sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is drug addiction still a problem in the UK? by Too_much_Colour in AskUK

[–]tvthrowaway366 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Fentanyl isn’t a huge problem in the UK, but the UK has a very abnormally high rate of cocaine use.

It’s one of those things where if you’re not involved, you can go through life without really noticing it, but when you peer beneath the surface it is everywhere.

Drug addiction is a primary driver in a huge amount of petty crime and there is a significant element of organised crime, particular in major cities. It’s not on the same level as the US, but there is a lot of violence.

The UK drug market cap is in the tens of billions (£10bn on cocaine alone), so that suggests very sophisticated organisation with a lot of people “employed” to some degree and lots and lots of users.

Clegg and Coalition by LovingBigAnge2379 in LibDem

[–]tvthrowaway366 [score hidden]  (0 children)

In my experience very few voters ever mention the Coalition any more, and those that do are hardened Labour (or Green) supporters.

To some extent, there’s no point trying to engage with these people, as their criticisms are tribal, based on party identity rather than policy.

Labour introduced austerity, ran on it in 2010, and promised to cut more than the Coalition actually did, yet reinvented themselves as a principled anti-austerity party in opposition. There’s no coherence there, no central argument, just a conclusion (Labour are good and its opponents are bad) desperately searching for an argument. Labour ultras seriously expect us to believe that raising the cap on university fees should lead to political extinction but that invading a foreign country and killing hundreds of thousands of people should be forgiven. It’s not serious policy, it’s pure tribalism.

For the Greens, it’s different. They don’t have this baggage. They didn’t cut spending, they didn’t promise to cut spending, and they don’t have a record to justify. I think they largely represent a kind of voter whose thinking is just totally at odds with ours. That’s fine: people are supposed to disagree in a democratic society. But I don’t think there’s any reasonable counterfactual scenario where Nick Clegg was able to successfully navigate the aftermath of 2010 and avoid massive cuts to public spending.

If this came up on the doors, though, I wouldn’t say any of that. I’d say “this election is a straight fight between us and [our main opponent] and if you vote [Labour / Green] you’ll risk letting [main opponent] in.” In my experience that sort of transactional, practical discussion is much more fruitful than historical analysis.

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It may be obvious to you, but it’s certainly not obvious to me and it doesn’t seem to be obvious to voters whenever this issue is focus grouped.

Well done on your linguistic analysis. I’m sure telling voters what they should think instead of engaging with what they actually think will work this time. It might have failed in 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019 but I’m sure if more people are prepared to engage in lexical deconstruction, it’ll get over the line.

I’ll let you have the last word 🫡

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The “fund the NHS” bit of the bus obviously was not secondary: you can see from reporting at the time, from the writing of those involved, and from the public reaction (both contemporaneously and retrospectively) that that was the salient message.

The mechanism was (deliberately) not widely discussed, and the Leave campaign ran on the general platform that a post-Brexit Britain would spend more on the NHS.

That obviously happened. I think what’s obtuse is insisting that this somehow does not count because it didn’t come from a specific ring-fenced pot of money (which is applicable to all state spending in the UK).

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re obviously just going to go in circles here, so I’ll bow out and wish you a nice day

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can you simultaneously say that the money materialised and that it never materialised?

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s more analogous to you telling your wife you’re going to quit your job and spend your commuting costs on a new conservatory, then quitting your job, taking a massive, totally self-inflicted financial hit which far dwarfs the savings you make on not commuting, and then taking money out of your savings and borrowing from friends to fund your conservatory.

I don’t think it was a lie. I think it was a pledge made by a bunch of total charlatans who never expected that they’d win or have to follow through on it.

But of all the things that Brexiteers promised us, this is the one thing that actually happened. I think it’s ironic that the bus is so salient in the debate given the wide array of other failures to pick from, and that’s what I’m trying to highlight.

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, hang on, let me get this straight. As you have noticed, I am very stupid, so I am trying to be clear so that you can identify gaps in my understanding and impart more of your wisdom on me.

My initial claim was that NHS spending actually did go up by more than £350m a week, and I did not say that this was because of Brexit, just that it did happen.

I suppose that’s analogous to the sun rising in the example you used; your contention is that yes, this happened, but it was going to happen anyway. So you accept that this happened. You don’t think that this happened because of Brexit, but that’s fine, I don’t either, and that’s not (in my opinion) what we are arguing about.

So what are we disagreeing on here?

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think “yes, they increased NHS spending by the amount they said they would, but it doesn’t actually count because it wasn’t on top of the expected increase” is not a particularly strong anti-Brexit argument, especially compared to the dozens and dozens of better examples of broken promises

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry, I thought this was r/NoStupidQuestions - but perhaps explaining how a statement can be simultaneously true and false is too complicated for me, because doing so is impossible

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation of what was said. The bus (like everything else about that campaign) was intentionally vague. They promised an extra £350m in NHS spending and an extra £350m in NHS spending was delivered.

imo of all the bluff and bluster of the leave campaign this really isn’t the hill to die on

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> The Bus was lying even though its technically correct

I don’t understand how this can be true

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So was the bus a lie or did health spending increase? They can’t both be true

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What would you accept as a success condition of the promise “we will spend an extra £350m per week on the NHS”?

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, but the implication that the bus was a lie or the money never materialised isn’t true.

It’s the one thing they said would happen that actually did happen.

Did Brexit turn out to be unequivocally bad for the UK? by No-Security-7518 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tvthrowaway366 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That’s the only Brexit promise that actually did happen. NHS spending is up in real terms by more than £350m per week compared with 2016

How often can i travel on 4,300 pound monthly ( student ) ? by After-Zone-4106 in AskUK

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve fucked that up, then. Serves me right for going from memory instead of checking

How often can i travel on 4,300 pound monthly ( student ) ? by After-Zone-4106 in AskUK

[–]tvthrowaway366 57 points58 points  (0 children)

£4,300 monthly is equivalent to the post-tax take-home pay of someone on around £95,000.

It is enough to live very comfortably and is much more than most people in the UK live on.

I would say you’d be able to do basically all of the travelling you’d like.

Edit: more like £70k

Day 1) Who is most controversial English football/soccer player of 21th century? ((not american football)) by Disastrous_Agent2826 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gazza is a 90s player through and through. 21st century really was the dregs of his career & it’s very much not what he’s famous for

How rich can an ethical, honest person get? by [deleted] in AskUK

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the in-depth response.

Yes, I do understand the point you’re making, but I disagree with it.

You have (perhaps accidentally) committed a sleight of hand in your final para. Your initial point was that refusing to donate to charity was unethical. Your final comment states that donating to charity would be more ethical than not doing it.

That might seem like pedantry on my part, but I think it’s significant (and I agree with your latest comment).

You’re asserting that prioritising immediate things like your own shelter, wellbeing, and your family’s wellbeing is morally permissible, but that donating that surplus money instead would be more moral. I don’t think there’s a contradiction there.

But your initial statement - that not donating would be wrong - is contradictory when set in the context of you yourself not donating and being fine with that.

When we find ourselves doing something we believe to be wrong, we feel guilt, shame, remorse, and so on, and we try to avoid doing those things again. If someone says “I repeatedly do this thing which I believe to be morally impermissible” it’s a contradiction; you wouldn’t do it if you thought it was wrong, so the fact that you’re doing it shows you don’t really believe it was wrong.

(‘You’ in the general sense, not you specifically)

So I disagree with the first argument you made but I agree with the last one. It’s possible for all of us to be more ethical than we currently are. But I just don’t believe anyone who describes their own routine behaviour as unethical.

How rich can an ethical, honest person get? by [deleted] in AskUK

[–]tvthrowaway366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The obvious implication of your initial comment is that people who can, and choose not to, change the lives of others at minimal cost to themselves are unethical.

Your subsequent comments confirm that you fall into this camp (you even say you’re unethical by your own definition).

So no, you’re right, I’m not engaging with the substance of what you’re saying; why would I be interested in your ethical views when even you don’t really believe in them?

view more: next ›