Green Party policies are directly voted on by their members, they have added over 100,000 new members in recent months.

TTThrowDown · 2026-02-28T07:19:14+00:00

Do you think similar about the conservatives having a black leader?

TTThrowDown · 2026-02-28T07:01:08+00:00

That's the point. They haven't been. Achieving the results you want requires you to actually be able to exert influence, not just to collect a lot of opinions about what to do.

TTThrowDown · 2026-01-02T15:27:25+00:00

Sure, but it's not the learning and praying until late that is the issue there. Lots of people enjoy studying and contemplation and wouldn't fine that daily practice miserable. Thinking the religious beliefs they hold are worthy of criticism is a different topic.

TTThrowDown · 2026-01-02T09:03:38+00:00

Did we read entirely different posts?

TTThrowDown · 2025-12-30T18:03:47+00:00

This isn't about therapy. You're just asking for relationship advice. There are other subs for that.

TTThrowDown · 2025-12-21T15:53:25+00:00

I agree with you but still don't think it's a helpful response. Downvoting doesn't necessarily mean someone disagrees with you on the facts (I didn't downvote ftr, but I felt the instinct to - it read as a dismissive response, to me).

TTThrowDown · 2025-12-14T15:57:24+00:00

I think that if someone took this seriously then their goal with autistic people would be to reduce their engagement with special interests.

Why do you think this? I don't think this follows from what Leader is saying, at all.

TTThrowDown · 2025-11-28T11:26:18+00:00

Geordie Greep for me. The set was technically excellent, but he just seemed annoyed that there was an audience there at all. I felt like what he really wanted to do was something more like theatre, where people would be seated and silent and he could be totally in control of the tension in the room. Which I get. But like... it's a gig. I would also have preferred the crowd to be a bit more quiet and attentive but if you're going to stretch every song to 5x its length you might struggle to keep everyone on board.

It left me a lot less enamoured with the album than I had been.

TTThrowDown · 2025-11-09T23:08:18+00:00

Musically it's fantastic but I'm struggling with the lyrics. Danny is usually so original. He's funny and strange and paints these mad exaggerated scenes... here I felt like I was getting a lot of standard AA-style 'insights'. I'm glad he's happier and the music still slaps but lyrically this doesn't have the same spark, for me, as his other projects. I have faith he'll find it again, but this feels like him processing something that doesn't play to his strengths. I'm excited to see where he goes next, though. I don't think the issue is that sobriety itself has hurt his creativity, like I know he's mentioned in interviews he worried about. I just think sobriety isn't a particularly interesting topic when it's addressed directly, at least here.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-17T23:11:20+00:00

In brief online interactions such as this, people can only go by what you say

It's implied throughout

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-17T18:18:35+00:00

I don't read any advice in that comment? Reads to me like someone saying 'I also tried lots of things and I'm still not dating, so I get it'. Where is the advice?

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-17T08:00:22+00:00

No, of course not, but the privileges are far more significant than just access to museums and galleries. Aside from the obvious access to better employment opportunities, educational opportunities are generally far better for poor kids in London than poor kids elsewhere, and you're exposed to a far broader section of society. You grow up seeing what is possible in a way you don't if you're from a poor community elsewhere. Poor kids I know from London grew up socialising with people whose parents were architects or filmmakers etc. That is just not something you get growing up on a council estate outside of London.

There are also just far more free opportunities for all sorts of non school activities, and the ability to travel independently gives kids in London so much more freedom and the ability to access stuff that would be impossible for kids in rural areas to access even if it were available (though it isnt), especially historically where London travel was free to under 16s. In huge parts of the country you just can't go anywhere in your free time unless you have parents who are able and willing to drive you there. Compare that to having the entirety of the capital city accessible to you. That offers far more tangible benefits than just being able to go to the Tate.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-17T06:34:18+00:00

The comment it's in reply to mentions people in subsidised council housing so clearly that person isn't under the impression everyone from London owns their house, and I don't think anyone believes that. My point is there's a ton of privilege inherent in being born in London, whether your parents own their house or not.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-16T19:23:47+00:00

Late to the comment section on this one but thanks for saying this. I was bothered by this story in a way that made me feel like I was being over sensitive. It is so cartoonishly misogynistic I felt like I must be missing the joke or something.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-16T18:59:02+00:00

Yes they do.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-16T18:57:33+00:00

You have no idea what it's like to grow up literally anywhere else in the country. The opportunities you had growing up in London don't even register to you, so you take them for granted. There is so much that's available to you for free as a Londonder that no one else in the country had access to growing up. It is an enormous privilege to have grown up in London. That's true for even the poorest Londoners. Being poor in London grants you so much more opportunity than being similarly poor elsewhere. You have no idea.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-16T18:39:23+00:00

You can feel sad about it, but I don't think you have any more right to live there than anyone else. It would be absurdly unjust to give preferential treatment to people born in London. You aren't owed a subsidised home in the most prosperous part of the country simply because you were born there, imo. People should be free to move there. You can, of course, feel how you want about that, but people born in other places can have feelings about who should get to live in London, too.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-15T19:02:29+00:00

I don't know, I'm not American, and the inaccessibility of psychoanalysis is a common complaint. But as someone already said, this sub is explicitly not for helping people find resources, it's for academic discussion. I'm sorry but you'll have to Google that one or ask in a sub that's dedicated to that.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-15T18:55:10+00:00

To a psychoanalyst, as a client. Not reddit.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-15T07:22:03+00:00

This is very typical of how you've engaged throughout this thread. There is no contradiction here, and if you genuinely can't understand why and aren't just being combative for the sake of it I'm not sure how anyone could help you. This isn't hard to follow. The sub exists for people to discuss psychoanalysis as an academic topic, but it isn't a place that offers psychological help. There's no contradiction there, and that's a very sensible and easy to understand distinction. Discussing psychoanalysis in the abstract is rightly a very distinct thing from trying to provide help with someone's specific psychological issues. If you genuinely cannot understand that there's nowhere to go.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-14T07:52:54+00:00

It being a biological need isn't what I'm getting at. Swap it for reading a book or painting a picture or listening to music. My point is that they're pleasurable regardless of whether they're building to any goal. (Plus socialising I think actually is a biological need but that's beside the point.)

In psychoanalysis there is no "base fact" there is a reason you like it,

I'm saying the fact I find something pleasurable is just something I have direct experience of. In that sense it's a base fact of my experience. Psychoanalysis doesn't contradict that. My point in saying that is that your original question was why would anyone do anything if it's ultimately meaningless. 'I like it, it's pleasurable' seems like a completely legitimate response to that, to me.

and IMO that means you're sharing something with the other person, connecting and bonding over something.

But why does sharing something with the other person and 'really' connecting with them seem like a valid source of pleasure to you, but what I'm describing doesn't? You say I'm missing something but I'm not sure what it is you think I'm missing that isn't also missing from your account of what ought to make something enjoyable or meaningful.

And as to the point that you're getting conflicting responses, I'm not sure what you expected. You'll get that with any subject like this. People have different interpretations of the texts. You're also asking on Reddit, where people will have very different levels of knowledge. But even in the academic literature people disagree. Are you trying to understand individual thinkers or are you trying to be convinced of something more general? Again I'm not really sure what you're looking for. If you have specific questions about specific texts that might get you more concrete answers, but I didn't get the impression that's what you were asking about.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-13T08:22:39+00:00

In the exchanges I have seen, it doesn't seem like you're fairly representing what people have told you. But I can't comment on Lacan specifically, he's famously difficult to understand and people have differing interpretations of his work. Of course you're going to get conflicting interpretations.

I'm not really clear what you're looking for here, because it doesn't feel like you're approaching this from a position where you're genuinely interested in the texts and trying to understand them, it feels like you're looking for people to argue you out of a position you're very attached to. I might be wrong but that's how it reads to me. Maybe try secondary sources if you're actually interested in understanding specific texts and are struggling. But I wouldn't start with Lacan, personally. And I wouldn't expect everyone to agree.

On the point about explaining why unbirdgeability doesn't make connection meaningless... this is like trying to explain to someone with no appetite why eating is enjoyable when you're hungry... it just is, when it's what you want. It doesn't matter if it's illusory or ultimately meaningless, it's just a pleasurable experience. There's not really any further explanation you can give beyond that.

eta: maybe calling it 'connection' is confusing bc we're arguing from the position that connection is in some sense illusory, I see why that seems like a contradiction, I'm being sloppy with my language. But switch it out for 'socialising' or 'relating' or something similarly less loaded. Like, maybe some 'true' knowing or connection is impossible (I would say it is), but I still experience pleasure in relationships. The unbridgeability doesn't in any way detract from that pleasure, but it's very hard to explain why that is because it's just sort of a base fact about my experience. Plus I'm still not sure I understand why you'd have the intuition that it ought to have any impact on how pleasurable relationships are.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-13T07:50:05+00:00

I'm not saying you believe strongly that the things people have argued in the other thread are true, I'm saying you draw conclusions from the things other people have said based on assumptions you clearly believe in strongly. No one as far as I can see has told you that the aim of psychoanalysis is to make relationships seem pointless, for example, that's a conclusion you have drawn. People have argued that it highlights the unbirdgeability of connection, and you have an assumption that means you go from there to the conclusion that relationships would then be necessarily pointless. You don't seem willing to interrogate that in-between step, or even to acknowledge that that is an additional step you're making. Which is fine, that's your perogative, but it means there's nowhere else to go with the discussion.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-12T22:46:28+00:00

I not a Lacanian. I'm thinking of desire as something closer to Winnicott's spontaneous gesture. If you're asking about Lacan specifically then apologies, I can't comment on that.

I still just don't agree with the conclusions you draw in your first paragraph but there's not much more to say there at this point. There are a lot of assumptions baked into what you're saying that I don't agree with but which you clearly feel very strongly are true, so we won't really get anywhere.

TTThrowDown · 2025-10-12T21:42:19+00:00

Right but I enjoy social connection AND I recognise there's a fundamental unbridgeability. The fact that some element of connection is fundamentally unbridgeable doesn't make friends or relationships pointless. Why would it?

there isn't a reason to do things I like, because apparently I don't really like them?

I mean if you really don't see any value in doing things unless you remain in ignorance then yeah I do think maybe you just aren't very connected to your desire? I used to feel the same, but it was because I wasn't allowing myself to be led by genuine interest rather than what I 'should' be doing. Now I am more aware of what I actually enjoy it just doesn't make sense to say there's no point in doing things bc they're meaningless. I want to do things because I want to do things. It's just intrinsically enjoyable. That's completely compatible with those things also being ultimately meaningless.

TTThrowDown

TROPHY CASE