|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Your issue is not with those vile responses, it's with her deciding which campaign to back? This in a nutshell. Its perfectly fine for celebrities to say who they're voting for, or give campaigns money, provided its going to the yes vote. If they back no they're vile subhuman scum who are going to be part of the death squads that roam the streets to kill off Scotlands homeless.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
ukle posted:As someone who is completely impartial on this and living in the North of England I am now defiantly in favour of Scottish independence just to be shot of the complete racist bigots that seem to be prevalent in our neighbours. I agree with you in terms of the whole racist bigots thing though you seem to be painting the picture that only Scotland is filled with these bigots and that north of England is not filled with this type of vile at all? poo poo like this happens everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Edit: It loving winds me up that close family friends who are scottish (they are staunchley pro independance btw) have less influence in the outcome of the nation of their birth then some public school dickhead from switzerland who's playing dress up
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:If you don't live in Scotland why should you get any say in the lives of the people who do? Why would you even want any? Expats vote in general elections all over the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Expats vote in general elections all over the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Expats vote in general elections all over the world. But how would you define a Scottish expat? There's really no fairer way of doing it than by residency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:That's patently absurd. I spent 3 months working in kenya, if i'd started putting on an accent and walked around claiming i was now as kenyan as anyone and had assimilated the complex issues of a nations politics in a short space of time i'd have been ridiculed and probably necklaced. You, having decided independance was your pet topic while at uni, can not possibly posses the same depth of insight into the culture and issues of a nation as someone who was born and grew up there. I see no reason why you couldn't become 'Kenyan' if you were invested enough in the country/culture. Obvious physical difference in terms of skin colour might make certain people critical of that but that's their problem not yours. Imagine you moved to a predominantly white country where you didn't have that immediate physical marker of 'otherness', and one that you speak the language of to go even further (Australia, say) - you'd surely be able to assimilate very quickly. Ethnicity is basically a social construct and is therefore bullshit on any real meaningful level. If ethnicity is supposed to mean anything than surely a lot of old British colonies remain populated by renamed Brits? Of course they're not. Scotland and England are so totally historically intertwined and there's been so much intermarriage etc that any sense of a real ethnic difference would be untenable even if we accepted the value of ethnicity in general. It's all about personal identity and subjective value and meaning we attach to that, not who we were born to or where.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
botany posted:Well thanks for clearing that up, I'll go tell my Turkish neighbours they're not real Germans. If they are real Germans why are you describing them as your Turkish neighbors ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Pasco posted:And is getting the now standard torrent of vile cybernat misogynist abuse for it: It's not like there aren't arseholes on both sides. But yeah, gently caress everyone who is giving Rowling abuse over her decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:It's not like there aren't arseholes on both sides. But yeah, gently caress everyone who is giving Rowling abuse over her decision. Why can't people just say 'these people are poo poo' without having to get defensive and say 'well THESE people are poo poo too!'
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
 This is the most unintentionally hilarious thing. stickyfngrdboy posted:Why can't people just say 'these people are poo poo' without having to get defensive and say 'well THESE people are poo poo too!' Because it's a political debate and unless that's constantly reinforced it becomes easy for the other side to argue that they're the 'decent' ones fighting a load of bastards. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
jre posted:If they are real Germans why are you describing them as your Turkish neighbors ? They can't be both?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Didn't take long for this thread to go to poo poo, then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:It's not like there aren't arseholes on both sides. But yeah, gently caress everyone who is giving Rowling abuse over her decision. I'm not seeing a lot in your link that is comparable to the Rowling abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Why can't people just say 'these people are poo poo' without having to get defensive and say 'well THESE people are poo poo too!' Id guess its because this thread has already had people claiming such abuse only ever comes from the Yes side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Random Integer posted:Id guess its because this thread has already had people claiming such abuse only ever comes from the Yes side. Quote some posts that show this please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
bondetamp posted:They can't be both? I just found it weird that someone would be complaining about others not considering them 'German' enough when in they themselves consider them their 'Turkish' neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Why can't people just say 'these people are poo poo' without having to get defensive and say 'well THESE people are poo poo too!' It's not defensive, it's fact. Yes supporters who abuse No supporters are arseholes and vice versa. I don't make a distinction between the two. quote:I'm not seeing a lot in your link that is comparable to the Rowling abuse. You sure? Looked for two seconds and I found this. https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/statuses/476723226052415488
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:It's not defensive, it's fact. Yes supporters who abuse No supporters are arseholes and vice versa. I don't make a distinction between the two. Yet you felt the need to agree that one side were arseholes immediately followed by 'they do it too!', and you weren't the first to do it. baronvonsabre posted:
not even remotely similar to the Rowling abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:You sure? Looked for two seconds and I found this. And you think that tweet is comparable to the personal abuse directed at JK Rowling?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
quote:Yet you felt the need to agree that one side were arseholes immediately followed by 'they do it too!', and you weren't the first to do it. Yeah, I condemn abuse wherever I see it. I didn't realise that would be controversial. Pissflaps posted:And you think that tweet is comparable to the personal abuse directed at JK Rowling? If it's personal abuse then definitely surprised you can't find anything, because 90% of those tweeted are personal attacks on Salmond or Sturgeon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:If it's personal abuse then definitely surprised you can't find anything, because 90% of those tweeted are personal attacks on Salmond or Sturgeon. Yes they're politicians it goes with the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:It's not defensive, it's fact. Yes supporters who abuse No supporters are arseholes and vice versa. I don't make a distinction between the two. That's no-where near the level of the atrocious, misogynistic personal attacks at someone who's made a concious decision to stay in Scotland and keep paying taxes after becoming a billionaire as a way to pay back what she received from the state. Just because she decided against independence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Quote some posts that show this please. quote:This in a nutshell. Its perfectly fine for celebrities to say who they're voting for, or give campaigns money, provided its going to the yes vote. If they back no they're vile subhuman scum who are going to be part of the death squads that roam the streets to kill off Scotlands homeless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
No that post does not show somebody claiming that abuse is only ever directed at No supporters from Yes supporters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yes they're politicians it goes with the job. Then fair enough I suppose. I really don't want to be playing a competition to find the worst tweet we can on either side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
jre posted:I just found it weird that someone would be complaining about others not considering them 'German' enough when in they themselves consider them their 'Turkish' neighbors. I don't, if you're a German citizen, you're German. But "I'll tell my German neighbours they're not German" doesn't exactly get my point across.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No that post does not show somebody claiming that abuse is only ever directed at No supporters from Yes supporters. So saying celebrities who support Yes do not get abused while celebrities who support No get called subhuman scum is, somehow, not saying that the abuse of public figures only comes from the Yes side?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Random Integer posted:So saying celebrities who support Yes do not get abused while celebrities who support No get called subhuman scum is, somehow, not saying that the abuse of public figures only comes from the Yes side? The post you quoted was describing how, in his or her experience, those who support Yes can accept public figures supporting their side, but not the other. It makes no mention of their experience of how such public figures are treated by those who support No.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The post you quoted was describing how, in his or her experience, those who support Yes can accept public figures supporting their side, but not the other. Except we know fine well that any public figure who goes on to state their position in the ordeal will no doubt be given praise and abuse. So I'm not sure why this is a big deal to begin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
I actually agree with the core of a lot of the criticisms of Rowling. However you slice it the No side are very much the 'establishment, status quo' ones, and for someone apparently so committed to supporting anti-poverty causes etc it seems a little off to spend so much money on a political group that represents the interests of those often responsible for that poverty. Whatever the practical difficulties, I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would vote in favour of trying to improve the lot of the worst off; even as part of the UK Scotland is noticeably more leftist than England (free prescriptions, old age care, education of degree level). Still, I do wish people would just say that rather than resorting to personal insults because despite their frustration being valid they're just undermining their own position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:However you slice it the No side are very much the 'establishment As opposed to the yes campaign which is primarily run by the governing party of Scotland who are somehow not "the establishment" ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
botany posted:I don't, if you're a German citizen, you're German. But "I'll tell my German neighbours they're not German" doesn't exactly get my point across. Plenty history of this in Scotland anyway; just ask the Irish. People pontificating about who gets to be Scottish and who doesn't is a really old drum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
jre posted:As opposed to the yes campaign which is primarily run by the governing party of Scotland who are somehow not "the establishment" ? You're really going to suggest to me that Salmond is an 'establishment' figure? Based on what? He's managed to unite the leadership of every other major British political party in opposition to him, which is a hell of an achievement and suggests that just maybe he's a bit of a political underdog/outsider in a British context (certainly I think Westminster is a hell of a lot more scared of him than they let on). A political party/leader doesn't become 'establishment' just by being voted into power, as long as they continue to represent interests contrary to the accepted status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:He's managed to unite the leadership of every other major British political party in opposition to him And to think, some people suggest the Yes campaign isn't all about Salmond.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:A political party/leader doesn't become 'establishment' just by being voted into power, as long as they continue to represent interests contrary to the accepted status quo. You must be using a really weird definition of establishment if the leader of a country isn't part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I actually agree with the core of a lot of the criticisms of Rowling. However you slice it the No side are very much the 'establishment, status quo' ones, and for someone apparently so committed to supporting anti-poverty causes etc it seems a little off to spend so much money on a political group that represents the interests of those often responsible for that poverty. Whatever the practical difficulties, I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would vote in favour of trying to improve the lot of the worst off; even as part of the UK Scotland is noticeably more leftist than England (free prescriptions, old age care, education of degree level). I found her open letter about the reasoning she chose to back the No campaign quite revealing. She is, on paper, in favour of an independent Scotland. However she personally feels that while remaining in the UK might mean Scotland is worse off, the yes campaign are minimising the risks to the country and that whenever the vague promises are questioned, they're drowned out by accusations of scaremongering. So she, personally, feels that Scotland is better off with the safety net of full UK membership behind it instead of the smokey haze of promises that an independent Scotland offer. I feel thats a very well reasoned decision on her part. A better the devil you know choice. serious gaylord fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:And to think, some people suggest the Yes campaign isn't all about Salmond. He's a major part of it, obviously. The point people make is that a Yes vote would still be legitimate without him, and as an individual he's not the important thing. As the leader of the SNP he's clearly going to be one of the big players though. jre posted:You must be using a really weird definition of establishment if the leader of a country isn't part of it. I think the issue here is a difference between the 'establishment' in the Scottish and British contexts. I'd accept that the SNP has now become pretty establishment in Scotland, but it remains very much a political outsider and very much anti-establishment in the British context. The anxiety between these two things is more or less one of the major reasons for the referendum. serious gaylord posted:I found her open letter about the reasoning she chose to back the No campaign quite revealing. She is, on paper, in favour of an independent Scotland. However she personally feels that while remaining in the UK might mean Scotland is worse off, the yes campaign are minimising the risks to the country and that whenever the vague promises are questioned, they're drowned out by accusations of scaremongering. So she, personally, feels that Scotland is better off with the safety net of full UK membership behind it instead of the smokey haze of promises that an independent Scotland offer. Yeah, it's a reasonable decision for the vote. It's not so strong a position that I'd think it would lead someone to become No's biggest financial supporter, but whatever. I think ultimately this is one of those situations where everything from both sides is wrapped up in so much rhetoric that real facts are basically absent. So on that, I agree with her. However, I'd take that and argue that no major event in the history of the world has occured without risk, and I'm so sick of the status quo that I'm willing to roll the dice. Coohoolin posted:Yes, I'm obviously not talking about simply the campaigners and people who identify politically as unionists, but everyone who leans towards that vote in loving POLLS. Sheesh. Well loving said ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Given that the majority of polls put No firmly in the lead, do you think most of Scotland is also racist and sectarian? Yes, I'm obviously not talking about simply the campaigners and people who identify politically as unionists, but everyone who leans towards that vote in loving POLLS. Sheesh. Loving Africa Chaps posted:That's patently absurd. I spent 3 months working in kenya, if i'd started putting on an accent and walked around claiming i was now as kenyan as anyone and had assimilated the complex issues of a nations politics in a short space of time i'd have been ridiculed and probably necklaced. You, having decided independance was your pet topic while at uni, can not possibly posses the same depth of insight into the culture and issues of a nation as someone who was born and grew up there. Ahaha. Yeah right. You know fuckall about me. I've been living in Scotland for 5 years now. I work. I pay taxes. I organize political action. I perform in my local bars. I can prepare haggis neeps and tatties for Burns Night, for gently caress's sake, if I can ever be arsed. Keep the blut und boden crap to yourself, by Scottish standards, those proclaimed by our own government as well as most Scottish people on this loving thread, I'm loving Scottish and part of this referendum. There's more to being Scottish than having an accent and wearing tartan, not that you'd get an indepth representation of it from British media. In case anyone was actually wondering, I'm obviously not ok with the vile tweets directed at Rowling. But I don't remember anyone saying much when actual newspapers ran hate campaigns against the Weirs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I found her open letter about the reasoning she chose to back the No campaign quite revealing. She is, on paper, in favour of an independent Scotland. However she personally feels that while remaining in the UK might mean Scotland is worse off, the yes campaign are minimising the risks to the country and that whenever the vague promises are questioned, they're drowned out by accusations of scaremongering. So she, personally, feels that Scotland is better off with the safety net of full UK membership behind it. Maybe, I find it somewhat hypocritical if her donation is going to the exact thing she just criticized considering Better Together is accused of the same things as well. Both sides are at faults when it comes to this situation and is slightly going against her own statement if she is giving money to a group which is doing the same thing as Yes Scotland.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:51
|
|