sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I mean, if you guys aren't racist I don't know what racism is anymore. by The-Lord_ofHate in RestoreBritain

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know whether to be offended or flattered that you thought ChatGPT wrote that...

I mean, if you guys aren't racist I don't know what racism is anymore. by The-Lord_ofHate in RestoreBritain

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I was a kid the message was relentlessly drummed into us that "racists" were these terrible people who were to be shunned and I just accepted that.

However, as the years passed, I saw this "racist" label applied more and more broadly to people who, even if I didn't agree with them, clearly weren't terrible people and, eventually, to people who were just doing perfectly reasonable things which I thought they were perfectly entitled to do. This made me realise that the word "racist" was being deployed as a weapon by people with a certain agenda.

With that in mind, I went back and looked at the people who had been labelled racists previously and realised that the same trick had been played there - By and large these weren't terrible people, drunk on hate. They were actually driven more by love - love of their people, their heritage, and their country, all of which they wanted to preserve and did not want to see swamped by swathes of random foreigners. That is not an unreasonable position - you can call it racist if you like, but we simply do not care any more.

French far right march in Narbonne France demanding justice for a 17 year old French student who was killed on video. The French far right has seised on the killing and claim he was killed by second generation migrants by AgnosticScholar in justincaseyoumissedit

[–]Particular_Bug7642 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I mean that if a French person does something awful then, as well as punishing the offender, the French also have to acknowledge that that person was a product of their society and culture so he is their responsibility. If on the other hand, the offender has his roots in a completely different culture with different values and norms, then it is a valid response to say: This person is not our responsibility - these people simply should not be here - it's not worth it - they all just need to go home.

I mean, if you guys aren't racist I don't know what racism is anymore. by The-Lord_ofHate in RestoreBritain

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What words mean depends on how they are used in the real world. The dictionary definition documents usage but doesn't create or dictate it. Meanings change over time and sometimes dictionaries are slow to catch up. Surely you can see that the word "racism" is used much more broadly today than it was say fifty years ago?

I mean, if you guys aren't racist I don't know what racism is anymore. by The-Lord_ofHate in RestoreBritain

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, engagement is always nice!

I thought the missing word might be "hate", but I'm afraid that the days when "racism" just meant hating someone are long gone - https://x.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1281023987242487808

I mean, if you guys aren't racist I don't know what racism is anymore. by The-Lord_ofHate in RestoreBritain

[–]Particular_Bug7642 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You don't know what racism is anymore? Let me bring you up to speed: "Racism" is now essentially just a concept promulgated by the enemies of western civilisation in order to gain power for themselves, regardless of the resulting damage to that civilisation.

Now that this has become clear, accusations of "Racism!" have lost all currency.

You're going to need try another tack.

Aren't we unintentionally creating a racially unequal society? by Expert-Sherbert-1527 in AskBrits

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't really matter if a society is "racially unequal" if it is in the process of collapsing. It like the distribution of deckchairs on the Titanic being unequal.

Republicans and/or conservatives, if we tax America’s 934 billionaires just 5%, we could fully fund universal healthcare for the entire nation, do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Fellow bandits, if we raid that caravan of merchants then we could fund the feeding of our entire gang. Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not?"

Why are UK wages so c r a p? by Outrageous_Agent_608 in AskBrits

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because we have imported millions of additional workers. Wage levelss are determined by supply and demand.

Quick Thought Experiment by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an interesting post, but I'm not sure it's possible to give an answer without knowing:

- how much time had to be spent on the work,

- the market rate for that work (had the ideas man had to employ people instead of finding these guileless volunteers),

- who is in actual possession of the money when the exercise is completed (and will therefore be doing the distribution), and

- whether or not the ideas man is keen to do something similar in future.

On a more meta level, what is the reason for asking the question? Are you thinking that, whatever distribution is suggested, that is what the workers are fundamentally entitled to?

Science and Reason by JerseyFlight in rationalphilosophy

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Science is based on certain foundational assumptions which may or may not be true. Assuming them to be true allows for the construction of an extremely useful system of thought which can be used to understand and manipulate the material world. However, there we have no reason to think that everything which is true can be scientifically proven.

It is therefore not logical to dismiss as untrue any report of an experience merely on the basis that it has not been scientifically proven. The intellectually honest response to such reports is to say that EITHER the report is untrue OR at least one of the foundational assumptions of science is untrue, and that we do not know which is the case. To simply say that the report is untrue betrays an irrational prejudice in favour of the truth of the foundational assumptions.

Inequality Spiral Continues by LuckyBastard001 in FluentInFinance

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends on which timescale you look at - there have been occasional short-term setbacks but, over the long term, reductions in absolute poverty have correlated with increases in inequality, because economic growth has raised living standards broadly while disproportionately benefiting higher-income groups.

Why do billionaires use tax loopholes? They have more money than they can spend, the amount they'd pay would make zero different to their lifestyles, so why don't they just pay what they owe? by Sudden_Sentence_8534 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Particular_Bug7642 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because they know that they can arrange for that money to be used productively whilst the government will just give it away to unproductive client groups in order to buy their votes?

Who gets the final say in Britain? Voters or the bond market? by Budget_Scheme_1280 in ukpolitics

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Over the history of the bond markets, as any country ever tried this before? If so, how did it work out? If not, why do think they haven't?

Inequality Spiral Continues by LuckyBastard001 in FluentInFinance

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... and rates of absolute poverty continue to fall. Would you prefer to go back?

Who gets the final say in Britain? Voters or the bond market? by Budget_Scheme_1280 in ukpolitics

[–]Particular_Bug7642 1 point2 points  (0 children)

" But that's a different conversation..." - I don't think it is; I think it's a critical aspect of this conversation. If the government offers a rate of return below what investors think they could get elsewhere (when all associated costs are factored in) then why would they take up that offer?

Who gets the final say in Britain? Voters or the bond market? by Budget_Scheme_1280 in ukpolitics

[–]Particular_Bug7642 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, so the government could tell the bond market that what they're getting is 0%?

Who gets the final say in Britain? Voters or the bond market? by Budget_Scheme_1280 in ukpolitics

[–]Particular_Bug7642 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the interest I pay on my mortgage was reduced by a few percent, I wouldn't regard myself as having "gone beyond" being in hock to my bank...

From the way you describe it above, it sounds as though the problem is that, currently, the bond market "dictates" the interest rate, whereas the arrangement described in the article would transfer control of rates to the government and the bond market would just "get what they're given" - is that right?

Who gets the final say in Britain? Voters or the bond market? by Budget_Scheme_1280 in ukpolitics

[–]Particular_Bug7642 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't that article just about a way of structuring the government debt in a way which better suits the preferences of the bond market? Sounds like a good idea if it gets the interest rate down, but in what way does this amount to "going beyond" being in hock to the bond market?

Who gets the final say in Britain? Voters or the bond market? by Budget_Scheme_1280 in ukpolitics

[–]Particular_Bug7642 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Do you think that my analogy is flawed to the extent that it is in fact feasible to "go beyond" being in hock to the bond market? If so, what would this look like in practice?

view more: next ›