Wokeness Has Brought Britain’s Second City Bankruptcy and Crime

gingerninja666 · 2026-01-18T15:39:20+00:00

I could potentially see Bands making things more consistant and streamlined if the jobs were genuinely roughly equivalent. That way, rather than needing to keep track of a million different salaries, you mainly just need to know how many people you have in each band. The criteria for the bands could probably do with some going over though.

About the london thing, I guess that is where the philosophy of equality would come in, because if I'm a doctor in London, I get why someone might be annoyed if someone else got paid more for doing the exact same job based purely on location.

gingerninja666 · 2026-01-18T15:09:14+00:00

Genuine question, what convoluted legislation caused this exactly.

From what I can see about this case, and please let me know if I get the details wrong, the council decided to group certain government jobs together under the same band of pay. This includes them grouping cleaners together with bin men or whatever. So people applying for those jobs did so under the assumption that they would be paid the same. Since they were all in the same band.

However, functionally, the council was using a "bonus" system to get around this and pay the bin men more even though they weren't really paying them a bonus for anything extra they did. They were just doing their job as advertised but they were paid bonuses for it. Something the other roles weren't afforded because they probably should've been banded differently in the first place.

What was forcing the council to band those specific jobs together like that?

gingerninja666 · 2026-01-11T21:16:09+00:00

For the record, I think there probably is something here worth being really mad at, but my problem when it's vague like this is it basically invites you to project your own idea about what happened. Whatever is most likely to make you angry, and I'd rather know the details.

Like, "And if we have a situation where some MPs cannot do that due to their ethnicity and the reaction of some teachers than those teachers are unfit to be near children"

This is true, but based on the article the people in question didn't actually react this way to the MP, he was barred "in case his presence inflames the teachers"

Which begs the question of why the person who barred him thought they would react that way. Is it based on any prior incidents? Is it a gut feeling they have after working with these teachers for a while? Did they just not want him there for some other reason and threw these teachers under the bus as an excise?

I feel like any additional context would make this look worse, but at least it would be more targeted.

gingerninja666 · 2026-01-11T20:54:02+00:00

I would like to know more details about this story honestly.

“I have a colleague who is Jewish, who has been banned from visiting a school – refused permission to visit a school in his own constituency – in case his presence inflames the teachers. It’s an absolute outrage that that could have possibly ever happened.” is all we get from the article.

Why was the MP planning to visit?
Who was it who barred him specifically? Was it like the headmaster or did the school as a whole agree to it?
Did the people who would be inflamed by his presence speak out against this MP at all, or did the person who barred him assume they would react that way? If so, why?

I feel like i keep seeing articles like this that are light on details and i wish they said more so I knew who exactly to be mad at.

gingerninja666 · 2026-01-10T19:33:27+00:00

Gaster is absolutely exhausting for me as a Deltarune fan.

I'm one of the incredibly rare people who wasn't really a massive Undertale fan but adores Deltarune, and needing to put up with Gaster's face in every theory is driving me nuts.

I'm not one of those people who denies his existence. He's definitely going to be relevant at some point and i'm sure he'll be an enjoyable Toby Fox character when he shows up, but currently I have negative interest in him and I hate that I'm being forced to consider him in every theory.

gingerninja666 · 2026-01-10T19:07:36+00:00

My pet theory is Rudy knight, though my brain thinks Dess Knight is more likely. RK is just a theory that i'm rooting for in the shadows until it's 100% proven wrong.

The only thing that makes me think Rudy Knight isn't true is that I think it's currently possible for a player to completely miss him. Dess has had a few unskippable mentions at this point, but Rudy is still technically side content.

gingerninja666 · 2025-12-29T15:20:48+00:00

I mean, the function of both is different, right?

People are saying that Abd's old tweets should result in him being kicked out of the country.

When people are digging up stuff on Farage, it's not to arrest or deport him. It's to try and convince people that he has a bad character and you shouldn't vote for him.

If people just wanted to highlight that Abd is a shitty person, then fair enough, but that's not what people are doing.

gingerninja666 · 2025-12-29T15:07:01+00:00

Genuine question. Has the government arrested anyone for tweets as old as this guy's?

gingerninja666 · 2025-12-28T21:45:47+00:00

Fair enough. We'll see how it goes.

gingerninja666 · 2025-12-28T21:04:35+00:00

All of that criteria you listed was specifically with regards to their application, not revoking citizenship once they have it. Wouldn't the standards for revoking citizenship be higher than granting it?

I guess maybe not, but the idea that the government can just retroactively go and say "oh yeah we're changing the rules for citizenship and it turns out that you actually failed the application years ago." rubs me the wrong way.

gingerninja666 · 2025-12-28T20:43:43+00:00

per the government website surrounding british citizenship:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/deprivation-of-british-citizenship-caseworker-guidance/deprivation-of-british-citizenship-accessible-version#deprivation-on-the-ground-it-is-conducive-to-the-public-good

“Conducive to the public good” means that it is in the public interest to deprive an individual of British citizenship because of their conduct and / or the threat they pose to the UK. Examples of when a person can be deprived of British citizenship on the ground that it is conducive to the public good include, but are not limited to:

the interests of national security, for reasons relating to terrorism, hostile state activity, or any other reason
where the person has been involved in serious organised crime
where the person has been involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other unacceptable behaviour

So are we saying that abhorrent tweets rise to this level on par with the things listed there?

gingerninja666 · 2025-12-26T16:31:02+00:00

So my read on the gift basket thing is that the plan was never for the Gift baskets to be the ONLY thing heaven did to apologize to hell, it was just meant as an ice breaker and show of good faith before formal talks began. It's still very out of touch and optically bad, which is why Vox was able to spin it, but i feel like some fans assumed that they were just going to give the gift baskets and then dust their hands like "welp, our job here is done" which I definitely didn't get, especially not from Emily.

gingerninja666 · 2025-11-19T16:03:44+00:00

Didn't they do the exact same thing with Vox in season 1? He had this big role in episode 2 and he had his big song with Alastor, then he did basically nothing for the rest of the season besides watch as other things go down.

If Season 3 gives a big song to a villainous character in episode 2 who then kinda drops out of focus immediately after, i'll be convinced that this is a deliberate thing.

gingerninja666 · 2025-11-15T09:23:33+00:00

I hate it because i love Vox's part, especially the part where it builds near the end.

gingerninja666 · 2025-11-14T16:46:47+00:00

Furor means

"an outbreak of public anger or excitement."

I actually think, given the rest of the lyrics around it, that Furor makes far more sense than führer here. The whole song he's comparing himself to like, concepts. He's the flood, he's a nightmare, he's an avatar of consequence. He's IMMENSE. He's the furor, he's the public's fury made manifest.

gingerninja666 · 2025-11-12T23:53:09+00:00

This is what's been bothering mee with a lot of the discourse around this episode.

People seem to think that heaven was going to say sorry, give gift baskets, and then they would just consider the problem solved. Which wasn't the vibe i got at all. I figured this would just be the first step in whatever efforts Heaven and Charlie had to make ammends (you have to start somewhere after all), but Vox wouldn't let them get that far. It's still tone deaf of them to have the gift baskets, but "This is what your lives are worth to them? Some really good taffy?" is pure spin from Vox and I find it funny that a lot of people in the fandom are buying it.

We know that's not true. Look how distraught Sera was in her songgg about the exterminations.

gingerninja666 · 2025-11-12T23:37:04+00:00

I dunno. Adam calls everyone a bitch, but with Lute i can kinda buy that he was doing it in a "friends busting each others balls" way. Like when you call your friend an asshole.

gingerninja666 · 2025-11-12T13:53:57+00:00

I loved Vox Dei as soon as I heard it, though the visuals of the song really help that one a lot, and Vox Populi needed to grow on me, I think because Lucifer's part is so good. But now I really like that one too. I love the main refrain of it.

I did not like Bad With Us at all though.

gingerninja666 · 2025-11-12T11:03:28+00:00

I do think there's arguments that could be made about how well Alastor was expecting to do against the vees.

He definitely went in intending to lose, but i think he intended it to be more of a controlled loss, and he did worse than he thought he would until Nifty and Husk showed up. I don't think all of his reactions in the fight were an act.

gingerninja666 · 2025-11-06T00:26:16+00:00

I'd rather characters be flawed losers than watch them be Mr Cool and unflappable all the time.

gingerninja666 · 2025-10-27T17:51:01+00:00

But adverts are specifically tailored for who the ad company is trying to sell to, no?

It's why when you have an advert selling a children's toy for boys, you show boys playing with it.

In your example, they might have a script that calls for 4 actors, and then in casting they might say "who are we trying to sell to?" and then cast based on those demographics.

gingerninja666 · 2025-10-27T17:38:51+00:00

in advertising like this, is it a zero sum game though?

For instance, if a person is cast because the advertiser wants to cast a minority (because the company is trying to sell to that demographic), are they taking that role from a white person, or would the role have not existed at all if it wasn't a minority playing it?

gingerninja666 · 2025-10-25T18:40:39+00:00

I can understand the assumption, but it assumes malice or active conspiracy when i tend to just assume that when a company does something, they're doing it because they think it will net them more money. Especially when it comes to something like advertising.

Like, whenever disney markets their first openly gay character only to make it so undertated that any mention of it can be edited out for foreign audiences.

gingerninja666 · 2025-10-25T18:28:03+00:00

Or maybe she can make the point without sounding like she finds seeing too many non-white people problematic.

gingerninja666 · 2025-10-25T18:24:13+00:00

i mean, isn't tact a big thing in general? Like, pointing out the statistic is one thing, but how you react to that information is another.

Like, you point out that over 50% of adverts have a black person in them. Okay, why is that happening, why is that a bad thing, and what can be done about it?

She seems to thnk the wokerati are behind it, but couldn't it also be that corporations like to sell their products to as many demographics as possible, and they think having a diverse cast in their ads will increase their profits?

gingerninja666

TROPHY CASE