i'm a pantheist, so i don't really belong to any of them. i'd fit under agnostic atheist with regards to a personal god.

Hiya!

You a Communist now? Again?

hey!

yeaahh, slipped back into marxism. blame tumblr.

marxism and anarchism have the same goal, the abolition of the state, money and property. the difference is that marxists believe in a transitional "socialist stage"

so yes.

Welcome back WinDis.

don't know how long i'll be back for, but thought i might as well pay one of my irregular visits.

Depending on his ideology at the time, anywhere from old Labour to Thatcherite Tories to the BNP to UKIP to the Liberals.

i'd never have voted bnp, but the rest i'll fess to.

as for idaho, probably a one nation tory

a wise cracking german footballer
for some reason

can we finally be done with LGBT activism?

only from the liberal legalistic standpoint. gay marriage is low on the agenda for those who aren't middle class, and there's still rampant violence against lgbt people and a massive suicide rate (the average life expectancy of a trans youth is 23 btw)

1 poster has read Chavs, 2011's unlikely bestseller.

rumbled.

probably labour with a couple of dissenting lib dem or green votes in the 2000s as a reaction to blairism.

while inflation is obviously not particularly desirable, i think there's too much of an emphasis on anti-inflationary policy at the price of growth. if you read ha-joon chang, he argues that even many free market economists believe growth isn't correlated with inflation until inflation hits 10%+, and some go as far as 30%. brazil in the 1960s and 1970s was one of the fastest growing economies in the world and yet it had over 40% inflation much of the time.

however, if you want to knock stagflation on the head, the best option to me seems to be to cut working hours and thus create price + wage cuts, which hits inflation while also freeing up labour hours to be filled by other workers. this process hasn't happened in the last 80 years, despite many key figures having predicted we'd be working a 20 hour workweek by 2000.

obviously i'd combine this with a program of nationalization, but that's me. there's a potential solution to stagflation within a keynesian framework, even if i'd go much further.

I think you’re looking too closely into it. Men tend not to wear their hearts on their sleeves which is neither a good nor bad thing. On a thing like Facebook they are less likely to do the whole ‘share this link if you want to beat cancer’ stuff that a lot of my female friends tend to do.

This is what I originally thought too, until I noticed the guys went rather out of their way to criticize the practice.

There's a friend of mine who is very liberal but often finds himself at odds with feminism, particularly if it requires PC-ness. This is something he sent me that he mocked a lot over the past week:

http://i.imgur.com/gWe2umL.jpg

Maybe I'm just observing a subset of the population that is particularly grounded in the internet, and therefore a bit less sensitive towards social interactions than a lot of others.

i think there's a backlash amongst liberals against what i suppose you'd call new "new left" types, i.e. those with a focus on identity politics and social justice. i spend most of my time on tumblr and there's a culture of that there as opposed to sites like reddit where masculists and such run rampant.

the year that living standards peaked in britain was 1976 and the year wages began to end a 160 year trend of rising was in 1980. meanwhile, working hours have remained at around 8 hours since the 1930s despite massive increases in automation and productivity since then. it's blindingly obvious we're being cheated.

The Telegraph does not carry any news about the world outside Tunbridge Wells. You're thinking of the Daily Mail.

But yes, that was my first guess seeing the question: Probably associated with the White Working Class ("chavs").

Full disclosure: One hoodie was worn during the production of this post.

well, the daily mail too, but i felt like i'd be beating a dead horse there - the torygraph still has some respectability despite being somewhere to the right of mussolini.

and yeah, it's the white working class mainly too - limousine liberals are allowed to hate them because often they're seen as being backward racists and homophobes, while conservatives see them as lawless savages.

As this forum eloquently shows, there are lots of liberal guys who have a complete blind spot on gender issues. This deeply saddens me.

well, i don't think it would be 100% honest to portray feminism as attacked purely from the right. feminism for a long time was largely a movement of middle class white cishet women - the NOW didn't want lesbians involved when they first formed iirc, and there's still plenty of hatred towards transwomen from even mainstream feminists because they take social constructivism to its logical ends i.e. abolishing gender.

There is now a monetary cost for the wealthy to opposing same sex marriages: it ensures Democratic victories in elections and higher tax bills.  They're done pretending to be evangelicals.  It was a good thirty year run, but it's over.

bingo.

bill o'reilly will go where the money is, and increasingly there's no money to be gained from opposing equal marriage. the republicans will always give ground on social issues where neccesary because the thing which fuses the party together is a commitment to anglo-saxon capitalism and "free enterprise"

What is there to masturbate to on twitter opebo???

tumblr.

tumblr is basically hipster porn.

classism - they're a symbol of the disenfranchised working class that was created by deindustrialization and thatcherism, and thus to the rise of crime and social deprivation in those areas. the genuine middle class mentality in modern britain is that of the bunker, they really believe the 'unwashed masses' are going to outbreed them and create a debauched immoral society, because their only source of news about the world outside tunbridge wells is the daily telegraph.

to the 'aspirational' working classes and middle class, "chavs" are the Other, an opposition to every value they hold.

It is somewhat ironic that some folks that staunchly support drug legalization because "people will get drugs anyway and prohibition doesn't work" also believe that prohibition on guns will work well.

guns make you a far greater risk to other people than drugs.

also, it amuses me how many people are trying to talk about how this shouldn't be politicized and how it's the 'wrong time' to bring up gun control. if now isn't the right time, when is? how many more people have to die before the gun lobby finally decide they're in the wrong?

Look up how many school shootings, bombings and nuclear attacks have happened in the UK since Dunblane and get back to me.

It's no more dramatic than when our government cries about phantom terrorists who will blow up the world if we don't obliterate the Bill of Rights and instigate wars against nations who've done nothing to us.

^^^

if i were iran, i would be inksing bricks too. the united states basically has them surrounded, and they have no problem with breaching international law.

eww, more reasons to hate google.

i guess the kkk have killed far more people than the wbc though. this is amusing however.

the main opponent of platonism. believed that we know the world through our senses rather than through 'forms' or ideas, all human beings seek 'eudaimonia' or well-being and that states operate like organisms rather than machines - parts cannot be removed without causing serious damage.

#1: Socrates - 75% approval
#2: Plato - 29% approval

[the best thing to do with regards to that would be to stop encouraging males to be aggressive and competitive, but we can't have that. That would be too threatening to the status quo]

i don't see how gender has anything to do with this. i do see how the fact it's so easy to get a deadly weapon does.

Cmon. Has where ever been a female school shooter? If so, at least the gender ratio regarding mass murder is extremely skewed.

I'm sure there has, somewhere in the world. and yes, it is skewed, but what's your point? the best thing to do with regards to that would be to stop encouraging males to be aggressive and competitive, but we can't have that. That would be too threatening to the status quo.

Well, why not try? As a general rule countries with macho cultures are more violent than countries with less aggressive ideals of masculinity. Of course Norway, which is far from being a macho country, produced Breivik, so it wouldn't solve the problem but its worth considering.
The US ideal of masculinity is pretty aggressive and it might be at least part of the explanation why these things occur so much in the States combind with others factors such as lack of mental health care, easy availability of guns and a highly competitive social model that produces a high amount of losers and alienated people.
It is of course a difficult issue because being competitive and (therefore to a certain extent aggressive) is also a trait that is highly beneficial in the economy, development of science etc., but ideally it should be possible to foster a low-aggression competitive spirit.
At least there is no prove that less aggressive cultures cant compete with more macho cultures internationally.

For the record: I know that you cant just "change" a whole culture, but this is an aspect worth looking into.

i know, i was saying that in the eyes of those who control education, government etc. it's too threatening to them to have the idea of co-operation. i'm strongly in favour of trying to blur the boundaries of gender and have a society where people can identify however they want. strongly defined systems which encourage competition and aggression will always lead to sick societies such as the ones we live in today.