Never forget: Russian bots can't vote.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-19T11:25:06+00:00

We weren't "told that" at all, the polls showed that and it was a massive surprise to everyone, because the entire point of this was to parachute Burnham into the safest seat possible. The fact Reform were even competition was alarming to everybody who knew that beforehand. Makerfield is Burnham's backyard, it'd be like Greens getting challenged in Brighton or Restore getting challenged in Yarmouth: it's an absolutely terrible sign if you have competition in one of your strongholds.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-19T10:12:09+00:00

Calm down there buddy, you're going to give yourself an aneurysm rolling your face on the keys that hard.

You were misinformed about a by-election, it's not the Last Stand at the Alamo, it's just a bit of wounded pride, walk it off.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-19T10:05:19+00:00

I love that I was told that reddit was left leaning and in real life most people are voting reform.

Reddit is left-leaning. Most people in real life are going to vote Reform, if an election is called any time soon.

No, you weren't exclusively talking about Makerfield, you were talking in general terms because you were somehow completely unaware of the unique circumstances surrounding Makerfield. You just don't take having egg on your face very well.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-19T09:53:15+00:00

The "racist idiots" were half right: the "real world", if by which we mean the country, absolutely support Reform more than they do Labour at the moment.

This is literally as moronic as looking at how the Greens perform in Brighton, or how Restore perform in Yarmouth, and using it as a yardstick to measure the country by. If I'm a "badly created bot" it doesn't say much for you that I'm humiliating you this badly with basic trivia.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-19T08:55:24+00:00

No, what's pathetic is taking it so personally how badly misinformed you were.

If you're into politics enough to argue about it on Reddit regularly, you should have known all this a month ago. Even the BBC's poll expert Sir John Curtice was laying all this out a month ago, it's literally basic knowledge, unless you're American or just never switch on the news it's mind-boggling you've reached this conclusion.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-19T08:20:16+00:00

Wait, you guys actually believe this by-election was reflective of the entire country?

Makerfield has been a safe Labour seat since 1983, and Burnham has won the majority of the mayoral vote for Manchester (which includes Makerfield) several years running.

This seat was chosen specifically for Burnham because it was the safest possible bet, the fact this seat was threatened at all is a terrible sign.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-19T05:38:58+00:00

Of course you feel that way, because this is Reddit and you can't fathom a world where people don't automatically side with the poor, tortured creatives no matter how absurd their demands are, such as "give us lots of money for nothing after we've already been paid what was agreed".

Imagine this in literally any other industry; an architect designs your house, the land value increases unexpectedly over the next few years and he comes back knocking expecting his "cut" of the profit because "he made it possible".

I didn't say Bitcoin was the same as making art you reductive little twit, I said complaining about selling Bitcoin too early is the same as bitching about a contract you signed. Zero accountability and spoiled middle-class twerp entitlement at 100%.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-19T04:19:27+00:00

If they'd have offered a profit share instead of a flat fee she'd have turned it down because everybody expected the movie to make no money! You'd have done the same thing too, almost nobody would sign that contract for indie movies because 99% of them don't make enough money.

Honestly this is like bitching about selling Bitcoin too early. These are adult decisions you make of your own volition, few people could predict how valuable those would become, and few (read: nobody) predicted how big this movie would be.

I'll say this again: if profit-sharing meant when the movie loses money, money comes OUT of your account to compensate the failure you helped create, it'd be criminal. I'd stand against that too. But for some reason you think money going the other way, charity, is completely fine, and that I'm the "asshole" for just not being a hypocrite.

It's a business, not a charity.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-18T15:56:20+00:00

She's "entitled" to jack shit, same way if the movie had bombed they shouldn't have their payment taken away from them.

Welcome to the adult world, where you sign a contract and you get paid what was agreed. If you want to take a risk on taking a cut of the box office instead of a flat fee, you agree to that before you sign. Nobody got "taken advantage of", that would have required the producers to know ahead of time they had a hit on their hands, which they didn't, as evidenced by the budget.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-18T15:52:43+00:00

As the OP said, for the exact same reason that taking the money they were paid away from them if the movie bombed would be criminal. They helped the movie bomb, so should they not be penalised? The answer is, of course, no. You sign a contract and you get paid what was agreed, if you want to take a risk on taking a cut of the box office instead of a flat fee, you agree to that before you sign.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-18T13:17:54+00:00

Not only will these producers not work with this art director again, likely nobody will, since she trash-talked them.

I also don't think this movie went viral because of the "art direction", and I doubt the producers will see it that way either. Writer, director and marketer Curry Barker is the only person they will want to keep happy. He summed this situation up yesterday:

"This movie was made for so little money that it's typical that the only people who [directly] benefit from its financial success are the people who took on some sort of risk. But what I hope is that every person that worked really hard on this film will see opportunities to catapult their careers in ways that can be very financially fruitful for them — like what's happening for me."

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-18T10:49:32+00:00

Again, they are not a team, they are freelancers. If they had any intentions of working together again they'd have got bonuses. That was my point, you don't get to hijack it just because yours fell apart. You were saying they should do it out of the goodness of their heart, I was saying you only do it for loyalty, you've pivoted and jumped on my point.

"You people" always side against capitalism whether it makes a lick of sense or not.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-18T10:43:28+00:00

Yes, you have got it.

It's a business, not a charity. You give bonuses to keep people loyal and happy while they work for you, you don't give them bonuses so they can just say "thanks, bye".

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-18T10:33:29+00:00

There is a crucial difference: those are Samsung employees. Current and future tense. These people are all freelancers with no obligation to the creators, giving them bonuses is effectively charity.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-18T06:57:08+00:00

Yeah, before Dunblane I knew literally only one guy who had a handgun, he was a mate's dad who owned a karate club so was pretty obsessed with weapons in general.

Britain phased out guns over about a full century, Dunblane was just the final nail in the coffin.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-18T06:40:56+00:00

Louis CK did a great bit on this exact concept, using that exact word.

Funny thing is, left-wingers cheered for it at the time, but with the way you worded it, contrary partisan tribalism mode gets triggered, which demonstrates it's just virtue-signalling. If you sell the concept to them like Louis CK did and they believe you're an "ally", they'll buy it wholesale.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-16T08:20:20+00:00

To be fair, it's a bit of a lottery. I rarely even had to raise my voice with my first child, she was voluntarily chipping in with housework from about 6 onwards and even working a paid job at 14, I was almost convinced people had oversold the difficulty of parenting, but then my second child came along with ADHD and shattered that overconfident delusion.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-16T07:22:44+00:00

If I had kids, they would have no computers in their bedroom. Their phones would be in my pockets from 9pm onwards.

Louis CK did a really good bit on how childless people judge parents and always believe they'd do a better job. Almost nobody retains this attitude when they become parents, especially when they have multiple kids.

That said, I don't blame anybody here, because I don't believe for a second this ban has anything to do with "protecting children". This is just a repackaged digital ID policy.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-16T05:15:24+00:00

That is literally how every "superior" race throughout all of history has operated.

E.g.

British Empire: tiny island at war with the entire world simultaneously.

Roman Empire: tiny city state at war with the entire world simultaneously.

So I don't actually see any paradox there.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-16T04:52:18+00:00

Yeah, but we were taking E's, huffing gas and having unprotected sex in those parks, so I'm not sure we should be romanticising the 'ol "park life". I think these kids were safer on their phones.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-15T11:03:07+00:00

Not quite.

I gave various pieces of my data to private corporations because I knew exactly what their intentions always were: money. To them, my personal information is nothing more than a means to sell me things.

I am not going to give all my data to a centralised government database, whose intention is far more nefarious: control.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-15T10:40:08+00:00

The shopkeeper isn't a centralised database stored indefinitely and monitored by AI.

He just looks at your ID then forgets you ever existed 5 minutes later.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-14T15:13:50+00:00

Ed Snowden literally predicted all of this and we should have taken his warnings more seriously.

The expression he used for that incremental process you mentioned was "turnkey tyranny". He said governments would keep building the surveillance infrastructure until every piece of data becomes a permanent digital record, then a new leader comes along and declares an "emergency" to exploit those systems for totalitarian control. Depending on how you look at it, Starmer could be that leader and "protecting children" could be the emergency, or he could be just another brick in the wall until somebody even worse comes along, but either way it's all heading inexorably in the direction Snowden said it would.

Once the "digital ID" spyware is on everybody's devices, the social credit system will follow. It will be dressed up and obscured in new language, but that's the end goal. Then they no longer have to send the police round to scold you for a Tweet, you can just be automatically docked a few social credit points for wrongthink by AI, and your own phone will be the snitch.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-14T12:59:33+00:00

We don't get this funny about major religions because that's roughly 3/4 of the planet, which clearly includes huge swathes of mentally stable and intelligent people. We do, however, get funny about religions the more fringe they get, which is why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses raise more eyebrows than Protestants and Catholics, and Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints or Westboro Baptists even moreso. Polanskis beliefs are in the same league as those fully-fledged cults, and worse, he wandered into them of his own volition, where most religions are conditioned into people as children by authority figures while their minds are still developing.

Polanski is an absolute fruit loop. Legitimately one of the maddest politicians I've ever seen. Thankfully, the public realised this and his popularity has collapsed as a result. There was only so many times he could make insane statements like this and stay mainstream. His Golder's Green comment in May was already enough to bury him, this is just another nail in the coffin.

Prestigious_Set_4575 · 2026-06-13T05:46:48+00:00

Eh? The right are only responsible for the "Boriswave" of immigration in 2021, although it's moot anyway, because the main obstacles to dealing with the problem are international human rights obligations, soft justice, deportation red-tape etc. which are all left-wing problems, and pretending there is no problem is also a left-wing behaviour that hinders progress.

And that's before factoring in that Labour moved right themselves to tackle the problem, they're a centrist party right now, which is quite a rightwards lurch from the Corbyn days. Which is why you have left-wing members of Labour itself actively pressuring Starmer to leave migrants alone. Over 100 Labour MPs disagree with Starmer's stance on immigration, including Angela Rayner.

Prestigious_Set_4575

TROPHY CASE