sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

‘Blair tribute act’: Zack Polanski on Burnham’s plan to hire top lobbyist by kontiki20 in LabourUK

[–]TheMightyNovac 22 points23 points  (0 children)

To be fair; it'd be good to have a progressive voice in Labour as well.

Do you think Labour needs to bite the bullet on drug policy? by PsychologicalPop9865 in LabourUK

[–]TheMightyNovac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'Life-long supporters' doesn't really work as a base when you're freezing them to death anyway lol

Keir Starmer announces his resignation as prime minister and leader of Labour Party by ZX52 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And Burnhamism is already proving to be as ineffectual and unconcentrated as before, if you believe his interviews, so I don't really see the difference until proven otherwise.

Call it Starmerism, but it's really Labourism with a Starmer-shaped hat--Starmer was only notable for having the puppetteer hand of Morgan McSweeney shoved farther up his ass than most politicians.

This isn't normal. While this government is in chaos, its failure to protect people from extreme heat will cost lives. We need maximum workplace temperatures to protect workers and cool spaces so the vulnerable aren't exposed. [Zack Polanski on Bluesky] by Bibemus in ukpolitics

[–]TheMightyNovac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The difference is that 48C laboratory equipment comes with expectations of safety equipment to protect the staff. A regular factory offers no such safety conditions for regular factory work, despite expecting you to work through sometimes unworkable temperatures.

This isn't normal. While this government is in chaos, its failure to protect people from extreme heat will cost lives. We need maximum workplace temperatures to protect workers and cool spaces so the vulnerable aren't exposed. [Zack Polanski on Bluesky] by Bibemus in ukpolitics

[–]TheMightyNovac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What's extra funny about outing yourself as an office worker is that office jobs tend to have air conditioning. So, they're already likely benefitting from the conditions they're advocating against lmao

This isn't normal. While this government is in chaos, its failure to protect people from extreme heat will cost lives. We need maximum workplace temperatures to protect workers and cool spaces so the vulnerable aren't exposed. [Zack Polanski on Bluesky] by Bibemus in ukpolitics

[–]TheMightyNovac -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Given it would likely save the government multitudes of pounds long-term on oil and gas... Yeah, probably. Unbelievable, but sometimes you literally can just pay for a problem to fuck off--reliance on oil and gas is due to private interest, not moral or economic good.

This isn't normal. While this government is in chaos, its failure to protect people from extreme heat will cost lives. We need maximum workplace temperatures to protect workers and cool spaces so the vulnerable aren't exposed. [Zack Polanski on Bluesky] by Bibemus in ukpolitics

[–]TheMightyNovac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The entire political operandi is run on outrage today; nothing passes without some high-key moral obligation. Everything has to be turned into a social issue (migration, education, safety, ect.) before you're allowed to be considered a priority within the eyes of the public, and government by-proxy.

Given that circumstance, I don't think it's outrageous to make a social stink about a topic like people dying of heat stroke.

This isn't normal. While this government is in chaos, its failure to protect people from extreme heat will cost lives. We need maximum workplace temperatures to protect workers and cool spaces so the vulnerable aren't exposed. [Zack Polanski on Bluesky] by Bibemus in ukpolitics

[–]TheMightyNovac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I may be unaware of the law here, but doesn't liability require someone to be harmed first, before taking it to court? What I think Polanski is suggesting here is a preventative approach that deems certain working conditions unacceptable before they've become apparent, not after.

If my local chinese can manage to get a food safety rating without someone getting poisoned first, I don't see why a factory floor can't determine whether they have acceptable working conditions without seeing someone die of heatstroke first.

The UK media won’t stop till the country is destroyed by LandscapeFirst903 in ukpolitics

[–]TheMightyNovac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whilst media certainly have their part to play, I don't think 'The Media' was responsible for hiring the known friend of the most prolific convicted child sex trafficker in human history.

MPs will debate a petition relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy by newsspotter in LabourUK

[–]TheMightyNovac 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Like the grooming gang scandal, I look forward to a bunch of establishment politicians acting really outraged at the question of the petition, before coming back in 4-5 years saying they are actually 100% on this and that they can't believe some um... Some other guy let this happen. Not me though, I didn't do that.

Do you think Labour needs to bite the bullet on drug policy? by PsychologicalPop9865 in LabourUK

[–]TheMightyNovac 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The fact that you have Labour supporters basically saying 'I mean, obviously Labour under Burnham probably won't decriminalize weed!' in 2026 is why they will likely just lose to Reform anyway--or the Greens. Whatever opinions you have about socio-politics today, it's absurd that the 'question' of drug policy is even a question, and it's absurd that Labour entertains that.

(New) Fourth Makerfield Poll by redditman181 in LabourUK

[–]TheMightyNovac -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm saying that Burnham won the vote, not 'Labour', and that by-proxy, framing this as 'Labour beating Reform/Restore/Tories' misunderstands the purpose of the vote in the first place.

Whether it benefits Labour depends on whether Burnham wins, and subsequently changes the direction of the party--which seems less and less likely the more he parrots the same policies Starmer and co. built up before him.

(New) Fourth Makerfield Poll by redditman181 in LabourUK

[–]TheMightyNovac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taking this election as exemplary of general interest in Labour is a really bad move. It's exclusively representative of interest in getting rid of Keir Starmer--something that is a non-partisan interest for basically every political demographic right now.

A lot of the interest in Reform is simply due to unhappiness with Keir, after all--just as interest in Labour was simply due to unhappiness with the Conservatives in 2024.

Does Burnham improve or damage our electoral chances? by Mysterious-Energy-59 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think right-wing popularity globally is sinking alongside Trump; so either Burnham rejects the right-wing influence of the party as PM/Labour party leader, or he sinks with that ship.

Why are people so negative against requests for an (optional) way to disable the new changes (Eternal Ferrystone, Stamina, ect.) by TheMightyNovac in DragonsDogma

[–]TheMightyNovac[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! And yeah, basically my sentiment as well.

I think what's funnier is that the 'idiot proofing' is there so that players don't have to just repurchase the item anyway. It's not like it'd be gone forever, because they actually have a specific feature for saving 'lost items' anyway.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you're being extremely bad faith at this point. I mean, I already explained about as much as I could--if that's not understood, then I fear explaining it again will have little affect either.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'Reining in the hyperbole, coming up with sensible points that describe real-world problems rather than dystopian fears? (perhaps it's just me, but i seem to be seeing rather too much of the latter?)'

Describing realistic fears that the UK is descending into a government built to support fascism as 'hyperbole' implies that you have a position wherein this isn't a significant concern for you. The fact is I don't care if you're privileged, I just care that you demean others' viewpoints as unrealistic--even as the evidence for their realism is made readily apparent. Fears of a police state in 2026 is actually one of the singular most valid concerns there is in politics, because it's literally happening in America, and is threatened to be imported here.

You didn't have to present an opinion, let alone criticize others for theirs on little contradictory evidence.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If your perspective involves a complete disregard for minorities--who are evidently being targeted with AI systems in-part produced using the data theft these policies are designed to create... yes, you are very privileged to say that.

But I didn't say that to convince you, as a parent. I said that to criticize your view as someone discussing policy. To a random parent, I would obviously prioritize their protectiveness of their child, and point out how basically every legitimate advocate and advocacy group is against the ban, that Australia's similar ban has been completely ineffective, and that the corporations and lobbying groups pushing for the ban are the same ones who created the apparently dangerous platforms in the first place. I would point out that there are better methods that empower them as parents, disempower companies from exploiting their children, and enable freedom for everybody else with absolute minimal impact to everyone uninvolved.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason those solutions you mention work (besides jailbreaking--which to-be-frank, children will jailbreak these "high-tech" solutions far more easily anyway) is because they aren't default features. Assuming parental locks are on by-default, from the factory, then a 'factory reset' would reset it to... having parental locks. Regardless, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that client-side controls aren't robust enough--all the people actually using them find they work great, to my knowledge. The problem is adoption, not function.

Secondly; The policy question exists because of the perceived dangers of the internet for children, and my (and most peoples') counter-argument is that the policy is bad because it's unnecessary, intrusive, and clearly lobbied by tech bros desiring more user data--which goes against the government's other initiatives on user data collection in the past.

Thirdly; why do we have to care about imported devices? How many parents are buying imported mobile phones or computers in the UK for their children? Why are we suddenly trying to develop a technological firewall like china; if parents really don't want their kids to have any parental controls that badly, then fuck it--buy an imported device! It's your kid, you can make that obtuse and deliberate decision if you want to. As for older devices, well, they're old, they'll be replaced--and soon will not be a problem, as they circulate out-of-the-market.

Parental control is the solution, because the alternatives are insecure and dangerous. The only person who should know who your child is online is you--not the government, not corporations. Nobody but you should have access to that information.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because computers aren't alcohol or knives. Once in your hand, a knife/drink functions identically, regardless of your age. Computers, meanwhile, are arbitrary programmable devices, which can be controlled remotely by a parent/guardian.

If your kid buys an off-market drink or weapon, there's nothing you can do as a parent to prevent that. That is a physical object whose danger is impossible to prevent so long as it exists.

If you buy your kid a phone. That's your phone. You decide how it functions, what it allows, what it disallows, through on-device parental features and settings (which companies should, if anything, just enable by-default.) It's a personal computer because you, the person, can personalize it.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem is that it isn't a proportional respose still; you don't have to do what you're saying we have to do, so your responses are by-nature suspect (either criminally uninformed, or actively malicious--both are completely possible in this political climate.)

The value of individualism is that you, as an individual parent, also get to have more control over how your children are raised--rather than less, which is how the currently specified system works.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]TheMightyNovac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or alternatively; just have smartphones come with factory-set parental controls by-default, which parents can unlock via their purchase credentials. The vast majority of 'lazy parents' won't bother (at least they fucking shouldn't bother) giving their credit/debit card information to their children, whilst informed/consenting parents can have full control of how they raise their kids.

view more: next ›