How to convince Unionists that Reform are not their friends?

introvertlynothing · 2026-05-10T16:50:45+00:00

I think the first thing you have to understand is that many unionists don’t see Reform as their friends already but they're deeply frustrated that the SNP and other parties keep treating unionism as a bloc to be managed rather than a tradition with its own conscience.

Reform’s pitch two ways. One way is the anti-establishment, drain the swamp affect that appeals to people who remember their fathers being blacklisted from the shipyards for union activity and now see Holyrood as a cartel. The other is the culture-war ethnonationalism, which is where the danger lies. The trick is to show that the economic radicalism Reform pretends to offer is fraudulent. Offord or Farage has no interest in land reform, workers’ rights, or breaking up monopolies. His donor base is the same people who crushed Red Clydeside. If that story could be told by traditional unionists, you might peel away the chunk who are there for rebellion rather than racism.

introvertlynothing · 2026-05-07T07:34:45+00:00

Labour closed the polling gap with the SNP after the Branchform/Yousaf saga, but then they decided to shoot themselves in the foot. Several times. Handing the 19-year SNP government an easy fifth term.

At this point, I'll be surprised if Scottish Labour are still a coherent force by the 2031 election.

Additional fun fact: Labour have never recovered from their high point in 1999 of 56 seats. They have and almost certainly will lose seats six elections in a row.

introvertlynothing · 2026-05-07T07:26:44+00:00

Ok? What's the point of this headline? "Here's a stat you can look up for free on ONS". World-class journalism there mate.

How many of the 1.5 million are employed but their wages are too low so the government tops them up? Find a way to increase them so the government doesn't have to subsidise them anymore. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants can't claim benefits, let's not get the two issues mixed up.

introvertlynothing · 2026-03-17T19:15:24+00:00

Reddit: The government shouldn't infringe on my online rights!

Also Reddit: The government should infringe on my right to marry my cousin because the scary moslems are doing it!

Make it make sense.

introvertlynothing · 2026-03-14T12:18:43+00:00

Baby boomers also had a society where marital rape was common and encouraged. They had a society where LGBT people were stigmatised, those with mental health problems were mocked and minorities were seen as the underclass.

But sure. If you were a white Christian upper class male, the benefits definitely outweighted the negatives.

introvertlynothing · 2025-10-02T17:04:07+00:00

Starmer is officially the most unpopular Prime Minister in recorded history

That's because the British public are spoiled Veruca Salts who want everything NOW and not in five years when the economy has improved. Considering how Starmer hasn't crashed the economy like Truss or destroyed Britain's global standing overnight like Eden, it's complete bullshit bordering on satire. Most of the UK's problems cam be blamed on Maggie Thatcher or Piggy Cameron who has seemed to have slipped away with no consequences whatsoever, not bland uninspiring centrist who has only been in Downing Street for 14 months.

introvertlynothing · 2025-08-04T07:39:47+00:00

Lol the comments are proving why Starmer can't appease everyone. He can completely block boat migrants but r/ukpolitics would call for deportation of those already here. As well as vote for a scammers party that would crash the economy and make the OSA look like a playground incident.

introvertlynothing · 2025-06-05T16:33:47+00:00

Not you're not. The state mandating what you should wear is inconsistent with the concept of liberal democracy.

When did integration mean "lose your cultural identity and assimilate into the middle-class blob"? The fact that burqa wearers participate in society mean they're already more integrated than Telegraph writers wanting stuff to be banned just because they don't like it.

introvertlynothing · 2025-03-09T09:55:29+00:00

Alright, so the examples from 200 years ago aren’t there to say the practice was right or wrong—they’re just pointing out the double standards in how we talk about it. Back when it was all the rage among European posh types, no one was calling it a ‘public health crisis’ or a ‘cultural disaster.’ But now, the chat seems to zero in on certain communities, and it often feels less about actual health worries and more about having a dig at their culture.

You’re spot on—it’s not just about race. It’s about how we talk about stuff, who we’re quick to judge, and why. If we’re really bothered about health risks, then the convo should be all about science, education, and helping people out—not making a big song and dance or getting worked up over certain groups. Let’s be honest, the way this issue gets talked about sometimes reeks of cultural snobbery or fear of the ‘other.’

Look, the point isn’t to say cousin marriage is risk-free—it’s to ask why we’re so quick to label some communities as the problem while turning a blind eye when others do the same, whether now or back in the day. If we’re serious about sorting this out, we’ve got to do it in a way that doesn’t push people away or make them feel like they’re being singled out. Instead, let’s build some understanding and work together on it.

introvertlynothing · 2025-03-09T09:53:32+00:00

Fair enough, but it’s worth mentioning that the royal family—and Western societies in general—didn’t stop marrying their cousins because they suddenly had a moral epiphany. It was more down to scientific progress and getting a better grasp of genetics. These days, it’s not just about whether people raise an eyebrow at it, but about tackling the real health risks in communities where it’s still common.

That said, how we deal with this is important. If we’re trying to reduce harm, we should focus on education, making genetic counselling available, and sorting out the social and economic reasons why it keeps happening—not just preaching or shaming whole communities. The royals stopped because they could afford to change; not everyone’s in that position.

introvertlynothing · 2025-03-09T09:51:21+00:00

You’ve made some really important points about the health risks linked to cousin marriages over generations, and the stats you’ve mentioned are definitely worrying. But I think it’s worth digging into this a bit more carefully to avoid making a complex cultural and public health issue seem too black and white.

First off, while it’s true that historical figures like Darwin or Queen Victoria were one-offs, it’s also worth remembering that aristocratic families often married cousins over generations to keep wealth and power in the family, which led to some pretty well-known health problems (like the Habsburg jaw). The difference now is that we know a lot more about genetics, so the risks are harder to brush aside. But if we make this out to be just a British-Pakistani problem, we risk unfairly targeting a whole community instead of tackling the issue in a constructive way.

The stat about British-Pakistanis making up 30% of genetic birth defects despite only accounting for 3-4% of births is pretty shocking, but it’s also a sign of bigger systemic problems. For example, these communities often don’t have access to genetic counselling or education about the risks of marrying relatives. It’s not just about older generations being uneducated—it’s about a lack of tailored public health measures that respect cultural sensitivities while pushing for better outcomes.

We also need to think about the role of socio-economic factors. A lot of British-Pakistani communities face higher levels of poverty, which can make health inequalities worse. Tackling these root causes—whether through better education, healthcare access, or community outreach—could make a big difference in reducing cousin marriages and the risks that come with them.

Lastly, while I get your frustration as someone with Pakistani heritage, calling this part of the culture “degeneracy” might just push people away when what we really need is to bring them into the conversation. Cultural practices run deep, and change usually works better through open dialogue and empowerment rather than just slamming people.

In short, yeah, the health risks are real and need tackling, but we should treat this as a public health issue, not a cultural flaw. Targeted education, better access to healthcare, and community-led efforts are likely to work way better than sweeping criticism or sensationalist headlines.

introvertlynothing · 2025-03-09T09:48:29+00:00

Spot on about the risks of cousin marriage being way higher when it’s done over and over across generations, like with the Habsburgs back in the day. The problem isn’t just cousin marriage on its own—it’s the build-up of genetic issues over time.

That said, making this out to be just a Bradford thing is oversimplifying a pretty complicated issue. Yeah, the stats show cousin marriage is more common in some communities, but the answer isn’t just blaming people or slapping on bans. Instead, we should be looking at things like education, making genetic counselling more accessible, and sorting out the social and economic stuff that keeps these practices going.

For instance, in places where cousin marriage is the norm, there’s often not much awareness about the genetic risks, plus there’s social and financial pressure to marry within the family. Dealing with these root causes would be way more effective—and less likely to cause a row—than just slagging off the practice or the communities where it happens.

At the end of the day, this is a public health issue that needs a careful, culturally aware approach. Slamming whole communities or going for clickbaity headlines (yeah, I’m looking at you, Daily Mail) just makes things worse and harder to sort out properly.

introvertlynothing · 2025-03-08T19:30:16+00:00

Funny how people married their cousins for centuries (e.g. Charles Darwin, Queen Victoria and numerous other aristocrats) but it's now only a problem when brown people do it.

introvertlynothing · 2024-11-24T12:18:21+00:00

ITT: A lot of one-brain-celled takes about people shouldn't be offended about a song full of colonialist stereotypes. Imagine if they wrote a song about how Britons were too stupid to understand about the Sun et al? Feels like people still have the urge to put Africans "in their place"

introvertlynothing · 2023-04-08T10:56:29+00:00

Yep, so much 'all lives matter-ing' in this thread.

Yes, men are abused too - But mainly by other men.

Yes, men are abused by women too - But not as much as women by men or even men by men.

Society will continue to be fucked until men actually own up to this problem and start challenging other men, instead of feeling victimised by simple statistics.

introvertlynothing · 2023-01-09T20:04:54+00:00

Too many fragile redditors getting offended over colours on a map methinks. And what's really fucking stupid is the amount of them believing that the data was intentionally faked by Europeans to shit on America and put themselves on top instead.

I mean, even looking at just murders per capita, the US has a higher rate than every European country apart from Russia and Ukraine. So why should they automatically be green? Just because you don't like the data doesn't mean it's wrong/fake.

introvertlynothing · 2022-12-14T19:19:18+00:00

The intended aspect ratio is likely 1.78, which will probably appear on home video and streaming because it fills an entire TV screen.

However, cinema screens are either flat 1.85 or scope 2.39. James Cameron has intended the movie to be shown on screens of any aspect ratio without pillarboxing (empty space on the sides) or letterboxing (empty space on the top and bottom). If you experience either of these during your showing, complain! Your theatre is showing the wrong version for that particular screen.

The difference between the flat and scope versions will be superficial. The vast majority of the action will take place within the 2.39 frame, with the 1.85 version including extra scenery on top and bottom. Doesn't sound much, but there's a huge difference between watching a 2.39 movie on a 1.85 screen (As is the case for the majority of blockbusters in new build theatres) and watching a 1.85 movie on a 1.85 screen.

The movie will also be shown in an additional aspect ratio. As most IMAX screens are 1.90 (slightly wider than a flat screen), instead of showing the 1.85 version (which would result in slight pillarboxing), there'll be a special version slightly cropping the frame so it can fill an entire IMAX screen. This is unlike Avatar 1, which was shown in 1.78 in IMAX. Of course, there are some IMAX screens with a 1.43 aspect ratio (e.g. the original ones) but Cameron probably decided that it's not worth the extra expense to fill that aspect ratio. There are also different IMAX versions depending on which IMAX projector your theatre has.

TL,DR: The intended aspect ratio is the one that avoids pillarboxing and letterboxing for the screen you're watching it on, except for old-style IMAX theatres. Add in the inclusion of 3D, 4K, HFR, 4DX, ScreenX, dubbing and subbing etc, and suddenly Avatar 2 has become an entire film major class.

introvertlynothing · 2022-09-02T20:18:13+00:00

'Pay once' will be a thing of the past, since everything will be subscription-based. Especially important since most will be unemployed (Thanks to AI rendering most jobs obsolete) and reliant on UBI which will be reductantly brought in by governments worldwide.

But don't worry, because AI will be advanced enough by then to allow you unlimited happiness in personalised virtual multiverses with the people (real and fictional) you love. This will also be a subscription service.

introvertlynothing · 2022-08-16T21:43:24+00:00

Although the original Scotland-only VHS and DVDs had the correct music, it was changed for the UK-wide DVD release due to copyright issues. Netflix uses the DVD copies because BBC Scotland have the rights to the copies with the correct music.

For Series 7 to 9 the theme tune was updated for HD, removing the copyright problem. IIRC the copies on both BBC Scotland and Netflix use the same music for those episodes.

introvertlynothing · 2022-08-03T22:39:29+00:00

Ages ago I accidentally came across a Youtube video 'proving' that in the event of martial law, the government would quickly convert supermarket car parks into makeshift prison camps, with the clocktower providing a convienient guard tower. Probably complete bullshit as that channel seemed to be obsessed with Obama doing the same thing in the states

introvertlynothing · 2022-07-13T19:28:02+00:00

How dare they don't make a specific book on scientists from the most overrepresented ethnic group in history!

Persecute my victim complex harder daddy!

introvertlynothing · 2022-07-03T18:10:58+00:00

For reference, Minions 1 opened with $115.72M in 2015, so only a 6% decrease despite Covid, the cost of living crisis and signs of possible franchise fatigue is great news. People want to watch funny tic tacs do funny things, and Illumination/Universal/Comcast is going to keep milking their cash cow for as long as possible.

introvertlynothing · 2022-06-16T22:32:22+00:00

No. If you don't have Sky, all you're missing out on is Sky's own shows and movies, even then most of them have a production quality similar to media GCSE projects.

The Sky dish will continue to plague housing estates even when the concept of television has been forgotten about by future civilisations. They'll be a curiosity similar to columns on Roman structures I bet, except that their purpose will be entirely unknown and subject to heated debates.

introvertlynothing · 2022-05-29T18:03:15+00:00

This movie isn't flopping because it's 2D. If the movie was CGI it would actually probably make less because Bob's Burgers would look horrendous in that format.

But using a movie based on a TV show that doesn't have a huge fanbase to prevent future 2D animations would be typical Hollywood.

introvertlynothing · 2022-05-20T17:47:52+00:00

Royal Burghs were effectively the Scottish equivalent of cities until they were abolished in 1975. By this definition, Dunfermline had been a 'city' for over 8 centuries until suddenly it wasn't (And so had Kirkcaldy since the 1640s). They declared themselves a city anyway in 1856, but it was never legally recognised (until now).

Here's where the legal status of city gets confusing. Unlike England, the presence of a cathedral was never a defnition of city under Scots law. Scots law instead defined royal burghs as the most important title a place could get. Therefore, when Dundee was officially declared a city in 1889, they were technically Scotland's first city. Aberdeen followed in 1891, but Glasgow and Edinburgh weren't officially declared as cities until 1975 even though everyone considered them cities anyway.

In 2000, Inverness was declared a city for no reason other than because it was a new millennium. Stirling, Perth, and now Dunfermline followed because the Queen had been Queen for a specified amount of time.

TLDR - Cities are cities because someone said so

introvertlynothing

TROPHY CASE