Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[caLLous]

Do you need to personally be offended by something to recognise that it's offensive? The people who agree with him either don't realise it's offensive or know full well it is and just don't care. If you hear someone refer to someone else as a "fucking paki" are you going to think "I'm not personally offended by that so it can't be offensive"?

 

[Tom]

lol the Reform idiots are now saying this guy is an actor, and that it's all a paid propaganda piece. They're really so stupid as to believe that C4 News would be.....so stupid. What next, Lawrence Fox is a paid actor and it's all a setup?

 

[Scouse]

Do you need to personally be offended by something to recognise that it's offensive? The people who agree with him either don't realise it's offensive or know full well it is and just don't care. If you hear someone refer to someone else as a "fucking paki" are you going to think "I'm not personally offended by that so it can't be offensive"?

"Offensive" is a subjective term. It has no place in objective, neutral reporting.

But to answer you directly, and to fully explain why it shouldn't ever be used in reporting (certainly if you're supposed to be a "neutral" news organisation):


60 years ago a minority of people would find someone calling someone a poofter (or a nigger even) offensive. It's absolutely something that poofs or niggers would find offensive, but if the majority of people neither find it offensive, and may actually think that because poofs and niggers are poofs and niggers they are "offensive" - what's actually offensive? In this very real case the very existence of poofs and niggers is the thing that causes offence to the majority.

In 1975 only 20% of black people could get a job. That's not because white people loved them. The idea of having a black person working with you was offensive enough that black people couldn't get work. Who's offended there?

What offends people is A subjective; B changes over time and, importantly; C confers no "moral correctness".

Just because some people may be offended by a thing, doesn't mean that that thing is right.


Calling something "offensive" is not just a demonstration of intellectual paucity, it's dangerous - because it helps create a narrative which develops a "herecy" - a herecy you can't afford to be the wrong side of. And as I've demonstrated, this herecy comes with no guarantee of moral correctness.

It was heretical to be gay in the 1960s (and much of the last 2000 years). We prosecuted and chemically castrated these poofters because their actions - their very existence - was so fucking offensive to the majority (or worse, to the church or a government) that we maintained centuries-long criminal oppression of these people. Because: offence.


"Offensive" should only be used by individuals to describe what they feel about a subject, not a word imposed on a country to tell them how they are supposed to feel. The word offensive should never be used by media organisations that are supposed to be "neutral" - because the word 'offensive' can help create dangerous narratives in a moral vaccum.


I'm offended by their use of the word offence. Because I can think.

Does that offend you?

 

[Overdriven]

BBCQT

"How are we going to get China and India to reduce their emissions?" to the green party dude.

Bet he wanted to say "Fuck off. We don't control them"

It's like "How are you going to stop what's going on in the middle east?" - We're not. Literally nothing we do matters.

 

[Tom]

Ignoring the fact that China are a world leader in renewable technologies. And that their electric cars may very well dominate world markets in the next few years.

But what people like that are actually saying is, "my neighbour's yard is awful, with dog shit everywhere and half a dozen rusty trampolines. Why should I keep my yard clean?" It's stupid.

 

[Zarjazz]

Ignoring the fact that China are a world leader in renewable technologies.

Arguably the main reason for that is geopolitical rather than some huge push to be green. What China is really after is energy independence from the rest of the world. It's a focus and investment in that which has also pushed them to research heavily in fusion power, and they are possible the leaders in that technology too atm.

 

[Embattle]

See Farage & Reform are following the Trumpian playbook.

 

[Jupitus]

Pie always nails it:


View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1807012588284219776

 

[Tom]

x.com

x.com

 

[Tom]

Arguably the main reason for that is geopolitical rather than some huge push to be green. What China is really after is energy independence from the rest of the world. It's a focus and investment in that which has also pushed them to research heavily in fusion power, and they are possible the leaders in that technology too atm.

meh, that doesn't really matter. More renewable manufacturers = lower prices = greater takeup = healthier planet. Panel prices in the UK in the last 10 years have dropped to about 1/3 what they were. The same will happen with battery storage - EVs are about the same price as ICE cars now.

 

[Scouse]

This sort of stuff is exactly why there's a lot of agitation to take us out of the European Court of Human Rights:

Civil injunctions restrict protests at 1,200 locations, BBC finds

Companies and public bodies are using court orders to prevent environmental protests taking place.

www.bbc.co.uk

It frees up the UK to fuck peons over without legal recourse. (Which, of course, is the whole point of the ECHR).

 

[BloodOmen]

Ahhh, tory judgement day.

Here's to hoping cunts like Reese Mogg lose their seats.

 

[Scouse]

Gah. I have to find some photo ID to go and waste my pointless vote.

Not gonna watch the results tho. Can't see the point. I might go to Menai Bridge and see if I can drown myself in my kayak instead

 

[Scouse]

Expensive labour failure incoming all over again. They've not even won the election and you can see how it's going to go - £13bn of funding costing us £80bn, for example.

Could Labour use public-private projects to fix England’s hospitals?

NHS Providers wants collaboration with private entities to unlock funds, and Labour has stressed its wish for business ‘partnership’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scouse]

Gah. Anyone going to watch tonights clusterfuck? @Wij? @Gwadien?

I'm terrified. Starmer's spent so much time not telling us what they're going to do that they must have really horrible plans

I bet they introduce chinese style shit like 'social rights' or something

 

[Wij]

Gah. Anyone going to watch tonights clusterfuck? @Wij? @Gwadien?

I'm terrified. Starmer's spent so much time not telling us what they're going to do that they must have really horrible plans

I bet they introduce chinese style shit like 'social rights' or something

Nope. I’ll just be going to bed happy that the Tories are gone.

 

[Scouse]

Nope. I’ll just be going to bed happy that the Tories are gone.

Me and you both.

But I still have the terror. They're going to continue at great pace what Blair started

 

[Embattle]

Ouchy on the exit polls, for the Tories.

 

[ECA]

Final survation poll modelling:

 

[Scouse]

Significantly lower turnout - 6% drop.

I'm interested in how many votes the greens actually get for their likely 2 MP's. And how little Labour will get for their massive majority.

But not enough to keep me up any more

 

[ECA]

Reform are fucking the tories, with no vaseline.

 

[BloodOmen]

Reform are fucking the tories, with no vaseline.

And how glorious it is, sat watching ITV live atm


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu9DdrBCopA

 

[BloodOmen]

Lol, Penny Mordaunt lost her seat.

 

[Yoni]

Lol, Penny Mordaunt lost her seat.

She was one of the better ones….

 

[BloodOmen]

She was one of the better ones….

Still a tory though

Jeremy Cunt almost lost his seat, if anyone deserved to lose a seat it was him

 

[BloodOmen]

Reese Mogg out too

 

[Embattle]

Nice to see George Galloway lose his seat 5 months after winning it.

 

[Gwadien]

Amazing result for here, Two former Labour MPs as independents gutted the Labour candidate and the Tories took the seat from Labour, even though they lost 2% of the vote over 2019.

Silly bastards.

 

[Embattle]

I wonder if the Conservatives will get the message, or if they'll just blame Rishi.

 

[Scouse]

I can't find the popular vote share. Labour down 23% in Liverpool, 5% in Nottingham central. Clicking elsewhere on the maps there's small % changes - both positive and negative.

Could it be that they performed almost as badly as in 2019 yet ran away with the election?

Seems reasonable to say that this was a vote to fuck over the Tories. But I'd like to see the analysis.