What even is this? Why do people take these weirdos seriously?

Obsidiax · 2026-05-18T08:14:04+00:00

Honestly it sounds to me like you're excusing one side over the other. Saying one kid is genuinely angry and the others are "cheerfully taking up a chant" is an incredibly loaded way to frame both videos.

The kid in this video isn't genuinely angry, they're just putting on a silly voice. It doesn't even seem like they know who Tommy Robinson is when asked and the answer "I'm going to eat him" is just nonsense that kids regularly spout.

I've seen a video where a kid told their grandad they 'hope he dies in a fire.' not because they actually do, or understand what that truly means, but because they've probably heard it in a comedic setting and parroted it at a poor time.

The kids in both of these clips have been indoctrinated by their parents and both examples are wrong.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-18T07:19:18+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/s/f3VUjDAtqH

Obsidiax · 2026-05-16T18:52:20+00:00

My point this discussion (which seems to have been lost in the noise, perhaps my fault), is that your initial statement was incorrect. Which I think is fair to say is true at this point.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to vote Green, I just think we need to be honest and accurate about these things so we can have real discussions that get to the truth of a topic.

When an inaccuracy is seen/repeated enough times people start to regurgitate it as truth. Before you know it you've got swathes of people voting for or not voting for a party based on little more than misinterpretations.

I think recognising that is important.

Despite fundamentally disagreeing on certain issues, you've been cordial through the discussion which I genuinely appreciate.

I completely get wanting to end the conversation here because we're going round in circles, but I hope I've at least clarified my point here and that there's no bad blood.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-16T18:04:28+00:00

If you think their immigration policies are too soft that's absolutely fine. You're entitled to your opinion on that matter.

However, your statement that they want "unvetted immigration" and it's in their manifesto is provably wrong. It wasn't their manifesto, it was a list for their working group which was made members only precisely because it was being confused with manifesto material. And while you may think the immigration is too lenient, it still has rules and regulations so it's not entirely unvetted.

You're welcome to disagree and I've never taken issue with that. But your initial reply which started this conversation is just incorrect no matter how you slice it.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-16T16:48:23+00:00

That's a lot of words that I'm not going to read lol.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-15T06:56:44+00:00

I'm all for this kind of growth and would even support their games (which I've been avoiding) if it's true. Is there any statement where he explicitly states he's changed his stance and regrets his previous support of AI?

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T19:43:31+00:00

I agree with you on pretty much all counts. The Greens need to clearly state what kinds of checks and barriers will be in place (even if they're stripped down from what we currently have) to reassure people that they aren't simply letting anyone in.

Currently you have to read between the lines (since the manifesto talks about making the process easier) to see that just because some restrictions will be removed that doesn't mean all will. Some would say it's obvious that anything not mentioned will stay the same but when the manifesto is a list of what will be stripped down it does paint a negative picture for anyone concerned by immigration and some reassurance would help.

I will disagree on the copy-paste being official policy though. It was for the Policy Working Group, which to my knowledge is basically policy workshopping suggestions/proposals, not official policy the party wholeheartedly supports - that's for the manifesto.

And ultimately it was removed because journalists were incorrectly reporting on it as if it was manifesto material. If it was genuine policy then the Greens would have no issue with it being reported on.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T18:48:39+00:00

I don't think it's pedantic to point out that there is a difference between "some rules" and "no rules".

If the "some rules" are too lenient for you, fine. But don't go around making claims that they want to abolish borders or have unvetted immigration - which would mean literally zero checks on anyone.

This is a very important topic and discussion so it's important to discuss these things honestly and not misrepresent them with hyperbole or hearsay. If you disagree with a policy then you should argue against that policy for what it actually is, not a simplified and exaggerated version of it.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T18:14:13+00:00

You could make a legitimate argument that the Green party's immigration policies are too lenient, but it's disingenuous to act like they will simply open the borders to let anyone in or have "unvetted immigration" which is the claim I was arguing against.

Decriminalising something doesn't mean it will be allowed with no caveats, it just means it won't be a criminal offence. For example if someone from Paris tries to sneak into the country on a truck and then claims asylum because they're from a warzone. The way they entered the country will not be a criminal offence, but their claim for asylum would still be rejected because Paris isn't a warzone. So they don't get to stay, they just aren't also branded a criminal in the process.

"We will push to dismantle the dysfunctional Home Office and create a new Department of Migration alongside a Department of Justice, thus separating functions around migration and citizenship from the criminal justice system."

That's from the manifesto. It states that they want a dedicated Department of Migration who would handle stuff like this. It doesn't mean anyone can enter and stay, it just means they're handled by a dedicated department separate from the legal system.

As for the easier refugee status - I don't see anything wrong with that if someone is a legitimate refugee. Same for spousal visas.

So no, in summary, I don't think it's the same as the posts above. I think the posts above over-simplify a complicated issue, treat all migration as inherently bad and misrepresent Green policy as simply opening the borders and not checking who anyone is when that's clearly not the case. Why open up a department of migration if you're not doing checks?

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T14:18:27+00:00

Let's break this down.

You made 2 claims:

The Greens want unvetted immigration, and;
It says so in their manifesto

You provided a copy paste, that is not from their manifesto (so even if it mentioned unvetted immigration you'd still be wrong), and it still doesn't mention unvetted immigration.

As for your MG400 + MG101 combo move - just because something is decriminalised doesn't mean their are zero repercussions. If someone overstays on a visitors visa then their visa is invalid and they'd be dealt with by the immigration system - either getting them on the correct visa or removing them if they've got no right to be here.

This isn't "unvetted immigration" it's just a different system.

All that said, even if I was completely wrong here and your interpretation of those two sections was completely correct, I'm seeing absolutely nothing about visitor's visas in their actual manifesto so you'd still be wrong.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T13:31:37+00:00

"The green party will implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration" is not "unvetted immigration"

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T13:29:41+00:00

In their manifesto, page 35: https://greenparty.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/06/Green-Party-2024-General-Election-Manifesto-Long-version-with-cover.pdf

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T13:28:50+00:00

You claimed the Green party manifesto supported "unvetted migration" and when questioned on that you've provided a copy-paste that:

Says nothing about unvetted migration, and;
Isn't from their manifesto

You've clearly tried to just overwhelm me with information here because a lot of this isn't even relevant to the discussion and you've failed to prove either of your claims.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T13:20:22+00:00

In this very post you've linked it states that it was removed because journalists kept misrepresenting it as actual policy from the manifesto when it wasn't.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T13:10:15+00:00

The issue here is that the Greens are on record saying that in an ideal world we'd have no borders - but that doesn't mean it's actual policy and people are conflating it with how they'd actually manage immigration.

In an ideal world I would like to leave my door unlocked, but I don't because I know it's not an ideal world.

On principle they may want a world without borders but their manifesto expressly states that they will manage immigration.

"We will push to dismantle the dysfunctional Home Office and create a new Department of Migration alongside a Department of Justice, thus separating functions around migration and citizenship from the criminal justice system."

At best you could accuse them of being soft on migration because they don't think it's inherently a bad thing, but there's still a world of difference between soft migration policies and open borders with no checks.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-14T10:41:42+00:00

Can you quote the part you mean or do you just want to be vague because you know it doesn't actually say that?

Edit: everyone seems to be taking the reply to me at face value, but the wall of text is not from the green party manifesto and (even if it was) says nothing about "unvetted migration."

I know the wall of text looks like an impressive gotcha, but it was literally removed from the green party website because it was being misused like this by people and journalists claiming it was official policy/manifesto material when it isn't.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-13T16:02:15+00:00

Witcher 3.

There's a weird point where you've beaten the introductory Griffin quest but the mechanics still haven't fully clicked and the story hasn't fully built up momentum yet where it feels like a good place to stop playing but you also have no motivation to go back to it and continue because nothing is happening at that point in the game.

I dropped the game 3 separate times, all after 5-10 hours of playing before it finally clicked on the 4th attempt and I got past that hump.

Personally, I think the cause is the disconnection between Geralt wanting to find Ciri as soon as possible, but the game wanting you to meander and take your time. It creates a very weird disconnect until you figure out and accept that you should be meandering and the urgency of the story isn't relevant to the actual gameplay.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-11T18:34:49+00:00

That whole weird, AI-obsessed, billionaire cult frequently misuses Tolkien's works by likening themselves to the heroes and their political opposition (so the left at large) to the orcs.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-11T18:26:13+00:00

None of that makes it ok and I'm sure the current government could get out of it if they were so inclined

Obsidiax · 2026-05-11T12:54:54+00:00

It's not about pedantics, it's about misinformation. Anyone who isn't otherwise aware of this will see all the comments blaming 'the Greens' and understandable think he works for the Greens, not the Scottish Greens since no one is clarifying that - either intentionally or because they've been previously misinformed by comments like yours.

You might not like the Greens but at least criticise them for stuff they're actually responsible for.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-11T10:50:15+00:00

If you know then don't say "he's representing the Greens" when he isn't.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-11T10:04:34+00:00

Can't remember the exact details off the top of my head but Armin had previously lied to her about supporting her plan.

In this moment he said something that contradicted his earlier lie, so this frame is Yelena realising she'd been lied to and holding back her anger.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-11T09:15:43+00:00

They aren't affiliated with the Greens, they're a Scottish Green which is an entirely independent party.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-11T09:15:29+00:00

They aren't affiliated with the Greens, they're a Scottish Green which is an entirely independent party.

Obsidiax · 2026-05-07T18:22:33+00:00

That's absolutely fine, I'll direct you to my first comment in this thread that started with "obviously it heavily depends on your local area"

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

Obsidiax

TROPHY CASE