‘There’s no point voting against Hitler right now because the opposition is right leaning and may one day grow into Hitler’

It’s just copypasta, yknow. It’s a meme

I don’t know why you are using in person community praxis as a refutation of an online space being toxic

Real life isn’t online, the issue is an online space being shitty

In the UK, you can’t decide whether to ‘press charges’ or not, the decision is the CPS’s.

But in practice, saying you aren’t interested in pursuing a conviction often ends it, because:

1 - the prosecution must be ‘in the public good’ which is undermined if the victim isn’t interested

2 - a lot of the time the testimony and cooperation of the victim is key to the prosecution case

3 - the system is horribly underfunded so if they can justify dropping it they will

I read in the paper today that a bankruptcy court is going to take 40% of Katie Price’s OnlyFans income

When i saw this headline my brain skipped to Rudy Giuliani’s OnlyFans income

Has Rudy Giuliani considered OnlyFans?

In the UK you start school at 4

I’d like to recommend The Trojan Horse Affair. Its a limited series and a few years old now, but a a really interesting listen

Its about the scandal in the UK in 2013, where an anonymous letter ‘exposed’ an Islamist conspiracy in Birmingham schools to radicalise children.

The investigation in the podcast is helmed by two people; a rookie journalism grad who is muslim, and an experienced white journalist. The contrast in perspectives and emotion between them adds to it

And yeah it’ll probably make you angry, and for those not in the UK it might key you in a bit on the tensions that do and don’t exist with British Muslims, how they’re viewed and treated by lots of parties here (including the Government)

Hey man, he had bone spurs, you ableist (/s)

“Yes, I lost this election, but I’m young, beautiful, and rich as f**k,” she concluded. She lost her job at Purina dog food over her extreme rhetoric and her campaign was unable to purchase ads.

She came 6th. Its funny, but I think she was never a real candidate and hasn’t learned anything

I’d argue that TERF-ism, especially JKR’s brand of it, has both classist and racist elements ingrained within it

The whole ideology is based around gatekeeping ‘womanhood’ to a single shared demographic experience, denying feminism to those outside of it

There are ways in which trans women have had differing experiences of femininity from cis women. But the same is true of black women of white women, etc

It might be explicitly anti-trans; but it’s implicitly anti-in-group

It’s kind of complicated in the UK - parts of both the left and right have issues. Some reasonable, some less so, etc

Around the same time of the original proposal for National ID, the government lost discs containing the data (including NI numbers and even bank account details) of 25m people, 7.25m familes. They were literally lost in the post. Understandably this made a lot of people sceptical about ‘the government’s ability to protect it’s data’

It was already an unpopular idea. A lot of this was kind of libertarian-y people, combined and heightened by a post-WWII fear of having to carry ‘papers’ and present them for identification. How reasonable this fear is/was is up for debate, but for better or worse it was a big part of the conversation.

Then in the years since there’s been more concerns raised: things like the Windrush Scandal. In case you’re unaware, basically a lot of immigrants from the Caribbean who had been here for decades, sometimes nearly their whole lives, and who thought they were Citizens, were apparently not. There were pensioners who lived here since they were kids and who followed all the correct procedures getting deported to places they had never meaningfully lived in.

Some people say that a National ID would have prevented this - but others say that since the UK is apparently so inept at dealing with this data, it’s just more evidence that we could end up in a system whereby if you can’t get a card for whatever reason, you could face discrimination or even prosecution.

So yeah I guess it basically comes down to a distrust of the government combined with a British Libertarian mythos

For what its worth, personally I don’t think a National ID inherently poses any problems that don’t already exist between documentation and our data being collected online etc. But I’ll admit that on a gut level I don’t like the idea, even if that’s a bit irrational

https://www.ft.com/content/2ec95b9a-4709-11e8-8c77-ff51caedcde6

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/nov/21/immigrationpolicy.economy3

So you’ve called me an ‘armchair genius’ twice in that comment - I’m sorry that I didn’t fight in WWI, but I am allowed to discuss the definition of Nationalism. You have no idea about my life or my background (or my chair), so leave that out.

Sure, Post-Colonial Nationalism as a movement played an integral role in establishing independence from European powers. That doesn’t change the fact that Nationalism is a European paradigm that contributed to the exploitation of these places in the first place.

The fact that Nationalism opposes foreign influence over ones own country - and therefore is an effective ideology of opposition in regions affected by European exploitation - says nothing about Nationalism’s inherent militarism and codification of heirarichal power.

So yes look at Nationalism as a factor in establishing independence, but then look at where Nationalism leads after that.

Lets take Nigeria in the 1960s. Nigerian nationalism helped oust the British, cool, that’s great. Then the Nationalist government inflamed ethnic tensions until Ahmadu Bello was assassinated in a miltary coup, and the following ethnic violence led to Civil War.

While you wait there for me to talk to “every nation state in the (so called) “3rd World””, maybe do some reading that isn’t an internet definition written by people Just like me (whatever that means…)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/45341491

And if you come back to me, do it with argument and not random personal attacks next time, thanks

Nationalism is inherently concerned with expanding the State through the ostensible ‘reunification’ of ethnic groups, or more overtly at the expense of other nations. Like, yknow, Lebensraum

This idea that Imperialism and Nationalism are conflicting ideologies is just… so dumb

…what? Have you just assumed that words are the same because they sound similar?

Nationalisation of industries and resources refers to public ownership vs private ownership

Nationalism is an ideology that became widespread in the late 19th Century, that emphasises the codification of States on ethnic grounds

Nachos are a type of corn or potato chip, often combined with cheese and guacomole

• guns
• freedom
• profitable good healthcare
• freedom
• national security
• guns
• white supremacy The American Way
• Your rights if you count
• christianity?
• freedom
• transphobia family values
• the cops’ ability to commit unchecked violence
• guns and freedom
• 1940s textbooks

All of these things are at risk.

Who is this mythical ‘Britain’ that is saying this? Is it the King? Is it Farage? Or is it the 8% of our population with South Asian heritage? We’re a multi-cultural nation. The colonial and imperial roots of that absolutely can’t be ignored, but they don’t erase the stake that BAME people have in this country.

Some British people originally came from the sub-continent; get over it

I’m not denying the fucked up colonial history. You seem to be denying that South Asian immigrants are British - they are

Well, they were British chefs with South Asian heritage who of course were indirectly here because of horrific Imperialism

But it is British, its very British. Despite what Farage and co want you to believe, we’re a multi-cultural nation and have been for centuries.

British-Indian cuisine is at this point distinct and diverse enough from traditional Indian cuisine that it is its own thing. And its super widespread - even the racists discuss how shitty they are over a curry

I think she does - the bill is about materials being sent home with kids from schools that include sodomy or grooming or the incredibly vague ‘lgbt agenda’

It’s designed so that instead of banning books individually, they can just sue for anything they don’t like.

The headline makes it sound ridiculous - and in a way it is, of course - but it’s potentially dangerous. I don’t know how much sway her organisation has, if it’s big or niche. Hopefully zero

Yeah i suppose you have a point. I never think of sovcit claims as credible, but if that’s what someone needs to hear or believe in a tough time, could be a different story