UKMT January and a bit of February 2016: Marxist Theory and Danczuk Memes

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT January and a bit of February 2016: Marxist Theory and Danczuk Memes

«‹›188 »

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

Angepain posted:

i own a suit

Alright let's get this over with

# ? Jan 19, 2016 08:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 21:15

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

An army recruitment poster has appeared in my local bus shelter reading "DON'T JOIN THE ARMY - DON'T MAKE LIFELONG FRIENDS".

If the shelter were JC Decaux I'd just steal the thing; but it's a Clear Channel one that I have no idea how to open.
I figure I just spraypaint some bollocks over it, but what?

"Don't join the army - or you'll die of pneumonia after being thrown out on the street when they don't need you any more" is accurate but too unwieldy.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 09:30

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Oberleutnant posted:

An army recruitment poster has appeared in my local bus shelter reading "DON'T JOIN THE ARMY - DON'T MAKE LIFELONG FRIENDS".

If the shelter were JC Decaux I'd just steal the thing; but it's a Clear Channel one that I have no idea how to open.
I figure I just spraypaint some bollocks over it, but what?

"Don't join the army - or you'll die of pneumonia after being thrown out on the street when they don't need you any more" is accurate but too unwieldy.

I saw that yesterday too, I mean, it's true, I have no friends and I'm not in the army, makes sense that the two are inextricably linked.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 09:32

Namtab: Feb 22, 2010

Oberleutnant posted:

An army recruitment poster has appeared in my local bus shelter reading "DON'T JOIN THE ARMY - DON'T MAKE LIFELONG FRIENDS".

If the shelter were JC Decaux I'd just steal the thing; but it's a Clear Channel one that I have no idea how to open.
I figure I just spraypaint some bollocks over it, but what?

"Don't join the army - or you'll die of pneumonia after being thrown out on the street when they don't need you any more" is accurate but too unwieldy.

Vandalism is a crime

# ? Jan 19, 2016 09:34

dispatch_async: Nov 28, 2014; Imagine having the time to have played through 20 generations of one family in The Sims 2. Imagine making the original two members of that family Neil Buchanan and Cat Deeley. Imagine complaining to Maxis there was no technological progression. You've successfully imagined my life

Oberleutnant posted:

An army recruitment poster has appeared in my local bus shelter reading "DON'T JOIN THE ARMY - DON'T MAKE LIFELONG FRIENDS".

If the shelter were JC Decaux I'd just steal the thing; but it's a Clear Channel one that I have no idea how to open.
I figure I just spraypaint some bollocks over it, but what?

"Don't join the army - or you'll die of pneumonia after being thrown out on the street when they don't need you any more" is accurate but too unwieldy.

http://battlefieldcasualties.co.uk

# ? Jan 19, 2016 09:40

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

Namtab posted:

Vandalism is a crime

Graffiti is the people's art.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 09:41

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

dispatch_async posted:

http://battlefieldcasualties.co.uk

lol i'd forgotten about this.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 09:42

NO FUCK YOU DAD: Oct 23, 2008

They're right about the lifelong friends thing, though. I went to school with a couple of people who joined the army and they never fail to like each other's Facebook posts about brave English warriors facing down the Muslim hordes (neither of them ever deployed).

# ? Jan 19, 2016 09:46

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

Namtab posted:

Vandalism is a crime

crime is cool though

# ? Jan 19, 2016 09:53

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

Jose posted:

i wonder if the tories realise that osborne is really not going to be seen well by the general public in the way that cameron is really capable of appearing to care. imagine him trying to defend the tories record on the nhs

I assume at the pace they're dismantling and defunding the apparatus of democracy they're not overly concerned about having to win the next election legitimately.

Oberleutnant posted:

If the shelter were JC Decaux I'd just steal the thing; but it's a Clear Channel one that I have no idea how to open.
I figure I just spraypaint some bollocks over it, but what?

You've answered your own question here surely?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 10:03

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Well that's a good start to the morning, my grandmother's dead.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 10:26

Barry Foster: Dec 24, 2007; What is going wrong with that one (face is longer than it should be)

OwlFancier posted:

Well that's a good start to the morning, my grandmother's dead.

Ah jeez, sorry man

# ? Jan 19, 2016 10:36

tooterfish: Jul 13, 2013

Goondolences.

I went to three funerals in a row last week. Overall, lovely start to the year. Would not recommend.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 10:41

dispatch_async: Nov 28, 2014; Imagine having the time to have played through 20 generations of one family in The Sims 2. Imagine making the original two members of that family Neil Buchanan and Cat Deeley. Imagine complaining to Maxis there was no technological progression. You've successfully imagined my life

LemonDrizzle posted:

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/689208741628133376

Did I take a nap and wake up in France or something?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12106833/David-Cameron-I-will-back-schools-and-courts-which-ban-face-veils.html

quote:

Muslim women can be banned from wearing veils in schools, courts and other British institutions, David Cameron has said.

The Prime Minister said that he will give his backing to public authorities that put in place �proper and sensible� rules to ban women from wearing face veils in comments which will reignite debates.

quote:

He refused to endorse a French-style blanket ban but made clear that individual organisations can choose to stop Muslim women wearing the veil.

The Daily Telegraph in 2013 disclosed that more than a dozen NHS hospitals had instructed staff not to wear the niqab � a full veil which covers the face � while in contact with patients.

The same year, a London judge ordered a Muslim defendant to remove her veil, but asked politicians for clearer instructions on veils in court.

A number of Conservative MPs want the Government to consider a full ban on the veil.

�I think in our country people should be free to wear what they like, within limits live how they like, and all the rest of it,� Mr Cameron told BBC Radio 4.

�What does matter is if, for instance, a school has a uniform policy, sensitively put in place and all the rest of it, and people want to flout that uniform policy, often for reasons that aren't connected to religion, you should always come down on the side of the school.�

Mr Cameron added: �When you are coming into contact with an institution or you're in court, or if you need to be able to see someone's face at the border, then I will always back the authority and institution that have put in place proper and sensible rules.

�Going for the more sort of French approach of banning an item of clothing, I don't think that's the way we do things in this country and I don't think that would help.�
France in 2010 banned full-face veils after years of debate.

Philip Hollobone, a Conservative MP, said: "What the Prime Minister says is extremely welcome and a step in the right direction but given the stridency with which Muslim group's advance their cause sooner or later this will be put to the test.

"It should apply to any public official including schools, hospitals, councils, the police, border force, hospitals, GP surgeries. Anywhere where members of the public come into contact and an official needs to have his or her face visible.�

He added: �I don't want to live in a country where a police officer is veiled, where a news reader is veiled, where a nurse or doctor is veiled."

The Telegraph also understands that ministers are drawing up guidance which will ban gender segregation in public meetings held in buildings owned by town halls.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paris-attacks-britain-unveils-new-6852816 posted:

Most of the officers chose to cover their faces with balaclavas at the match.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:08

Pantsuit: Oct 28, 2013

How many Muslim women actually cover their face in the UK?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:22

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

I don't see a problem with anyone covering their face as long as they are not doing it to further a criminal act. Especially now that it's gone loving cold outside.

That said, if you're covering your face and wandering around in the street open carrying an illegal self-loading rifle I would think it should be considered reasonable force to throw a brick at the back of your head just in case you're about to go on a killing spree.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:24

Rigged Death Trap: Feb 13, 2012; BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP

Pantsuit posted:

How many Muslim women actually cover their face in the UK?

Women who wear Face veils are a minority even in muslim countries where face veils are relatively common.

So the amount of Muslim Women wearing face veils in the UK is staggeringly small but due to the nature of it being easy to spot and easy to single out Veiled women the only thing making people think its statistically relevant is vast amounts of confirmation bias.

Not to even mention bigotry.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:30

Kegluneq: Feb 18, 2011; Mr President, the physical reality of Prime Minister Corbyn is beyond your range of apprehension. If you'll just put on these PINKOVISION glasses...

tooterfish posted:

I went to three funerals in a row last week. Overall, lovely start to the year. Would not recommend.

Goddamn, you are well connected.

OwlFancier posted:

Well that's a good start to the morning, my grandmother's dead.

Sorry man. gently caress this January.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:38

serious gaylord: Sep 16, 2007; what.

Guavanaut posted:

That said, if you're covering your face and wandering around in the street open carrying an illegal self-loading rifle I would think it should be considered reasonable force to throw a brick at the back of your head just in case you're about to go on a killing spree.

Is this one of those 'heh the police are actually breaking the law' posts?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:42

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

It wasn't exactly subtle, considering the picture just two posts above that.

Also who else do you throw bricks at

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:46

serious gaylord: Sep 16, 2007; what.

I was questioning the 'illegal self loading rifle' bit really. I knew it was in reference to the copper above.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:50

Kassad: Nov 12, 2005; It's about time.

At the time the face veil ban was being debated in France, it was estimated (by the police) that under 2000 women actually covered their faces.

edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/world/europe/14burqa.html

quote:

While the numbers are unclear, the French police estimate that only about 2,000 women in France wear the full facial veil out of a Muslim population of five million to six million.

Up to a terrifying third of a tenth of a percent!

Kassad fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Jan 19, 2016

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:50

Dabir: Nov 10, 2012

Problem is, well, their face is covered. So if you see a woman wearing the veil one day and see the same woman a couple of days later, you could well assume, if you were inclined to, that she was in fact two different people.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:56

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

I wonder if confirmation bias isn't made worse because when your paranoid old mam sees at least three burqas a day in different parts of town, she's assuming they're not just the same three women every time.

e/ hah, beaten. It only just occurred to me as well.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 11:58

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Are Muslim women hiding multiple other women behind their veils? Are all Muslims the same woman? Richard Littlejohn investigates.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:03

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/terrorism-act-incompatible-with-human-rights-court-rules-in-david-miranda-case

quote:

Terrorism Act incompatible with human rights, court rules in David Miranda case

Appeal court says detention of Miranda at Heathrow was lawful but act under which he was held is not compatiable with European human rights convention

The Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, the master of the rolls, Lord Dyson, has declared as part of a court of appeal judgment.

His judgment came in the case of the detention of a man detained at Heathrow airport for carrying files related to information obtained by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Dyson�s decision will force government ministers to re-examine the act, which has now been found to be inconsistent with European law.

However, the judges concluded that the police decision to detain David Miranda, the partner of the former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, at Heathrow Airport in 2013 was lawful.

One quote from the judgment:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/689404784076451840

Glenn Greenwald posted:

Govt's use of law is "to use the word 'terrorism' in a way that bears no relationship to any ordinary understanding of the concept"

Can someone explain what this means? How can it have been lawful if the act in question doesn't comply with human rights law?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:16

baka kaba: Jul 19, 2003; PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Zephro posted:

Can someone explain what this means? How can it have been lawful if the act in question doesn't comply with human rights law?

Maybe the authorities acted within the law when they detained him, but the law itself is invalid?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:22

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Zephro posted:

Can someone explain what this means? How can it have been lawful if the act in question doesn't comply with human rights law?

Because the British constitution is a bunch of envelopes with 'lol' written on them (but some of them are really old) so whatever the government decides is law is law.

And what Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and David Blunkett, 1st Baron Dachau, decided was law during the early part of the 21st century was that anyone or anything that the government decided to apply the label 'terrorism' to was exempt from such fripperies as rights and due process.

Despite the token opposition of the Lib Dems, this state of affairs continued to the present day because it is politically convenient for those in power and other people who need to be taken down a peg or two. And anyone who opposes it gets smeared in the Mail as 'soft on crime'.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:24

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Filboid Studge posted:

No it wouldn't, the BMA is their union. It'd be a workers' co-op, and there wouldn't be an alternative provider. Lovely.

Yes, internally it could be structured as a co-op, but look at it from the perspective of the NHS. The current model is that the NHS is a large public sector employer that directly employs junior doctors. The new model would be that the NHS contracts a private organisation - in this case the BMA - to provide the services of junior doctors. And once you've created the mechanisms and structures allowing the NHS to do that, you're paving the way for marketisation; those same mechanisms and structures can just as well be used to contract G4S or Serco to provide doctors' services.

Also, Gideon's doing a progressive redistribution: http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adv...st-popular-list

quote:

Chancellor George Osborne plans to radically overhaul the pension tax relief system by implementing a flat-rate of between 25% and 33%.
Osborne plans to do away with the current system which gives people tax relief on contributions according to their marginal rate of income tax, which means those paying higher rates of tax receive more relief, and instead provide tax relief to everyone at the same flat rate, according to the Financial Times.
An announcement of changes to pensions tax relief is expected to be made in this year's Budget in March, though, according to the paper, changes would not come into force for another 12 months to give the industry time to adapt.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:27

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

Guavanaut posted:

Because the British constitution is a bunch of envelopes with 'lol' written on them (but some of them are really old) so whatever the government decides is law is law.

And what Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and David Blunkett, 1st Baron Dachau, decided was law during the early part of the 21st century was that anyone or anything that the government decided to apply the label 'terrorism' to was exempt from such fripperies as rights and due process.

For the interested, here's the opening section from the terrorism act 2000 which defines "terrorism":

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

Public strike action is terrorism :v:

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:28

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

Voting is also terrorism.

Threatening to vote is also terrorism.

You'd think there'd be a section in there somewhere outlining things which definitely aren't terrorism even if they otherwise fit the given definition, but I can't seem to find one.

Renaissance Robot fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jan 19, 2016

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:28

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Saying "we'll leave the UK if you tax us" is definitely terrorism, by the look of it.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:35

tooterfish: Jul 13, 2013

Kegluneq posted:

Goddamn, you are well connected.

Not anymore!

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:35

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Renaissance Robot posted:

You'd think there'd be a section in there somewhere outlining things which definitely aren't terrorism even if they otherwise fit the given definition, but I can't seem to find one.

Being rich and white.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:47

big scary monsters: Sep 2, 2011; -~Ｓｋｕｌｌｗａｖｅ~-

Guavanaut posted:

Are Muslim women hiding multiple other women behind their veils? Are all Muslims the same woman? Richard Littlejohn investigates.

A Muslim woman removes her veil and underneath is just a mirror... on society.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 12:50

baka kaba: Jul 19, 2003; PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Ban the mirror

# ? Jan 19, 2016 13:02

dispatch_async: Nov 28, 2014; Imagine having the time to have played through 20 generations of one family in The Sims 2. Imagine making the original two members of that family Neil Buchanan and Cat Deeley. Imagine complaining to Maxis there was no technological progression. You've successfully imagined my life

There was a petition asking the "Government to abandon all ideas of trying to ban strong encryption". It got 10k signatures so it got a response:

quote:

The Government is not seeking to ban or limit encryption. The Government recognises the important role that encryption plays in keeping people�s personal data and intellectual property safe online.

This Government recognises the importance of encryption, which helps keep people's personal data and intellectual property safe from theft by cyber means. It is fundamental to our everyday use of the internet. Without the development of strong encryption allowing the secure transfer of banking details there would be no online commerce. As Baroness Shields made clear in the House of Lords on 27 October 2015, the Government does not require the provision of a back-door key or support arbitrarily weakening the security of internet services.

Clearly as technology evolves at an ever increasing rate, it is only right that we make sure we keep up, to keep our citizens safe. There shouldn�t be a guaranteed safe space for terrorists, criminals and paedophiles to operate beyond the reach of law.

The Government is clear we need to find a way to work with industry as technology develops to ensure that, with clear oversight and a robust legal framework, the police and intelligence agencies can, subject to a warrant which can only be issued using a strict authorisation process where it is necessary and proportionate, access the content of communications of terrorists and criminals in order to resolve police investigations and prevent criminal acts.

There are already requirements in law for Communication Service Providers in certain circumstances to remove encryption that they have themselves applied from intercepted communications. This is subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State who must consider the interception of communications to be necessary and proportionate. The Investigatory Powers Bill will not ban or further limit encryption.

Home Office

Seems to be more of the same fantasy that they can prevent "a guaranteed safe space" for bad people while still allowing strong encryption.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 13:11

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

Pantsuit posted:

How many Muslim women actually cover their face in the UK?

Very few, to the point where it's quite a talking point when I do see one.

Last one I saw was having a very heated argument with who I could only assume was her boyfriend on the phone. That made me smile.

big scary monsters posted:

A Muslim woman removes her veil and underneath is just a mirror... on society.

Zizek actually suggested in Living in the End Times that the reason why the veil provokes such fear is that it is the gaze without a human context, like the other itself is staring directly at you.

So pretty much a mirror, yes.

Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Jan 19, 2016

# ? Jan 19, 2016 13:18

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

If you accept the other you'll get a really strong persona without having to fight it first.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 13:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 21:15

Fans: Jun 27, 2013; A reptile dysfunction

dispatch_async posted:

There was a petition asking the "Government to abandon all ideas of trying to ban strong encryption". It got 10k signatures so it got a response:

Seems to be more of the same fantasy that they can prevent "a guaranteed safe space" for bad people while still allowing strong encryption.

It's a bit weasely an answer. They're not technically banning encryption, the Bill just gives them the power to force companies to use Encyrption that can be broken in house, rather than using End-to-End Encryption.

Technically End-to-End Encryption would still be legal, if you're not a company.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 13:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT January and a bit of February 2016: Marxist Theory and Danczuk Memes

«‹›188 »