people. I think most people who want same-sex spaces for women are motivated by fear, not hate. And so the conversation is about if these fears are justified or not.

See above. Knowledge matters. Insisting innocent people are threatening based solely on who they are as a person is bigotry.

I wish I could say they weren't justified, but I just don't believe it.

They're not.
They're choosing to see people as dangerous to themselves when they have been exposed to more than ample evidence to the contrary.

[Vinland]

I flipped a coin and it landed on Ong so he wins the argument. Congrats

[OngBonga]

Unfortunately this is not an argument anyone wins. This problem isn't going away, even if myself and mojo reach an agreement.

The problem is you have two opposing sides who are both trying to protect one group, and is comes at the perceived cost of another group. Nobody thinks they are on the wrong side of history when it comes to this debate.

When both sides of the argument is motivated by good, and when backing down means a perceived abandonment of the group you think you're protecting, then compromise is hard to come by.

Mojo has no intention of relaxing his view because the women I claim to be protecting, he thinks are bigots. If I can't make him see differently, there's no hope. I have to respect his opinion even if I disagree. I sort of understand why he thinks it. It's just not a view I share. I use the word bigot differently to how he uses it... for me it's a matter of hate, not fear. Mojo wants to protect trans people from social exclusion. That's a fine motivation.

I have no intention of relaxing my view because to do so would be to accept that women are wrong to want privacy from other sexes in certain contexts. I don't believe they are wrong to want that. I understand why they went separation from men, so I extend that understanding to other people who are not women.

We're both motivated by our sense of morality. We both want a better society. And that is not something either of us want to budge on. So no progress happens. This isn't just a problem for me and mojo, it's the same problem society faces.

[Vinland]

Not going away anytime soon. Kind of depressing.
It has a lot to do with comfort as well. Its comforting for people to have things stay as they are and hard to redo parts of society, even if it is a bathroom...

almost as depressing as the traffic here. I'm still in shock that it has dropped to basically two guys here from the thousands it was. It's shocking how effective black friday was and its been over ten years. I stopped playing and I'm Canadian. I started dabbling again on Pokerstars on mobile which sucks but I have no laptop/desktop for now. So I thought id see if the old place was still running. It genuinely saddens me to see a community completely gone.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Unfortunately this is not an argument anyone wins. This problem isn't going away, even if myself and mojo reach an agreement.

The problem is you have two opposing sides who are both trying to protect one group, and is comes at the perceived cost of another group. Nobody thinks they are on the wrong side of history when it comes to this debate.

When both sides of the argument is motivated by good, and when backing down means a perceived abandonment of the group you think you're protecting, then compromise is hard to come by.

Mojo has no intention of relaxing his view because the women I claim to be protecting, he thinks are bigots. If I can't make him see differently, there's no hope. I have to respect his opinion even if I disagree. I sort of understand why he thinks it. It's just not a view I share. I use the word bigot differently to how he uses it... for me it's a matter of hate, not fear. Mojo wants to protect trans people from social exclusion. That's a fine motivation.

I have no intention of relaxing my view because to do so would be to accept that women are wrong to want privacy from other sexes in certain contexts. I don't believe they are wrong to want that. I understand why they went separation from men, so I extend that understanding to other people who are not women.

We're both motivated by our sense of morality. We both want a better society. And that is not something either of us want to budge on. So no progress happens. This isn't just a problem for me and mojo, it's the same problem society faces.

Goddamn... well said.

Respect

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think it comes down to "why" do women have the right to private spaces where men are excluded?
What motivates that right?

How is that different for trans people?


Though it's problematic for me that ong keeps insisting women need these spaces, but then denying a woman the right to declare their womanhood as their and only their right.

[Poopadoop]

Glad you guys sorted that out. Group hug everyone.

In #MEGA news, the Tories have been pouring gasoline on the skip fire of public opinion of them with their shitty uncosted budget and stubborn refusal to reverse it. If this keeps up, they may be the first party in history to achieve <0% support in the polls.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Lol. That graph suggest something like 95% of voters would vote.
I call BS.
Either it's a severely limited sample of the constituency limited to people who always vote, or the people who answered were blatantly lying by saying they would vote at all.

Also... lack of a legend to say what color is what is just bad graphing, mmmkay?

[Poopadoop]

Lol. That graph suggest something like 95% of voters would vote.
I call BS.
Either it's a severely limited sample of the constituency limited to people who always vote, or the people who answered were blatantly lying by saying they would vote at all.

It's 100% of people who gave a clear answer; there's another line there around 4%

Also... lack of a legend to say what color is what is just bad graphing, mmmkay?

They also have a value missing for yellow. Amateurs. But don't worry I'll help you out.

Labour: Woke, libtard, commie union supporting red
Tories: True, patriotic, dingy-sinking, Europe-leaving blue
LibDems: Slightly less woke, but still kinda libtard orange
Green Party: Broccoli eating, tree hugging green
Scottish National Party: Traitorous, haggis eating yellow

Don't even know who the ones at 3% and 1% are, but they're losers. Bigly.

[Poopadoop]

So the Brains Truss has only been PM a little over a month and is already having to sack her Chancellor (finance minister) "Kamekwasi" Kwarteng, after his mini-budget tanked the markets.

Rumours are she's next.

Tories are so shit it's not even funny anymore.

[Poopadoop]

Plot twist: Kamekwasi is now the PM but has sacked himself as Chancellor.

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/stat...02907351732225

[OngBonga]

I dunno what you linked to there but the tweet has already gone.

I mean it seems to me that the Tories are trying their absolute hardest to lose the next election, and the funny thing is Labour are so bad that it's still basically a coin flip.

[oskar]

So the Brains Truss has only been PM a little over a month and is already having to sack her Chancellor (finance minister) "Kamekwasi" Kwarteng, after his mini-budget tanked the markets.

Rumours are she's next.

Tories are so shit it's not even funny anymore.

[Poopadoop]

I dunno what you linked to there but the tweet has already gone.

It was a letter from the PM thanking Kwasi for his service, signed by Kwasi himself.

I mean it seems to me that the Tories are trying their absolute hardest to lose the next election, and the funny thing is Labour are so bad that it's still basically a coin flip.

Labour will form the next gov't. The only question is whether the Tories or SNP will be the official opposition.

[Poopadoop]

My money is on the lettuce.

[OngBonga]

Labour will form the next gov't.

I believe it more now than I did six months ago but I'd still say it's close. I know opinion polls suggest otherwise but you know how I feel about those. Besides, actual Tory voters can use opinion polls to say they'll vote Labour as a means of putting pressure on the Tories while having absolutely no intention of voting Labour. So even if the pollster isn't using selective bias to get a result he wants, it's still unreliable.

A lot can change in the build up to an election. The Tories always have the edge because people in general trust capitalism more than socialism, and that's what it boils down to for a lot of people. For Labour to win, they need to take Tory votes. They need to convince Tory voters they can be trusted more with the economy than the Tories. That's not an easy thing to sell.

[Poopadoop]

They need to convince Tory voters they can be trusted more with the economy than the Tories. That's not an easy thing to sell.

If people still need convincing of that now, we may as well just stop having elections and declare the next Tory PM as Fuhrer for life.

[OngBonga]

Someone I follow on Twitter. Not a Tory voter, but right wing.

No, I don't think things could possibly be any worse under Labour.

If anything, Starmer would calm the markets.


That's how bad the Tories have become....

Maybe poop is right, maybe the Tories really are fucking it up to the point where right leaning people trust Labour more.

Boris must be laughing his tits off.

[Poopadoop]

Someone I follow on Twitter. Not a Tory voter, but right wing.



Maybe poop is right, maybe the Tories really are fucking it up to the point where right leaning people trust Labour more.

Boris must be laughing his tits off.

Dunno, depends on how well Jeremy Hunt can do as de facto PM, now that he's chancellor and is basically saying he's going to reverse all of Truss/Kamekwasi's plans.

The situation is so bizarre right now. Truss is PM in name only, her flagship policy of unfunded spending has crashed under her like everyone with a brain said it would. Sunak was saying the same thing during the hustings - "fantasy economics" he called it. And obviously it was. Truss can't command any confidence from anyone inside or outside of gov't any more. She has to go, but she's clinging on because she's a deluded fuck in more ways than economics I guess.

Will be interesting to see who they finally replace her with, and if it results in a GE being called.

Either way, there's no way the Tories stay in power after the next GE; they're toast.

[Poopadoop]

The Tories will have to decide if they want their next leader chosen by the party or by the old geezers at the country club who make up their membership.

Fact is, their last four leaders have each ended up as a bigger failure than the one before them. Cameron who was a remainer but lost the Brexit vote, May who couldn't get a Brexit deal through, Johnson who was a walking scandal-generator, and now Truss.

At least Johnson had Sunak as chancellor, and he had a semblance of understanding economics. I would put him in charge if I were them, but that assumes he actually wants the job. It's starting to be one of those situations where no-one competent would want to be in charge, that's how badly fucked up things are now.

[The Bean Counter]

The latest episode of Yes, Minister has been played out today in real life UK politics. The incompetence is truly shocking.

[Poopadoop]

The latest episode of Yes, Minister has been played out today in real life UK politics. The incompetence is truly shocking.

The remake is even better than the original.

[Poopadoop]

Wow. Tories absolutely imploding atm. It's banana republic-esque.

Earlier today, Cruella Braverman, the Brains Truss' Home Secretary, after blowing up a trade deal with India by shittalking Indians who overstay their visas, then referring to the opposition as "Guardian reading, tofu-eating, wokerati" resigned, taking a shot at the PM in her resignation letter.

Now the chief whip has said he's had enough too, and has also resigned. Other Tory MPs fuming at being whipped to vote in favour of resuming fracking.

How long can Liz the Lettuce romaine as PM? Days, weeks, hours, minutes? No-one knows. All we know is it's probably going to get ugly.

[Poopadoop]

Gonna pop some popcorn and find a video of this.

https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/stat...97073401131009

[Poopadoop]

Looks like El Presidente will keep her job until tomorrow morning at least, if not much longer.

[Poopadoop]

lolz.

https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/stat...03182270713856

[MadMojoMonkey]

... are you guys' gov't taking the "whip" thing a bit too literally?

[Poopadoop]

... are you guys' gov't taking the "whip" thing a bit too literally?

The Tories are just completely high on their own supply at this point. They're not just fighting the opposition now, they're fighting the rest of the country, and each other. They have to go, but there's no mechanism to force them out for another two years. It's just chaos.