|
XMNN posted:Buckingham Palace would make a much better tourist attraction if you could wander round it. The Hermitage really isn't comparable to the others as its also one of the worlds biggest art galleries, way better than the likes of The Louvre. Everyone should go to St Petersburg it is the best city. Edit:September 11th 2001: Leftover Crack release seminal anarcho-punk record Mediocre Generica, nothing else of note happens.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Starting talks with IS doesn't sound any worse than continuing deals with Saudi Arabia. He didn't even say he wanted talks with them, that's the best part. Marr pushed him on this and he basically said no, but there should be intelligence channels, ways of understanding who holds the power and who is supplying them with support etc Mind you this was after Marr introduced the subject by saying 'this town is surrounded by Assad's forces on one side and Hezbollah on the other, and they're being starved', before saying that Corbyn once referred to Hezbollah as 'friends' and asking him if he had any sway with them
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:The Hermitage really isn't comparable to the others as its also one of the worlds biggest art galleries, way better than the likes of The Louvre. Everyone should go to St Petersburg it is the best city.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
You're making false equivalences, XMNN. Versailles has incredible architecture, sprawling sculpted gardens, and is a work of art in and of itself... Buckingham Palace has, er, a lawn? Even as a monarchist I have to admit Buckingham Palace, architecturally, is a pretty bland and uninspiring building that was never consciously designed to be a superior splendid statement of grace and grandeur like the other examples that you've given - it began its life as a smaller town-house and it's been papered-over a few times (the facade was added on by Edward VII before the First World War). Although there's some fancy gilded state rooms it's also a very functional building that's full of draughty offices. Buckingham Palace is not terribly attractive on its own merits, and it doesn't really have all that much historical resonance either. People are drawn to Buckingham Palace and it's successfully punched up from bland pile to major tourist attraction because it's a tangible touchstone of a living, breathing monarchy and without that essential spark of vitality it'd just be another grey stucco Regency row. The Queen makes it fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Corbyn has the unfortunate tendency to suggest we should try talk to people to resolve our difference even if we completely disagree with them, rather than tell them to gently caress off and then start chanting "UK! UK! UK!". The fact this is so completely alien a stance to the media is slightly depressing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:You're making false equivalences, XMNN. Versailles has incredible architecture, sprawling sculpted gardens, and is a work of art in and of itself... Buckingham Palace has, er, a lawn?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Agreed, it should be knocked down and replaced with a monument to all the slaves we shipped from their homelands in the name of Empire. Admittedly I base this on Buckingham's façade looking similar to that of Stormont, Birmingham, and the old parliament at Cape Town (and many others) in terms of neoclassical architecture, but it has to give a better impression than some faux-gothic construction next to a dump of a river, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Agreed, it should be knocked down and replaced with a monument to all the slaves we shipped from their homelands in the name of Empire. I'm not sure what purpose that would serve seeing as Buckingham Palace only became an official royal residence when Queen Victoria moved in in 1837, after the Slavery Abolition Act had already been passed and hundreds of thousands of slaves had been rescued from illegal trader ships in the decades beforehand by the RN's West Africa Squadron enforcing the prior Slave Trade Act. The original Buckingham House was built by John Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham & Normanby who as far as I can tell wasn't a slave-trader either, or at the very least is better remembered as a kinda so-so poet and for having the hots for Queen Anne. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
He should've just taken a hard line on Argentina. It's already ours, they want to be ours, he could easily just say he'd tell Argentina that, and to gently caress off. I know he's hosed regardless but he really needs to simplify wherever possible. The media won't adapt to nuance when they can just print shite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:I'm not sure what purpose that would serve seeing as Buckingham Palace only became an official royal residence when Queen Victoria moved in in 1837, after the Slavery Abolition Act had already been passed and hundreds of thousands of slaves had been rescued from illegal trader ships in the decades beforehand by the RN's West Africa Squadron enforcing the prior Slave Trade Act. The original Buckingham House was built by John Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham & Normanby who as far as I can tell wasn't a slave-trader either, or at the very least is better remembered as a kinda so-so poet and for having the hots for Queen Anne. Interesting edit. I mean not really, you're still notable for being an apologist for slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Fans posted:Corbyn has the unfortunate tendency to suggest we should try talk to people to resolve our difference even if we completely disagree with them, rather than tell them to gently caress off and then start chanting "UK! UK! UK!". he's the goddamn Leader of the Opposition, he's theoretically an election away from the premiership. It's one thing for an obscure backbencher to advocate talk; now it is time to learn what he wants to talk about and what deal he would sign, because he could be signing them. Thus far his only indicated position is that 1) the islanders do not exercise a veto, and 2) Britain's position should be to disavow any commitment to defend the Falklands through force of arms (because it is "crazy" that Britain might be obliged to do so). Given Argentinean intransigence, that implies only one logical position. There have always been competing strains amongst the British left over what, exactly, decolonization was supposed to achieve. The internationalist strain focused on the intrinsic, universal right toward self-governance. The isolationist strain focused on the costs to one's own people of defending people who one considers to be, more or less, foreigners who have chosen to settle in a foreign place. Given that Lancaster House was only in 1979 and the Falklands in 1982, you can probably see how these historical contexts blurred together. But it's now 2016, white enclaves did not successfully secede in Africa despite the end of apartheid, and even Northern Ireland is now pacified with the promise that the people of Northern Ireland will decide, even if - functionally speaking - this is an acceptance that it will never decide to unify with Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Fans posted:Corbyn has the unfortunate tendency to suggest we should try talk to people to resolve our difference even if we completely disagree with them, rather than tell them to gently caress off and then start chanting "UK! UK! UK!".
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Bit behind on this but:forkboy84 posted:Well yes, the operative word is "admit". We know it goes on but they don't normally 'fess up to such so brazenly. Exhibit A: Pissflaps posted:Poor people have been joining the armed forces for centuries and for many it offers a great start to a career. No see it's okay really NO gently caress YOU DAD posted:There's talking to people and then there's talking to people who have no intention of listening. Argentina couldn't give two stuffs about any opinion other than their own over Las Malvinas, as proven when there was a crushing referendum and they went "lol nope". You absolutely can tell them to gently caress off. Would the thread accept a self-determination poll held amongst Israeli settlers in illegal settlements in Palestine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Would the thread accept a self-determination poll held amongst Israeli settlers in illegal settlements in Palestine? I didn't realise Falklanders were bulldozing Argentinian homes. Are the penguins the Palestinians in this analogy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Would the thread accept a self-determination poll held amongst Israeli settlers in illegal settlements in Palestine? This is a brain dead comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:This is a brain dead comparison. Hate to say it but I agree with Pissflaps here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:I didn't realise Falklanders were bulldozing Argentinian homes. A poll held exclusively among current residents is a bit meaningless from Argentina's perspective. What exactly does it prove? That people living there don't want to move? It's not the only basis for accepting British sovereignty so I don't see why it's some amazing gotcha. See also: the Crimean referendum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Corbyn also advocated the withdrawal of military protection from Northern Ireland, and that Ireland as a whole (incl. NI) should exercise the collective say over the status of NI. So he is certainly consistent on the matter, even if history would not go his way. But that's exactly it, see, it's not the 1970s any more and Britain is not faced with the prospect of globally scattered white enclaves that demand its protection whilst simultaneously rejecting any terms which Whitehall attempts to impose as the price of such protection (like, say, accepting nonwhite government). In such a situation it is politically crucial to emphasize that the metropole is not, in fact, going to underwrite sovereign entities simply because they are ruled by people who were once British. Today the situation is instead dominated by emphasizing that Whitehall will enforce and subsidize negotiated settlements. Corbyn has remained whilst the political context marched on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:A poll held exclusively among current residents is a bit meaningless from Argentina's perspective. What exactly does it prove? That people living there don't want to move? It's not the only basis for accepting British sovereignty so I don't see why it's some amazing gotcha. Which Argentinians are being displaced and driven from their homes? Is it the penguins?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:A poll held exclusively among current residents is a bit meaningless from Argentina's perspective. What exactly does it prove? That people living there don't want to move? It's not the only basis for accepting British sovereignty so I don't see why it's some amazing gotcha. The difference is that the current population of the falklands is the first population in human history that actually wants to live there*. There are no displaced natives and no displaced Argentinian settlers who are suffering from some continuing injustice. *The only other people known to have even tried are some poor saps from Spain who, once they realised they had been dumped on a lovely rock to freeze, hosed off as soon as they could and long before the Brits arrived. Interpreting that as a valid Argentinian claim to the Falklands means that Argentinia should also own Brazil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-repeal-thatcher-sympathy-strikes-banquote:Jeremy Corbyn has said he would repeal legislation introduced by Margaret Thatcher that outlawed “sympathy strikes”, in which workers joined a picket line to support colleagues from another industry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
ronya posted:Corbyn also advocated the withdrawal of military protection from Northern Ireland, and that Ireland as a whole (incl. NI) should exercise the collective say over the status of NI. So he is certainly consistent on the matter, even if history would not go his way. In that regard, he would make a good green candidate  It could also be interpreted as him being consistent in actually accepting "look, it's right next to us!" as a valid argument (again, give Brazil to Argentina already). (note that both Argentina and Ireland are full of/largely descended from Europeans so "lol :whites:" can't reasonably apply). e: does the rest of Ireland actually want NI back though? I thought it was on of those "in the future, in principle, eventually, reunification would be totally nice but not now please" things suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It could also be interpreted as him being consistent in actually accepting "look, it's right next to us!" as a valid argument (again, give Brazil to Argentina already).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:Which Argentinians are being displaced and driven from their homes? Although I notice the opposition to my example relies on displaced Palestinians still being alive and wanting to return to their homes, suggesting that abandoned or empty homes are fair game?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/proletarianrage/status/688998743404838912quote:David Cameron has just confirmed on @BBCr4today that he will deport foreign-born mothers who can't speak English but have British children I uh... i dunno anymore
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:I'm not trying to draw a direct equivalence here, I'm more opposed to the idea of unilateral self-determination referendums being held as binding. If any original inhabitants voluntarily hosed off without anyone pushing them (and "dumped some poor schmucks, who ran off as fast as possible" barely even qualifies as original inhabitants) then yeah. In practice, if there is no realistic way to ship everyone back where they came from because it would mean shipping people to places based on what their grandparents did, it can also be the least bad thing to do even where original inhabitants got kicked out. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Abandoned homes are indeed fair game. Try and see how far you can get with suggesting that Greek Cypriot returnees should get to expel second-generation Turkish Cyriots. this is neoliberalism: borders are to be respected but are not really fundamental; complicated multinational compromises that bind the hands of sovereign entities, or diffuse and confabulate the exercise of power, are the ideal way to exchange bargaining chips in agreements; the fundamental problems of justice are violations of individual rights (e.g. identifiable homes of particular individual Palestinians) rather than violations of communal claims. It is important to generously recognize mutual grievances. But no targeted reparations: truth-and-reconciliation committees and credible non-prosecution promises in disarmament are what work. If money changes hands, it is from a nebulous international fund. conversely - the reason why it was once massively important for a nationalist movement to have well-defined sovereign borders was the need for a domestic hinterland for independent economic growth. In a modern era - first, it turns out it's not really necessary for economic growth. It's not even sufficient. The only poor countries that became rich countries were all export-led industrializers. Internationally and regionally-integrated markets: works great. Second, we have a wry recognition that some countries will remain dependent on the teat of international aid pretty much forever, and exciting "democratization" throws more spanners into the machine of daily life, rather than less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:https://twitter.com/proletarianrage/status/688998743404838912 I don't know why everyone got so excited about banning Trump from the UK when we already have a domestic version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/689000446187405312 Yes yes, you've had your little protest, well done. Now get back to your pay cut and 40 hour shifts, you lousy ingrates. https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/688997915952570368 Nine months to avoid extradition, lazy foreigners!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
PPP has a new post. It largely re-iterates a view we've bandied about on UKMT: a Corbyn-flavoured Labour can't win, but Corbynites would prefer not winning to winning as a liberal Tory party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:A poll held exclusively among current residents is a bit meaningless from Argentina's perspective. What exactly does it prove? That people living there don't want to move? It's not the only basis for accepting British sovereignty so I don't see why it's some amazing gotcha. Yes but in your example it would be more akin to asking the palestinians whether or not they want to be ruled by Israel, and then ignoring them when they say "gently caress no". The people who live on the islands have lived there for a long time and there were no other people there when they arrived. It's arguably one of the most blameless places in the world in that regard. E: I don't really get why corbyn, as a presumably international socialist, seems to believe that geography is a major determining factor in who should rule who. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:I'm not trying to draw a direct equivalence here, I'm more opposed to the idea of unilateral self-determination referendums being held as binding. If Palestine were an uninhabited rock I'd be okay with Israeli settlements there tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:E: I don't really get why corbyn, as a presumably international socialist, seems to believe that geography is a major determining factor in who should rule who. this is a very contemporary, neoliberal view of what internationalism means; in the period where Corbyn flourished as a dissident backbencher, socialist internationalism meant solidarity with revolutionary movements in the third world, in opposition to imperialism and colonialism. Group movements, group rights. Geography is the natural fait accompli of thinking in terms of sovereign entities that govern cohesive, distinct economies capable of achieving socialist prosperity, rather than (e.g.) cohesive, distinct militarily-defensible territories, or cohesive, distinct cultural groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
ronya posted:PPP has a new post. It largely re-iterates a view we've bandied about on UKMT: a Corbyn-flavoured Labour can't win, but Corbynites would prefer not winning to winning as a liberal Tory party. The post doesn't suggest that Labour as a liberal Tory party has any better chance of winning. The supposed choice offered in your summary isn't actually a choice at all. The reason a liberal-tory labour can't win? It's this: http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/66948128 posted:A good article which correctly identifies most of the main reasons for Labour's demise, however, it has missed the main reason which can be summed up in one word. Greed. Greed, champagne socialists and policies which don't hurt the political classes but certainly damage the majority of the populace, eg immigration. There is no chance that a 'liberal-tory' version of Labour wins these people back. It was liberal-tory policies that created these sentiments in the first place and a continuation of those policies is the very worst way to win those people back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
At risk of provoking the nativism-disguised-as-fatalism discussion again, I'm not actually convinced that closet Glasmanian Blue Labourites are actually a significant chunk of the fabled "those likely to vote" group. Of the population, sure, but as voters?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:If Palestine were an uninhabited rock I'd be okay with Israeli settlements there tbh And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
ronya posted:this is a very contemporary, neoliberal view of what internationalism means; in the period where Corbyn flourished as a dissident backbencher, socialist internationalism meant solidarity with revolutionary movements in the third world, in opposition to imperialism and colonialism. Group movements, group rights. Geography is the natural fait accompli of thinking in terms of sovereign entities that govern cohesive, distinct economies capable of achieving socialist prosperity, rather than (e.g.) cohesive, distinct militarily-defensible territories, or cohesive, distinct cultural groups. I don't suppose it's very socialist to maintain the status quo, but I also don't think that handing the Falklands to Argentina would make it very socialist either. Geography is certainly important as a matter of practicality when it comes to building functional economies, but the falklands is so void of economic value that I don't really think that is a factor. It wouldn't make a lot of difference to Argentina if they controlled it and it doesn't make a lot of difference to us. Ignoring the military angle, the Falklands are ultimately a group of people who have decided they want to live in the manner afforded them by their current status with the UK government. I don't really see what else you can look at. It's a largely insignificant place except for the people living on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Cerv posted:And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon Well she may as well be 'cause i ride her all day and all night 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't suppose it's very socialist to maintain the status quo, but I also don't think that handing the Falklands to Argentina would make it very socialist either. The UK can afford such subsidies because it's very, very rich, which brings us back to internationalism meaning solidarity in opposition to imperialism and colonialism. (you might observe, for instance, the Indian notion of freedom of religion, which nicely encapsulates the mid-20th-century-anticolonialist sense of what it means to be free - a wealthier church attracting converts by virtue of more generous aid to its flock is held to be a violation of freedom of religion, because it's not fair to other religions) In a "fair" universe - a universe where the Falklands is entirely dependent on access to Argentinean mainland ports for its subsistence - Buenos Aires reflexively expects turning these screws to have the expected moral and political impact. It forms, if you will, a natural economic unit, by which one means a unit whereby effective economic controls can be centrally administered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
ronya posted:At risk of provoking the nativism-disguised-as-fatalism discussion again, I'm not actually convinced that closet Glasmanian Blue Labourites are actually a significant chunk of the fabled "those likely to vote" group. Of the population, sure, but as voters? What percentage of UKIP voters were previously Labour voters? What percentage of voters who switched from Labour to Conservative cited immigration as their number one concern?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:33
|
|