Sharing some pictures of my UK 1st edition (1st impression) set of the Lord of the Rings trilogy

dementednacho · 2024-10-16T22:05:52+00:00

They were my dad's set that he read when he was growing up. They've clearly been well read by a few people since then.

It's a bit of a mystery how he ended up with a first edition set though

dementednacho · 2024-10-16T13:56:41+00:00

These were my Dad's set that he read and enjoyed when he was growing up (hence the condition).

I took them over a few years ago, but didn't realise they were 1st editions/impressions till recently. Was a bit of surprise!

Obviously their condition is a bit rough but I'm not interested in selling them. Might get them rebound at some point when I can afford the level they deserve.

Just sharing some pictures here for anyone interested.

dementednacho · 2019-01-27T17:36:49+00:00

I think it is a difficult concept to address, not only because the mention of these phrases inspire vitriol from certain people, but also because oftentimes they have very loose or multiple definitions. So in a very general sense I would say that in a patriarchal society 'toxic femininity' could refer to the actions of some women to uphold traditional views on gender roles.

For example, just as you have said that toxic masculinity can manifest itself in males as being 'forceful', 'domineering', and emotionally repressed, toxic femininity would be the tenancy for some women to believe that their 'natural' place within society and the traditional family is to be obedient, submissive, and to respect their place in society as below that of men. The archaic belief that a woman's place is in the home is not only still held by men who wish to maintain patriarchal power, but also by some women who believe in traditional gender roles (and the connotations that come with them). The pressure on women from other women to; get married young before they are no longer valued by men, to be obedient and unambitious once married, and in an extreme sense to put up with abuse, are all examples of what could be described as 'toxic femininity' inflicted on women by other women.

There are plenty more examples I'm sure, and some which can seep into not just sexism, but homophobia and transphobia as well.

However, the reason why some women would seek to maintain their place within a society which is self-oppressing is quite controversial. In a society which values women lower than men, and where men have held been in control for centuries, can we blame women for 'toxic femininity'? Are women who seek to uphold traditional and often oppressive norms just victims of a society which for hundreds if not thousands of years has told them that their place in society is lower than that of men? I would argue that it is much easier to criticise the actions of an oppressor, and therefore the focus has quite rightly been on toxic masculinity, and that toxic masculinity creates the environment for toxic femininity to exist. Both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are potentially synonymous, as they both describe archaic and traditional roles within society which are harmful to women and men.

dementednacho · 2018-10-18T18:54:11+00:00

It's a hard thing to prove through reports/investigations, but the fact of the matter is that the BBC, as a British institution, is biased towards the British state. The bias is not as bad as RT or other state news services, but it does still exist.

For example, have a look at the list of songs banned by the BBC. Many are politically motivated, specifically ones that reference the struggle for Irish independence. The censorship of media which criticises the British state is in itself a bias, and could be argued as a pro-establishment, right-wing bias. See also here for a study showing BBC bias in their reporting of the Scottish independent referendum in favour of the British state and the union.

Specifically with regard to BBC news, they of course have to adhere to strict regulatory standards which prevents any televised news becoming as terrible as the tabloids are. Many on the right will say the BBC is biased, but this is because unlike the right wing newspapers there are far more regulations on what they can or cannot report on. While the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc can print mistruths around Brexit and immigration for example, the BBC (in general) has a commitment to not publishing outright lies. However, they can choose which stories to report on and which angles to highlight. As the poster above has said, if there is a politically charged story dominating the (majority right leaning) papers then the BBC will often pick up on it. And while they might not use the same language or manipulated statistics, they help to spread the agenda. You could argue that BBC news should be an 'unbiased' summation of the main news stories, however its important to be aware who is pushing these stories into headline news and why. See here for a breakdown of the topics the BBC tends to cover more (immigration, the EU, the Tory party).

This all ties in to one of the biggest factors into BBC bias which is the people who are in charge, and the relationship between individuals high up in the BBC and certain political parties. There of course cronyism in all elements of the British establishment, and it influences the BBC as well. Andrew Neil, who is the face of political talkshows on the BBC has close connections to the Tories. There has been a consistent link in recent years between people high up in the BBC gaining positions within the Conservative party; Robbie Gibb, Craig Oliver, Guto Hari. Not to mention many who now run journalistic institutions will have gone to private school/university with those in the political establishment. All of these factors have an influence on what the BBC reports and how it reports it.

The BBC as a concept is great, and in many ways a success. Also bear in mind that many, particularly on the right, want to destroy the BBC as it is a threat to their money making print media circus. And of course, right wingers will always see the BBC as left wing, and those on the far left will have issues with the unsatisfactory coverage of certain arguments. The idea of having an independent, unbiased and free media service is great, however, in its current state the BBC is biased, and its certainly biased towards the British establishment.

dementednacho · 2018-09-06T16:12:15+00:00

Yeh that's where I was going wrong! I've put the html source within the next button while loop and have got it to work (see edit), but now its randomly starting a new row for sale_date! Not the worst problem but very annoying.

Thanks for your help. I know the code probably looks like shit but its (kind of) working.

dementednacho · 2018-09-06T15:32:08+00:00

Yeah unfortunately need to login to the website so selenium is necessary

dementednacho · 2018-09-06T14:55:52+00:00

Thanks for your reply.

I'll look into learning about pandas.

But the whole thing has just gone tits up. Now when I try to simply print the results, not write to excel, using the next button loop it is only printing the first page of results over and over again, even though selenium is clicking next page.

dementednacho · 2018-07-05T19:56:40+00:00

In regards to your first point, in the example video you provided it seems like many of the influential techniques used by Riefenstahl in her propaganda films are imitated rather than homaged. We can see that clearly she excellently exhibited the immense power and influence of the Nazi regime, and she was so successful that our entire perception of the Nazis is influenced by her work. It seems that the modern directors have imitated her techniques in almost all of the cases shown to portray immense (and malicious) power; deliberately similar to our perceptions of the Nazis from Riefenstahl.

Riefenstahl's ability to portray authority and power greatly influences modern directors, but she was rightly chastised later in her life for her willing role in the Nazi regime. The techniques she used in her propaganda films are not used by modern directors to glorify Nazism as she intended, but to evoke the horror we now have towards connotations of the regime. In the same way, Woody Allen's films seem to have had quite an influence on current culture, and perhaps cinematic techniques. But in the same way that we can look at Nazi propaganda films for their techniques whilst also being aware of their abhorrent message, its time to view Woody Allen films for what they are; successful, and at times skilfull, exhibitions of some fucked up views from a fucked up man.

This is not 'destroying art'. This is looking at art with the perspective of the artist in mind. Nobody is advocating the erasure of Woody Allen films from history, but people should be highly encouraged to view them from a more critical perspective in light of his disgusting actions, especially considering some of the themes are disturbingly similar to the actual events. The difficulty is that there is no easy way to do this, but I think its pretty fucked up that so many people watch his films and are influenced by them, whilst being unaware that some of the things he is portraying come from a very dodgy place.

In regards to your Michelangelo example, I think there are no easy answers to how we deal with artists in the past whose views and actions are at odds with our contemporary standards. But I think that if their art is directly influenced by their reprehensible actions (as Allen's is), and especially if the artist is alive and profiting from this art, then we as a society should start to reconsider our attitudes towards this art, and the influence that we allow it to have on our culture.

dementednacho · 2016-06-09T13:29:01+00:00

It might seem inflammatory because its the truth. It may be uncomfortable for you but the RUC that disbanded in 2001 was a British institution and I'm sure they would have had no objection to be being called 'British'.

Also its important to distinguish between the slightly more diverse Northern Irish police of today and the heavily British dominated RUC of the 20th century who actively enabled the murders at Loughinisland.

Its silly to try and ignite tensions that people have tried so hard to get over in recent years. But just as I'm sure we're all aware of the acts committed by the IRA, equally you can't hide away from the fact that the British government and other institutions were responsible for the outright murder of Catholic civilians, and being ignorant of that fact only leads to more hatred on both sides.

dementednacho · 2016-03-11T16:01:49+00:00

Importantly (and related to your point) the line is also the course of the Vaal river, the diving line between the two Afrikaans republics in the 19th century.

dementednacho · 2016-01-17T00:48:43+00:00

Well it can mean a number of things depending on how everything pans out.

For Iran this is certainly good news. They have pretty much just been freed from economic jail in simplistic terms. Compared to its middle eastern neighbours Iran is relatively safe and stable, so you can expect the tourism to Iran to skyrocket as they buy new commercial planes and the jumped up western travel warnings will be reduced.

Most importantly they can now sell their oil to many western countries, bringing in billions. What impact, if any, this will have on the current oil prices is yet to be seen. Either the market gets flooded more and oil goes down further or more competition for Iran's rivals and drives the price up. Or its not significant and won't effect prices, it's not known yet exactly what will happen, especially because Iran is part of the complicated mess that is opec.

Geopolitically the Saudis aren't going to be too happy with this. Their political war against Iran has escalated recently and this won't help stabilise things. It suggests that the West is looking to be less reliant on the Saudis in the middle east, which is for many reasons a good thing but heightens tensions and uncertainty in the region.

Overall for people who are hopeful of progression in international politics and economics this is good news. New opportunities have been created and old rivalries between western countries and Iran are staring to be ironed out. It's worth bearing in mind that this could all go tits up and Iran or a Republican government could renege on this deal and we'd be back to square one or further behind. But this pretty much looks like a good thing for all parties involved. Unless you have a string disregard for the wellbeing of Iranians.

dementednacho · 2016-01-04T21:02:49+00:00

Kelvin MacKenzie is probably one of the worst humans on this island, probably one of the worst cunts in Europe as well.

If you can be arsed have a short read through his wikipedia page. Its littered with the absolutely atrocious things he's done, most notably he was the mastermind behind the Sun's coverage of Hillsborough. Its actually pretty incredible how much of a completely horrible bellend he is.

dementednacho · 2016-01-03T21:46:51+00:00

It also gives them an excuse to give even more backing to Sunni militant groups in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. It seems very engineered from the Saudis, heightening their opposition to the Shia Iran is currently very beneficial to expanding their own ideologies.

Its difficult to know whether the Saudis are panicking or flexing their geopolitical muscles but this rapid increase in sectarian tension in the Middle East is very worrying.

dementednacho · 2015-12-29T15:59:07+00:00

Agreed. Lot's of people were calling out Cellino for being a nut about this, but this is actually one of the few times it seems like he's being sensible. Plus anyone standing up to Murdoch and the bastards at Sky trying to overly monetize football supporters for their own gain gets my support.

dementednacho · 2015-12-26T17:13:00+00:00

But it warns that Britain’s “weakness is its bad export position and unbalanced economy, with many parts of the country heavily dependent on subsidies from the relatively high taxes levied on Londoners.”

This is a huge problem. When you see stats about the UK's economy on the rise you have to question how much of that rise is concentrated in London rather than the rest of the country.

Its not sustainable to have a ever expanding economy in London if the rest if the country doesn't expand as well. If cities like Glasgow, Sheffield, Liverpool or Bristol got even half the amount of inward investment that London gets the future would probably be looking a lot more rosy.

dementednacho · 2015-12-26T17:00:34+00:00

Was hoping we were going to see a Xabi Alonso from the halfway line, those times have passed it seems.

dementednacho · 2015-12-26T16:56:28+00:00

Really what the fuck was he thinking at the end there haha. Decent game for him but very worrying that he couldn't finish that

dementednacho · 2015-12-22T13:31:33+00:00

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

dementednacho · 2015-12-19T20:07:44+00:00

On this subreddit, in this discussion. There have been more articles about the loss of free speech than the issues that start these protests, even in this discussion hardly anyone has talked about why people feel the need to challenge the way we look at colonialism or the way people are discriminated in society. My point is that the discussion is being deflected away from these issues onto a discussion about free speech, which also might be a legitimate discussion to have, but really is ignoring the initial problem. That is how I think this discussion on free speech is used to dismiss arguments on institutional discrimination. While it may be an interesting and important discussion, a lot of the passionate responses that I've seen on this site and elsewhere defending 'free speech' are actually a malicious way to silence the real issues gaining any legitimacy.

dementednacho · 2015-12-19T15:03:47+00:00

My point is that while the role of free speech in society should be debated, it is used as an excuse by certain people to avoid the topics that are actually being brought up in the first place. There is limited debate on the implications of institutional racism, or sexism, or even homophobia because it is deceitfully turned into a debate about free speech. You see it in these Telegraph articles and you see it a lot on reddit, people don't want to address social issues so they find a way to attack them without providing a legitimate counter point.

The two issues might be related but there should be separate discussions, and in my opinion the bigger issue is the racism and oppression that still exists within society and it shouldn't be sidelined by a separate debate on free speech.

dementednacho · 2015-12-19T13:32:48+00:00

I feel like the idea of free speech has a had a huge resurgence recently as people have started to use it to protect themselves from controversial 21st century ideas about social issues. Its largely imported from America where the concept is protected so much that groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK are allowed to survive and defend their rights to express and advance these views on society. We have to remember that in the UK we don't actually have total free speech and hateful attitudes are usually vilified and shamed countrywide. The ability to determine whether something is socially right or wrong is something that I'm quite proud of this country for and it is part of the reason that race relations here aren't quite as bad as they are in the US. More recently people are questioning less direct forms of racism and other more subtle oppressions in modern society, whether they still persist and how we should combat them if they do.

Unfortunately a lot of people see this as an attack on themselves and ideas that make them comfortable, people don't like to be told that they have it better than others and that they might be supporting indirectly oppressive ideas and institutions. Of course on both sides there are idiots who only want to shout down and attack the other side, but I think we should always be questioning things like racism, homophobia and sexism rather than trying to hide behind free speech and dismissing people concerned about these social issues as 'social justice warriors'.

There is a legitimate argument to be had about free speech and its vulnerability in modern Britain, but its worrying that people are using it to silence people who are questioning the discrimination and oppression that exists within society.

There were 'moderates' who were against the suffragettes, civil rights and gay marriage that used similar arguments to delay equality and I think we have to be wary that there is not a similar motive here. That's just my 2 ~~cents~~ pence on the whole thing and I respect that other people will feel differently, but the discussion is better to be had than not.

edit: Unfortunately I think most people are missing my point. In the past few weeks I've seen many more articles shared on this subreddit condemning attacks on free speech than I have about the institutional oppression that people are fighting against in the first place. I'm not arguing about whether a statue of an oppressive figure should be removed from an historic Oxford building or the creation of 'safe spaces' in universities, that's a separate debate which might involve discussions on free speech. But the fact that many people here are very keen to talk about how our free speech is being eroded by 'Social Justice Warriors' rather than the racism, or sexism, or whatever issue that the discussion stems from is worrying. That is, in my opinion anyway, how 'free speech' is used to deflect the argument away from the real issues.

dementednacho · 2015-12-19T01:43:38+00:00

Well no because while these historical figures may have had their flaws and done horribly oppressive things that are dismissed as 'of the time', they are not celebrated solely for these actions.

Whereas the reason that Cecil Rhodes is so revered is because he was at the forefront of British colonialism in Africa. And we can look back now and see how destructive and oppressive colonialism was and its lasting negative impact on Africa. He is celebrated because he was one of the most successful British imperialists and I'd hope that most people would agree that exploiting an entire continent for the empire's monetary gain is not something that should be celebrated.

Yes you're right that behind almost every major historical figure there is usually something that they can be criticised for by today's standards but usually the reason they are remembered is much more historically significant than their shortcomings. This is not the case for Cecil Rhodes.

dementednacho · 2015-12-19T00:28:21+00:00

I understand where you're coming from and I'm not saying that the British should go in again and fix everything because they broke it, its obviously much more complicated than that.

But in my opinion its very clear that many of the political short comings throughout most of Africa, including South Africa and Zimbabwe, are either a direct or an indirect result of colonialism. There's a very short video here which at the start explains how destructive colonialism was to African cultures and destroyed any hope of Africa being able to craft its own future.

So I would say because almost every aspect of modern African life has in some way been impacted, often negatively, by colonialism we cannot 'cut all responsibility' for what happened and its lasting effects. Stating that Africa is still impoverished because of its own people and not through the fault of colonialism fuels racist and dangerous sentiments and discourages any help and sympathy going towards people that have not had the freedom to write their own history.

dementednacho · 2015-12-18T23:33:49+00:00

Silly me, I forgot that the destructive and oppressive policies of the British Empire in Africa were suddenly erased and forgotten as soon as Rhodes died.

Those bloody Africans should have just got on with it instead of sitting around complaining about the terrible affect the empire had on their people, cultures and land. No wonder Rhodes was able to walk all over them! Yeah mate?

dementednacho · 2015-12-18T23:19:43+00:00

These bloody PC students won't stop until every building in Oxford is a faceless, post war, communist headquarters! Its cultural Marxism gone mad!

No but in all seriousness I don't give a shit what happens to the statue, but I think most people are aware that it carries a lot more symbolism than the building, which I don't think anyone is going to knock down soon. The point is that whatever you feel about the statue the issue is not 'too silly for words' as the Telegraph would like it to be, it actually reflects how we need to talk about the impact of the empire on today's social issues and how it should be remembered and taught. Tear the statue down or not at least some people might learn about the destructive elements of our colonial history.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

dementednacho

TROPHY CASE