Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 2:07 pm The Restore Trust people have had another arse kicking in the National Trust elections. They showed their usual common sense by running against politicization of the Trust, while linking up with Nigel Farage.

They're working on the "only need to get lucky once" basis.
With a sprinkling of "The other lot will eventually get tired".

I have high hopes that the last election set their unpleasant clique on the road to extinction.

Sure, we'll always have Tories.
But that's tolerable in the context of a fragmented right and a swing back to one nation doctrine.

I'm fairly optimistic re the National Trust. Provided the slate of sane people carries on, they'll likely win. The Restore Trust people will likely drop the links to unpopular politicians like Farage and Rees-Mogg next time, but people know who they are.

I think these type of groups are a counter force stemming from a conspiracy theory that there's been a Gramscian plot on the left to infiltrate every area of civic society. The possibility that attitudes may have changed since 1964 doesn't cross their mind.

Youngian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 9:49 am I think these type of group are counter force stemming from a conspiracy theory that there's been a Gramscian plot on the left to infiltrate every area of civic society. The possibility that attitudes may have changed since 1964 doesn't cross their mind.

It's curiouser than that.

On the one hand: 'waaaa, attitudes have changed since 1964' - i.e. there is a demonstrable and quantifiable difference in attitudes to X, Y, Z. This is problem A.

On the other hand: 'nobody really believes it, it's all Marxist nonsense brainwashing'. This is problem B.

The issue they have - and the grand historical irony is this is the same trap Marxism offers, in theory-meeting-history terms - is that problem A and B are both contradictory and mutually dependent. Even if it was ALL down to conspiracy, that doesn't change the change in attitudes; and if there's no conspiracy, you're without a rudder, as your big idea is shown to be... not so big.

It’s common practice but fuck’s sake it’s revolting to witness.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:36 pm As ever, it's only politicisation if the other lot are doing it.

Like the Reform lot who wanted to boycott the Royal British Legion because they have a diversity officer. I work in the charity sector and we have people working on EDI as well. Given part of what we do is help young people into careers in the engineering sector it’s quite important we make sure we try to encourage as many students as possible from all backgrounds that our sector is one going into as a career.

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 3:35 pm It’s common practice but fuck’s sake it’s revolting to witness.

Can you link a summary? I've left Twitter.

I was going say the same.

Basically, a black immigrant and a white woman were filmed. The black immigrant had been given some (poor) social housing. The white woman hadn't. The film was edited so that the black woman seemed unsympathetic to the white woman.

Indeed. Our daily reminder that the right have no argument unless they are lying.

There's more to it than that. The black woman had been on the waiting list for two years before she got 'her' flat, while the white woman was only five months into the process. The white woman was shown to be frustrated and sad, and then, afterwards, the Black woman was shown to be happy about getting accommodation, seemingly unappreciative of the white woman's problems. Except, the film was edited to reverse the timeline. The black woman was interviewed first. She didn't know at the time what the white woman's situation was. Once it became clear that the white woman was going through exactly the same frustrations the black woman had faced a year previously, much sympathy and solidarity between the two was shown.

The edit is a racist lie. Pure and simple.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 7:50 pm There's more to it than that. The black woman had been on the waiting list for two years before she got 'her' flat, while the white woman was only five months into the process. The white woman was shown to be frustrated and sad, and then, afterwards, the Black woman was shown to be happy about getting accommodation, seemingly unappreciative of the white woman's problems. Except, the film was edited to reverse the timeline. The black woman was interviewed first. She didn't know at the time what the white woman's situation was. Once it became clear that the white woman was going through exactly the same frustrations the black woman had faced a year previously, much sympathy and solidarity between the two was shown.

The edit is a racist lie. Pure and simple.

Thanks.

Fuck these ghouls. They are nothing, offer nothing, represent nothing but shit.

These people seem to have targeted Ireland for some reason.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 8:32 pm These people seem to have targeted Ireland for some reason.

Perhaps it's because for centuries Ireland has had one-way migration and until recently was one of the most mono-cultural places in Europe. Now people are moving in who don't look like us.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 8:32 pm These people seem to have targeted Ireland for some reason.

General Election at the end of this month. Plus what davidjay said.

Matt Goodwin lays out his thesis that the elite are people who wear glasses and aren't racist and not the owners of capital to Aaron Bastani. Who is a fair interviewer who plays devil's advocate as much as airs his own views but struggles to keep a straight face on this one.

Corporal Jones' Law applies.

Reform voters get very upset if you suggest Truss and Johnson already led Reform governments. But fail to articulate what is different and special about Reform. Just feelings.

Youngian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2024 1:28 pm Matt Goodwin lays out his thesis that the elite are people who wear glasses and aren't racist and not the owners of capital to Aaron Bastani. Who is a fair interviewer who plays devil's advocate as much as airs his own views but struggles to keep a straight face on this one.

Will Matt be serving mayo with that word salad?

His one point of objection appears to be "undermining shareholder values".