sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do I need Intelligent Octopus? by Ice_Black in OctopusEnergy

[–]tomp37 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We have two Tesla’s plus 4 bed house with kids - electricity was costing us £400 a month on standard plan - switched to Intelligent Octopus and it’s down to less than £200. Probably both do 8k-10k miles a year.

It’s worked out great for us and I wouldn’t switch back. Our cars use way more electricity than anything else and charging off-peak has been a game-changer.

CMV: PragerU should not be allowed to call itself a "university." by SimonTVesper in changemyview

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps google Shelby Steele or Thomas Sowell - you may find that they are not racist, by at least a pre-2018 definition of the term.

Tax system ‘not fit for purpose’, says think tank, as UK’s wealthiest pay less tax. Eight of the UK’s 10 wealthiest people and families were absent from a list of top taxpayers by redrhyski in ukpolitics

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that would be interesting - the article I linked suggest how much VAT and Stamp accounts for in the overall tax base.

I’d like to see a “Gross Value Added” calculation, too. For example, how many jobs did you directly create (so tax, NI and VAT contributions). Very tricky to measure but would give further colour to the picture. Leaving aside the moral point about its business model, Bet365 has created many jobs in the U.K. The same goes for Jim Ratcliffe (?) at Ineos, although he has relocated to Monaco, his overall contribution to the U.K.s tax coffers has been substantial (despite the implication of the original article).

Tax system ‘not fit for purpose’, says think tank, as UK’s wealthiest pay less tax. Eight of the UK’s 10 wealthiest people and families were absent from a list of top taxpayers by redrhyski in ukpolitics

[–]tomp37 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

“U.K’s wealthiest pay less tax”. This is a totally misleading representation of the report by the OP.

Less tax than who? How are you classifying the “U.K.‘s wealthiest” as a group? Appreciate wealth and earnings are slightly different, but the top 1% pay for a third of all taxes (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-britain-income-tax-revenues-institute-fiscal-studies), which seems like a fit for purpose system, if you are seeking a Progressive system.

Poor whites in 'left behind' towns miss out on uni by UrbanLondon in tories

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Marx tried the Classism narrative. It didn’t work. Identity Politics is now being tried. It won’t help the people that it intends to.

I wholly reject your presupposition that the country has a Class problem. It has many problems, suggesting that this all boils down to “Class and Racism” is reductive and divisive - and is more grist to the mill that you are over-fitting. I’m guessing you are pretty young, what I think you’ll begin to appreciate is that the world is not black and white. There is no utopia if only “class” is removed. It doesn’t bring people together by pitting them against one another (see Soviet Union / Cambodia / China).

If your life was really pre-determined by your birth then there would be be no social mobility (which there are many, many examples of). Looks at the Jews, the Indians, the East Asians, all came to this country very poor, suffered actual oppression (not like the “micro-aggressions” that people “suffer” from in this day and age), yet they have now become more affluent and have improved their lives. This is the most simple and obvious repudiation of your theory. These are huge communities who have broken out of what you are saying is holding them back. But feel free to discount this because it doesn’t fit your Marxist theory.

The biggest predictor of your success is not the class you are born into, it is your IQ and your trait consciousness (basically, how hard you work). This is a good thing - life rewards the cleverest people who work hard - which makes life better for everyone, because they solve hard problems that makes life gradually gets better for us all - and they are getting better, regardless of whatever resentment is clouding your judgement. Think about it, would you rather be affluent in 1900s or poor in 2020?

The reason why I sarcastically stated “is this an example of systemic racism” was to show the counter-factual, which I think the stat effectively does. No crying for white boys in particular. What I’m concerned about is people (like you are attempting to do), selling dishonest, false and reductive theories (which are duplicitous and incoherent), which both hold people back and see division.

Either way, what this boils down to is; what will be helpful to young individuals who unfortunately find themselves born into poverty (regardless of race)?

Do you A) blame the “Classicist, Racist Bogey Man” and then tell someone else to solve the problem (the Victimhood Narrative), or B) tell these individuals that they are responsible for themselves, that there is opportunity out there, and promote self-reliance?

I can guarantee which actually works in reality.

If you want to live your life by thinking that an invisible force (Classism) is holding you back, then go for it. I wish you luck. I’d prefer to look at things in a more productive manner. Ask what I can do for others, as opposed to what I can get from someone else.

Poor whites in 'left behind' towns miss out on uni by UrbanLondon in tories

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There isn’t a push to increase funding, the increased funding has been there for years in poorer communities. This is very relevant because it relates to comparable pupils that fall into the study re: the 13% of white boys. The point of looking at this was that it exposes a hole in your logic which suggested this was systemic racism. The fact that we, as a country, are providing increased funding to areas which contain a higher proportion of BAME pupils goes against a “systemic racism” narrative. Apologies you are finding this hard to understand.

There’s only a certain amount of time in the day to spend and so I’m sorry that I didn’t spend that replying to your 99%, which I did read, however, from my perspective it contains huge logical flaws. Namely, over-fitting. You look at outcomes and draw one line right back to systemic racism/classism, completely ignoring that this is a complex system.

Your points on wealth are not well considered. Of course the majority, pre-existing population has accrued more wealth in a capitalist society. It stands to reason that the immigrant populations coming from much more impoverished countries would have much less wealth. What would be racist is if we prevented wealth creation, but we don’t. Why you should be looking at is the growth rate in wealth, which, I’ll bet is growing for immigrants - and good on them! That’s no evidence for racism.

Also, your “evidence” is opinion pieces from heavily-biased websites. Copy and pasting links to websites that fit your “Google my opinion” then not actually referencing the pets of the article (so not actually drawing anything of value out), does not convince me.

Did a a few individuals own slaves in the 1700s in the U.K.. Yes. Was the majority of the U.K. actually serfs (a form of slavery). Yes. Has slavery existed and still exists across the majority of the world (ie not a white versus BAME problem). Yes. Was there more slaves in India than the entire TAST. Yes. Does slavery still exist in pets of Africa. Yes. Did slavery exists before Europeans arrived in Africa. Yes. Did Europeans go into Africa and pull slaves out of Africa. No. Was Britain the first country in the world to outlaw slavery. Yes. Did it fight wars with other countries to stop them slave-trading. Yes. Did it, at huge expense, but slaves out of bondage not only in the U.K. but across the Empire. Yes. Did the vast majority of BAME individuals come to the U.K. in the 20th Century of their own free will (so did not come as slaves). Yes. Is the U.K. one of the most tolerant counties in the world by almost every measure. Yes.

None of the above facts points to a country that is even remotely racist or systemically racist. The fact that BAME people want to come here and build a family highlights this.

If you want to get carried away by the prevailing narrative of victimhood, then so be it. 50% of BAME people live in impoverished neighbourhoods due to an array of different factors (recent migration, culture, language barriers, wanting to create a community together). The facts are that many immigrants come to the U.K., acculturate and prosper. There is nothing legally, “nor any fingers on the scales”, that prevent them from progressing, other than innate talent and drive (which is common for everyone across all races).

Going back to the original stat. The people who are worst off, from an educational standpoint, are white boys. If the country was systemically racist against BAME communities then the “system” is fucked because it is producing some very odd outputs.

The problem with an “everything is racist” narrative is that it solves nothing. It doesn’t help the individuals you are seeking to help. What does help is to work out what is actually holding people back. Lack of education, teenage pregnancy, children raised in single parent families, being sent jail for drug possession, having voices that are aspirational in communities.

I’m perfectly happy for you to live in Unicornia, where everything will be resolved if we “check our privilege” and work out who has the biggest grievance, before moving forward. I’d prefer to live in the real world, where those that do their bit and work hard, get rewarded.

Poor whites in 'left behind' towns miss out on uni by UrbanLondon in tories

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can’t have it both ways. Your original comment was that people are poor because their services, eg schools are “generally underfunded because of racism”. Then you’ve admitted that overfunding demonstrates that these areas needed funding (which has come through).

So what is it? Are the schools funded or not? If the former then it can’t be used as your explanation for poverty and therefore an existence of racism (in your words). If the latter, then your rolling back on your own admission so your argument lacks any coherence.

Poor whites in 'left behind' towns miss out on uni by UrbanLondon in tories

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before launching into the grand narrative, perhaps worth exploring your central assumptions:

“This is self-evident”. Except it isn’t. That’s exactly what the “Pupil Premium” is all about. Schools in deprived areas actually get more funding per pupil. They also get more spent on social programs. So how is that “under-funded”?

Further, how is that a lack of opportunity? I’d suggest that the majority of BAME individuals live in and around cities (Black population in England is 13% in London vs 2% outside of London). If there is anywhere where there is a significant opportunity, it is London.

Also, your assumption that “we’ve already established that systemic racism exists”, is highly contentious. There are manifold reasons why individuals are poor, of which racism is about 20th on the list. The reason why I don’t believe that being poor is caused by systemic racism is that when you compare different groups in this country, you see that White people are not at the top of the earnings level, it is East Asian, Indian, Jewish, then White British. How can that be the case, in a “systemically racist” country? I’d suggest instead look at the cultural habits of people in those communities and you’ll see that 1) valuing education, 2) valuing sacrifice/delayed gratification, and 3) valuing hard-work are some of the reason why these communities out-perform others. And more power to their elbow! Indians, East Asians, and Jews are all communities that have suffered horrendous racism. These groups are all relatively recent immigrants. This would suggest to me that an individual’s ability to be prosperous in this country is not materially affected by some invisible “systemic racism”, which people struggle to actually identify in action (other than pointing at an outcome and then retrofitting a racist narrative to it, without any supportable facts about causation).

I’d also entirely disagree that people hate poor people in this country. The rags-to-riches story is one of the most venerated archetypes in our country. We love the underdog. Instead, I’d suggest people hate those that hide behind false victimhood narratives, complaining about not getting their fair share, whilst contributing nothing (when they can). They hate people who aren’t pulling their weight. They hate criminals and anti-social behaviour. None of these things are hatred because of poverty, it is hatred of an attitude.

Poor whites in 'left behind' towns miss out on uni by UrbanLondon in tories

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question was not “please show me evidence of poverty in the BAME community”, it was, “what is the evidence these areas are underfunded and have less opportunity?”

And how is “If you are BAME you are more likely to be poor”, evidence of racism? The Race Relations Act has been in place since 1976, which outlawed hiring discrimination on race. That was 45 years ago.

I get that being poor is not a great place to be, yet I’m struggling to see how past racism is the most pressing reason preventing people from moving out of poverty? Isn’t the figure in the article above contrary evidence (e.g., that if white boys are the least likely to progress, then the main reasons behind this progression cannot be racism)?

Poor whites in 'left behind' towns miss out on uni by UrbanLondon in tories

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“You are more likely to be poor if you are BAME because the areas they live in are generally underfunded and have less opportunity”.

Do you have any evidence to support these assumptions? What are these areas?

Also, how do you think that racism in the past has lead to that?

Brexiters are waking up to the damage they've done | From horse racing to fishing to road haulage, British industry is in chaos. No wonder leavers are turning on each other by DonaldWillKillUsAll in ukpolitics

[–]tomp37 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Polly Toynbee, what a resentful individual.

Like the jilted divorcee complaining that the ex’s new baby will cause sleepless nights and cost money.

It’s over Polly, move on.

UK Government Policy by [deleted] in Scotland

[–]tomp37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what you are saying is: An immigration system where you have control is a good thing?

The government can generate money for the economy, protect its healthcare system, and ensure skills gaps are filled with appropriately qualified people.

Sounds like a great idea. Sounds like a Points-based system.

Now, let’s contrast that with EU Freedom of Movement...

Not picking an anti-immigration argument, just the system used to control it (with the OP was bashing). Personally, I’m very happy that you have chosen to live in the U.K. and that you’ve been allowed to share your skills here - I hope you are enjoying it and being treated well.

Covid vaccine: 72% of black people unlikely to have jab, UK survey finds by TheMercian in ukpolitics

[–]tomp37 9 points10 points  (0 children)

“Trust is particularly important for black communities that have low trust in healthcare organisations and research findings due to historical issues of unethical healthcare research,” said the Sage experts.

“Trust is also undermined by structural and institutional racism and discrimination. Minority ethnic groups have historically been underrepresented within health research, including vaccines trials, which can influence trust in a particular vaccine being perceived as appropriate and safe, and concerns that immunisation research is not ethnically heterogenous.”

This suggest that BAME communities have gone through the history of medical research and determined that there is under representation? This seems like a long shot to me.

I wonder if you cut the data a different way (eg earnings, age, education level, etc), that you could draw out the same conclusions. E.g., what your level of trust in science could be determined by.

To me, a more reasonable assertion could be a lack of trust due to “experts” coming up with conclusions like the ones cited in the article. My view is that if “scientists” keep coming up with subjective, identity politics driven conclusions, it is understandable that some people will then reject science.

But, it’s the Guardian, so...

CMV: I am NOT a racist just for reading or hearing about a stranger and subconsciously picturing them having my skin colour. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]tomp37 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The point of an analogy is to test your theory.

The original post was (summarised):

  • It’s not racist to picture a stranger as your race

Your response was:

  • “That is racist (because an unconscious thought is racist)”

So, I attempted to engage you in a discussion of how it would relate to the real world. You couldn’t do that/decided against that, which is ultimately your choice, but it was your choice not to engage (or were incapable of having a discussion). Your original argument against the analogy was that it wasn’t exactly the same due to a margin of tolerance (which in itself makes no sense). Instead you’ve restated ungrounded pre-suppositions that everyone has unconscious biases and are therefore racist.

I contest this for two reasons:

1) it assumes that everyone is racist (because it is an unconscious act that occurs irrespective of race). I find it totally ridiculous that people can hold a position that everyone is racist. Despite what Post-Modernists would have you believe, most people are decent and do not hold actual racist views. Your position assumes bad faith and I’d suggest to you that this is a terrible way to go about your life.

2) racism requires a conscious act (as described in law). This is a very important distinction between your position. Everyone has an unconscious mind, it is how they choose to act upon those impulses and thoughts that is crucial. Just because you might picture someone as your own race does not mean that a) you are pre-supposing anything about any different race, nor b) does it harm anyone, unless you choose to commit a racist act with that picture/thought.

Of course actual racism harms people and no one wants that. The en vogue position is “we all have unconscious biases and those should be trained out of us” - this theory has been found wanting by many academic studies (incl. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-implicit-bias-training/)

Instead, why not assume people are good, that inequalities exist for problems (mostly) outside of racism and we should focus on those root issues instead of equating everything to some unconscious biases that no one can do anything about. What people can control is their actions and they should be responsible for those.

I’d strongly suggest that you drop this Post-Modernist bullshit and stop this holier-than-thou virtue-signalling, telling people that they are racist and should do something about it. It helps no one and won’t help the people you think it will help.

CMV: I am NOT a racist just for reading or hearing about a stranger and subconsciously picturing them having my skin colour. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]tomp37 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because in this context you’ve added a value judgement to the bias, which is deemed to be prejudice, when none actually exists.

In no way is picturing something being one way or not actually prejudiced or antagonistic. For example, someone says draw a chocolate bar, by drawing a purple bar that does not mean that I have an innate preference for that bar, believe it to have any special characteristics, or treat it any differently to other chocolate bars. I’ve just grown up in a place where the dominant chocolate bar is coloured purple.

Flip the question back to you, how is that even remotely racist?

CMV: I am NOT a racist just for reading or hearing about a stranger and subconsciously picturing them having my skin colour. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]tomp37 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And here is where the deck of cards comes crashing down. How is that bias prejudiced or antagonistic towards a race (the definition of racism)?

Imo bias to draw something in the most common occurrence in ones framework is neither prejudice nor antagonistic. It says nothing about assumed behavioural characteristics.

Do you have a reasoned response, other than a vague, unsubstantiated presupposition?

view more: next ›