New Labour just loves policing people. It's the only consistent value they have. If enough Brits aren't being put in handcuffs, they're unhappy.
Any claims to progressive values are just window dressing for their real aim of putting a cop in every home.
I said this on twitter, but Neil Gaiman was on the top of my "People I dislike for reasons I can't articulate" list.
IDK why I always just got creepy vibes from him. Was literally the first person I blocked on Bsky.
Ok, so the British are qualified to talk about Ukraine when it comes to supplying you weapons, but they're allowed no opinions other than that.
Ok good to know. Good to know we're not allowed to disagree on our own countries' foreign policy.
If the English are unqualified to have opinions about Ukraine, then why are they qualified to decide it's the right call to supply you with weapons?
Like either we can talk about a country we're militarily backing, or we can't.
What are the practical consequences of humans eating food and drinking water for your politics Will?
Or is that just something you take for granted about the human experience?
Human society is structured by narratives, obviously. Even basic things about how we live our lives would not work without narrativization.
I don't see why you're acting like you've discovered something revolutionary here.
Have you considered that your problem may be that media has always shaped narratives, but nowadays it's far more democratic.
Rather than just the man paid by billionaires on the TV telling you what to think?
It's a disagreement over basic values. Corbyn is a commited pacifist and believes in de-escalation at all costs.
This isn't tantamount to Putin apologia, in fact he explicitly believes the International Community should take measures to hold Russia to account for war crimes and an illegal war.
Do you take this same stance towards Gaza? Or any other conflict in the world?
Corbyn is a commited pacifist, I don't agree with all his stances, I don't agree with his Ukraine stance, but it's not Putin apologia.
I also don't think a White European country is THE defining issue to be right on
Every single word on the subject he's said has been critical of Russia.
Just because he doesn't tow the exact line you'd like, doesn't change the fact that he clearly thinks Russia's invasion is illegal.
At that point, lots of people didn't believe Russia was going to go ahead with it, and just thought it was a game of chicken between major powers.
That amounts to a "Please de-escalate this" stance.
How about interesting as in "People having an actual optimistic vision to hope for, rather than hoping the new managerial class is slightly less fascistic than the last one"?
That a better definition of interesting for you?
I love the "Anonymous trolls" line. As if not wanting to put your name to be doxxed gives you less credibility.
Also yes, shaming people into voting for a candidate who has talked about the dangers of "Gender Ideology" and who outright said Trans People have no right to public spaces, is bad.
You accused people of having tantrums or "shitting the bed" for refusing to support Keir Starmer, who has said that trans people do not have the right to use the bathrooms of their gender
IDK, even if you're not personally transphobic, you're willing to shame people for not voting a transphobic PM.
Starmer outright said that Trans people have no right to use the bathroom the other day.
The Labour Party has also ruled out major public spending, will likely continue austerity, and is in favour of further privatisation of the NHS.
They are literally indistinguishable from Tories.
This isn't a matter of "I don't like how Labour are"
This is a matter of Labour having no stance that is fundementally different to Toryism. From Immigration, to Austerity, to LGBT Rights, all their stances are simply milder versions of current Tory stances.
This is why I'm voting Green, despite my constituency being a Labour-Tory two horse race.
Because fundementally, I do not see any meaningful difference that will make Labour better than the Tories.
The texts literally exist as written documents yes, but when you enter a courtroom, you are expected to believe these texts are more than just written opinion pieces, but real things that someone can be judged by, and that the Judge and Jury can according to someone determine someone's guilt.
This is definitionally mythology.
Without the shared social belief that there is something in these words that confers authority, they are just words on a page that represent someone's opinion.
I was using a military example to explain how movements tend to organise around leaders, even if the leader isn't actually the one defining history.
The same is true in politics. The guy at the top doesn't define history, but only one person can be Prime Minister.
