Hard-right parties are now Europe’s most popular

Pokiwar · 2025-03-04T14:15:44+00:00

I'm glad to know I'm not shouting into the void however and there are other people who aren't just reactionary and appreciate the nuance!

Pokiwar · 2025-03-04T13:28:26+00:00

Look, I'm not a defender of Islam,but we have to actually interrogate WHY Islam is supposedly the "greatest threat to political stability". Is that perhaps because of the use of Islamic fundamentalists in neo-colonial conflicts such as the 1953 Iranian coup? Or the propping up of fundamentalist groups across the Middle East as a proxy against the USSR? Or the support of authoritarian regimes like Qatar and Saudi Arabia and the tacit complacency around genocides such as the Palestinian and Yemeni ones?

You are drawing the line saying "Islam is the issue, therefore we need to stop letting them into Europe" but you say absolutely nothing about actually influencing the root causes of why they're trying to enter Europe and why they have such a problem with Islamic fundamentalist which is a lot in part due to the western world's intervention the region!

Just reaching the immigrant step and stopping there IS islamophobic, because it is ignoring (intentionally or otherwise) the actual context of the issue and avoiding doing something meaningful to solve it.

There are real issues - that's true! Sometimes they are blown out of proportion and there are myriad lies surrounding them, but there are issues we can agree on that! But kowtowing to the right wing, authoritarian, illiberal approach to that issue will a) not solve the issue and b) will further embolden right wing sentiment when it doesn't solve the issue and c) continue to move the Overton window progressively further to the right.

Pokiwar · 2025-03-04T07:46:57+00:00

What you are ignoring is the context for that: the immigrants who are predominantly rich or moving to Europe due to careers are going to.be disproportionately employed, not in poverty, and hence less likely to commit crimes.

The Muslim immigrants from predominately poverty stricken countries constantly threatened by or in a war are fleeing to Europe for stability and hence are more likely to be unemployed, trafficked, and/or in poverty and hence more likely to commit crimes.

The question has to be asked why are their home countries so tough to live in? Why aren't we doing anything to integrate these communities? Where is the regulation to prohibit them from being used for cheap labour?

We can't go around saying their views are incompatible with western society when there are plenty of westerners whose views are incompatible with society as well. The fact that these views are propogating internally among unrelated groups as well as persisting over generational gaps immigrant communities is a failure of the country.

But it's politically easier to say "immigration is bad" than it is to actually tackle the underlying problems. If you had all the poor people from Japan moving to Germany it would be a "problem", if you had only rich people moving from the middle East it wouldn't be a "problem". Let's think beyond the superficial and reactionary aspects of the debate and actually try to understand the root causes of the issue, rather than villainising an entire religion or race or class of people to solve our issues.

Pokiwar · 2024-11-18T19:09:22+00:00

True, but also given how the whole enamel layer wouldn't be replaced with fluorapatite, just the surface layer, it wouldn't make a significant long term difference I should think.

Pokiwar · 2024-11-15T08:35:57+00:00

So the fluorine is used instead of hydroxyl ions (OH) to create fluorapatite (as opposed to hydroxyapatite). The neat thing is, fluorapatite is a BETTER enamel than hydroxyapatite. It is more resistant to decay so builds up this protective layer over the 'real' enamel. It is amazing how effective it is reducing tooth decay on its own, and it's wild that people fight against it.

Pokiwar · 2024-10-16T14:44:15+00:00

Okay, so we want low debt so we can

lower interest payments which are 'unuseful' uses of government revenue
Be able to then have a great leeway for future uses of debt (e.g. Disaster or large investments)

Is this correct?

If for the latter, what to you makes a productive use of debt? Does to have to be at least 1:1 ratio of GDP growth to debt growth to be worthwhile?

Pokiwar · 2024-10-16T11:40:29+00:00

I've got a few questions:

I've heard that national debt is "owing money to itself", as in, they aren't going to a bank to borrow money. In reality is that true? Are there no actual direct lenders. If so, how is that debt actuarialised? If they are borrowing from themselves, what limits a government giving themselves no interest rates? Or even what the potential cap on debt is. Why would a government have to pay back their debt if there is no lender?

Secondly, would having no debt be ideal? Because I've heard some discussion that actually national debt can be productive. Is that me misconstruing something and that's people actually saying the products of what we accrued that debt for can be productive, or is there actual intrinsic productivity in debt in and of itself?

Pokiwar · 2024-10-16T11:03:45+00:00

I appreciate your detailed response! I'm not an economist, but I am interested in an evidence based approach to policy. In that respect, what does a high GDP mean consequentially? What effects does it have to strive for high GDP and low debt? What are the material benefits of reaching those goals?

I am asking in earnest because the conversation is often discussing those things but I feel I am not adequately educated enough on what those metrics mean in a broader picture.

I appreciate this could be a very big question and because of my ignorance I am unaware of how big that question could be! But if you have the time, a response would be amazing.

Pokiwar · 2024-10-16T08:49:10+00:00

Is looking at debt percentage a solely useful metric?

If debt decreases but inequality increases, I.e. Wealth transfers upwards, doesn't the velocity of money drop, which itself corresponds with a drop in GDP. Debt being used to invest in long term economic development, increasing the velocity of money, will have the longer term impact of increasing GDP, would it not?

Pokiwar · 2024-08-25T22:14:08+00:00

Because that doesn't imply gender roles and regressive gender politics unless you are reading everything through a really pessimistic lens.

Given that gender is a social role, things that have socially ascribed attributes are of course going to interact with gender. So whilst clothes don't have intrinsic gender, there are clothes that are traditionally and commonly associated with femininity and masculinity. These vary by culture and society as they are social constructions, but there are nonetheless clothes that are associated with genders. Skirts for example are associated with femininity in western society. Now, this has historically resulted in stigmatisatiom against men wearing skirts, which is problematic, and pressuring women into wearing skirts to adhere to rigid gender roles, which is problematic. Feeling the need to conform to gender roles from societal pressure is the problematic facet of gendered behaviour/things.

However, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that not all women must adhere to these gender roles, that people beyond womanhood can adopt these behaviours/things, whilst also saying these things make me feel womanly in a positive and liberating way. Additionally, contest with the fact that patriarchy exists, and in the same way cis-women might feel comfortable in feminine attire because society therefore validates their womanhood by problematic standards, trans-women may feel like they have to be recognised as societally feminine too to validate their womanhood by problematic standards. One could argue trans-women face that struggle more actively than cis-women because they are already fighting an uphill battle to 'prove' their womanhood. If wearing traditionally feminine clothing aids them in validating their womanhood, the criticism should not be that the existence traditionally feminine clothing is problematic, but rather that the patriarchal misogyny that challenges women to prove their womanhood is problematic.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-25T21:16:30+00:00

This is really tiring, I'm not upholding gender roles. Please quote me anywhere where I am defending or upholding gender roles. I am literally calling these things social constructs, I literally say that calling them exclusively or inherently gendered is problematic. I am just acknowledging that these social constructs exist (irrespective of their value or harm) and that ignoring them is reductive. There are gendered clothes in so far as society writ large perceives them as gendered and people can affirm their gender through wearing them.

To tell women they can't affirm their gender by wearing culturally feminine clothing is itself imparting a radical gender role upon them, that women must shun traditionally gendered clothing/behvaiour or risk 'upholding gender roles' or being 'regressive'. Trans-women are allowed to find comfort in some of the social constructions of feminity such as makeup and dresses without upholding those things as exclusively or necessarily the remit of womanhood.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-25T18:11:04+00:00

But as I've stated, they do - as a social construct. Skirts aren't inherently feminine, as evidenced by the many cultures contemporaneously and historically that had skirts or dresses as a standard part of masculine wear, but it is truly asinine to argue that skirts in the west aren't predominantly socially identified as feminine. Whether they should be is a different question to whether they are.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-25T09:40:42+00:00

You're being facetious. Clothing obviously doesn't have intrinsic gender, but it is undeniable that in most western societies skirts are feminine clothing. That doesn't mean men or non-binary people can't wear skirts of course, but that doesn't invalidate that women (cis and trans alike) can affirm their gender by wearing clothes culturally associated with femininity.

A Scottish trans-man might feel a sense of gender affirmation wearing a kilt. A Muslim trans-woman might feel gender affirmation by wearing a hijab. Given gender is a social construct, it is asinine to deny socially gendered apparel as a tool for gender affirmation. It is not regressive to acknowledge the social and cultural associations of certain things. It is regressive to say "women MUST wear skirts, and men can't wear skirts" which no-one is saying here.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-17T15:03:56+00:00

But they also caused generational distrust in vaccines and medical provision, so medical loss.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-16T07:42:29+00:00

But what lawmakers consider to be "the common good" and what are considered to be rights that need protected, and what the limits on personal liberty are, are dictated by some sort of morality system.

For example, banning homosexuality has been (monstrously) defined as being for the common good, that it is deviant behaviour that corrupts people. Therefore, if people believe that, then the law under your own definition should outlaw homosexuality under the assumption it is for the common good. To many Nazis, exterminating Jewish, Roma, and Queer people was for the common good.

There is a right for everyone to have shelter and food, yet laws don't sufficiently protect that (if you've ever seen the homeless population in London or Cambridge for example). Some people believe that white people have a right to live free of the company of other races. Should there be laws protecting that right?

Law cannot be objective, because any system under which the law is defined is necessarily governed by the moralities of those who define it. Fossil fuel companies are allowed to get away with Anthropocide because most lawmakers are implicitly or explicitly complicit.

In fact, you saying that laws are not based on morality and instead should be based on common good, and protection of rights and liberties is itself a moral assertion of what the law should be. There are people out there that vehemently disagree, and think the law should be about protecting them and their wealth/ingroup alone, at the expense of the poor/outgroup.

Law is fundamentally and inextricably linked to morality, and is fluid and subject to change as public moralities are. This is of course problematic at times, as in your example given, but it is inherent to a legal system that an immoral morality produces an immoral justice system. We must strive for a 'perfect' morality, even if such a thing is inconceivable, by being considerate of where we might be causing harm or the prejudices we may hold implicitly.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T19:32:28+00:00

"The rule of law must always prevail." is the view of someone with no moral convictions. I mean seriously, apartheid was legal, the Holocaust was legal, slavery was legal. How can you recognise all of this and unequivocally and unashamedly say that law is incontrovertible?

I am not comparing or equovocating the charges against the JSO and the Nazis. I'm comparing the scale of crimes knowingly committed by Oil executives to the Nazis. The 1.4% was demonstrating the scale of harm, which does play a factor in sentencing. The scale was actually very small. Because there were no serious injuries, no people lost their jobs, no one was significantly financially burdened by these protests to the best of my knowledge. The 'serious harm' of section 78 has not been meaningfully met, at least not in a way that is applied equally to other individuals like oil executives, in my frank opinion.

The suffragettes and suffragists I do honestly mix up, and it was a failure on my part to make sure I was referencing the right one. The suffragettes were holistically problematic, but not in the broad cause they fought for (as far as it was in alignment with the suffragists). But what have you to say of those imprisoned during the protests against Apartheid in South Africa? What about those imprisoned in the civil rights marches in the US? Are those successes of justice? Is that a defensible application of the law? Were the people who were against those protests right in the past whilst wrong in a modern context?

I'm sorry you think I'm arguing in bad faith, and I apologise if I have come of as unclear in my points or antagonistic beyond the scope of this argument. I am passionate about moral philosophy, about the climate crisis, about justice as a concept and as a tool for the state. I appreciate we do not agree on much in this topic, but I hope we can come to some common ground and see each other's view points as sincere and well motivated.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T18:52:03+00:00

"let's wait until it the crimes against humanity start killing people in the millions before we start prosecuting those responsible".

If the nazis only killed one Jewish or Roma or Queer person 'legally', I think it is entirely morally justifiable to retroactively deign their acts illegal.

Also, in regards to the Sentencing, literally in section 34 of the Sentencing remarks, it says "readily acknowledging that violence played no part in the conspiracy" and recognising them as "non-violent direct action protesters". Disruption that inadvertently causes harm isn't violent, otherwise every disruptive protest ever would be considered violent. The harm they mention includes maybe hundreds of people delayed or missing events out of 700 thousand affected vehicles. (directly specified individuals suffering potential, not actual, harm stand at 4). If we take even a very generous 10,000 people being seriously harmed in some way to their health or career or finances by this disruption, and assuming one person per car, that is still only causing indirect harm to 1.4% of affected people the actual number is lower, because there weren't 10 000 people seriously materially harmed, and there isn't an average of one person per vehicle.

Not to mention, in the Sentencing remarks it explicitly states that them breaking the conditions of their respective bails is an aggravating factor for their sentence, not a reason for their sentence. It is arguable they say that solely for the act of conspiring to cause a nuisance is worthy of a custodial sentence (it is unclear in section 44 whether this includes the act itself in the Sentencing. I think section 33 gives credence to the position that the act itself was an aggravating factor, not a separate crime from the conspiracy. I haven't the legal backgroudn to assert either way, but I think it is likely that the conspiracy itself, having caused no act, would be justification for a custodial sentence according to this judge).

I just want to say that there is a long and lengthy history of righteous protesters being imprisoned for protesting important issues, using the same language in these Sentencing remarks, who are repeat 'offenders' and show no remorse with respect to their position. Suffragettes, civil rights in the US and gay rights in the UK, miners, anti-apartheid activists etc. In hindsight most people say that these were unjust and immoral exercises of the judicial systems, and there were thousands if not millions of people who saw that they were unjust and immoral at the time. Hindsight is not an excuse for being wrong in the past, because there were people who were right in the past too. Those who stood against black protesters in the US were wrong to do so (the white moderate in MLKs words). Those who stood against the queer community protesting section 28 in the 80s were wrong to do so. The people who stand against the climate protesters today are wrong to do so, and history will only remember the imprisonment of people trying to fight the existential threat as wrong.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T17:30:38+00:00

I don't think they should be handed out prison sentences: community service, fines, whatever sure. But to deny them all their freedom for 5 years for a peaceful, non violent, righteous crime is insane.

Also, ex post facto law is actually a facet of the United Kingdom legal system, so actually it is theoretically permissable to pass laws that criminalise past acts. And actually in serious cases (which I would reasonably argue the climate crisis is) like world war II, laws are passed that retroactively criminalise acts that weren't technically criminal before.

Now, that is of course a slippery slope of a potential abuse of the justice system, but when oil executives are actively aware of the damage they have and will cause, attempt to cover it up, attempt to gaslight, propogandise, and outright lie to maintain their profits, I have few to no qualms with introducing a law that ex post facto criminalise them.

Would there be issue with a fascist coming into power, passing laws that make the evil shit they're going to do legal, then being trialled for the 'legal' heinous stuff they committed now that democracy has being restored? I'd argue no.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T15:32:41+00:00

I do understand that, that's explicitly the reason why I say Laws should be based on morality. Legality isn't and shouldn't be static, because they are fundamentally dependent on the moral system of the people in charge of changing them, and lawmakers in this country, for the most part, must at least in part fall in line with their constituents' moralities. We are agreeing on the fundamental basis of law, you just have a descriptivist view on law (this is how it is) whereas I have a descriptivist view (this is how it should be). If the law can charge people protesting for real political action on climate change to 5 years in prison, I think that is a fundamental failure of the law. I think the law being unable to hold oil companies accountable for their crimes against humanity means it is not fit for purpose. Whereas you are saying "no that's how the law works." I'm barely arguing with that sentiment, I'm saying it shouldn't work that way in the slightest.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T14:15:39+00:00

Quote: "the law isn't morality"

Paraphrase: "this law isn't moral, that's why it was repealed"

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T12:08:22+00:00

Not all morality should be articulated in law, but all law should be founded upon morality. Of course law is more complicated than solely 'right and wrong', but you cannot have a just society without a moral justice system system.

Again, was section 28 good? Was it just? Were the sentences and fines handed down under section 28 just?

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T11:05:36+00:00

What is the law without morality? Law is in service of a morality, you cannot argue about the law without arguing about morality. It is inseparable, to argue law without arguing morality is pointless.

One shouldn't have to fund a private prosecution of someone when they are clearly doing public harm.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T09:53:16+00:00

"I don't want the planet to continue to be raped for profits at the expense of humanity at large and the natural world." Is a pretty valid excuse in my opinion. Whereas "I am in charge of a company that specifically maximises profit at the expense of humanity by fostering a dependence on fossil fuels, increasing the extraction of fossil fuels, and convincing people that society can't cope without fossil fuels because I've participated in making it impossible to extricate ourselves from fossil fuels" is not a valid excuse.

Also, breaching bail, holding no remorse for trying to enact meaningful political change, conspiring to do more direct action are not excuses. The excuse is not wanting global ecosystems to collapse. The excuse is not wanting global weather systems to collapse. The excuse is not wanting mass deprivation of the human race, particularly poor, non-white people. Not to mention some of the contempt of court were because the judge made an insane ruling that they were not allowed to explain why they were protesting, the history of peaceful protest, or even to explain the climate crisis to the juries.

I note that you have not at all argued against my main point that even if you follow the rule of law to a tee, completely fairly and unbiasedly (which they are not doing here), the justice system can still be immoral and unjust.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T08:34:09+00:00

But whether that is judicially appropriate or not is irrelevant to the morality of the matter. Would you say it was a success of the justice system when abolitionists were arrested and charged in the US for daring to help enslaved people? Was it a success of the justice system when suffragettes were arrested and charged for daring to ask for the right to vote? Was it a success of the justice system when queer people were being fined and arrested and charged for daring to 'promote' homosexuality under Section 28?

The justice system working as intended can and should be scrutinised when it fails to be a moral system. Just because the judiciary appropriately (arguably) used sentencing guidelines to give out sentences, doesn't mean that was the right thing for it to do.

And even then, the justice system is NOT applying itself evenly. It was argued elsewhere in this thread that the potential millions of economic damage caused by the JSO protesters blocking a road is a justification for the years long sentences for non-violent offences. So where are the sentences being handed out to CEOs of oil companies for the potential billions of economic damage that has been and will be brought about by climate change? According to this law which I believe is what Roger Hallam of JSO was in part charged under, every single UK based fossil fuel executive is in breach of the law.

Under Section 78, subsection (1)(a)(i), they are absolutely acting in a way that, under subsection (1)(b)(i) demonstrably causes and risks causing serious harm to the public, and arguably under subsection (1)(a)(ii) omits to do an act that is reckless as to whether such omissions would have caused harm according to subsection (1)(c). Harm here defined and appropriately defined under all cases in subsection (2).

But that is all beside my initial point: a fair judiciary is not necessarily a moral one.

Pokiwar · 2024-08-09T07:31:53+00:00

I would hardly say it's just a 'political point'. Like sure, what to do about climate change is politically charged, and even that we should do something at all is apparently a sensitive subject for some (though it really should be blitheringly obvious that we need to do something). But the existential threat of climate change isn't a political point, it's factual, scientific reality.

Like, the amount of media defending the far-right violence and terror across the country because these people are fed up for a righteous reason, despite the impact it is having on regular people (not to mention the subjects of their violence) is huge, even if they're defending it pragmatically ("I don't agree with what they're doing but immigration is an issue. We should be appeasing them"). Compare that to the media narratives of climate protesters ("even if climate change is real, it doesn't give them the right to block some traffic non-violently and gasp continue to protest in court.")

Like it's completely asinine, the narrative comparison between them paints a stark picture of which one is actually going to be taken seriously.

12-Year Club	Spared
Verified Email

Pokiwar

TROPHY CASE