|
StoneOfShame posted:So people who rent from housing associations should be shouldering any difficulties as the transfer on to universal credit happens, I dont even know anymore http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/16/housing-benefit-claimants-rent-universal-credit From talking to people who work in the tenant facing roles at the association I work for they basically have no idea whats going to happen and are unable to plan effectively because the government keeps changing details, but "its probably going to be really bad" E: re: cameron and islamophobia there was something on bbc news 24 about cameron wanting to arrest people who had isis flags in the uk and it made me think of this thread and the posts about how people can't tell the difference between it and other islamic flags. It just seems like a guarantee that some innocent muslims protesting something (gaza maybe?) will get the poo poo kicked out of them by police or just ignorant fuckers Phoon fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Aug 17, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Phoon posted:From talking to people who work in the tenant facing roles at the association I work for they basically have no idea whats going to happen and are unable to plan effectively because the government keeps changing details, but "its probably going to be really bad" Don't worry, Universal Credit will never happen, so this isn't a thing that they'll have to practically deal with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I think saying they're a major threat to the UK is probably pretty overblown (do they even have any desire to rule the UK?). They are, however, loving terrifying and need to be stopped ASAP. Given how most people seem to be pretty content to ignore them, I'm happy to give a bit of leeway to anyone trying to raise concerns. I made the mistake of watching one of their uncut propoganda videos the other day. It involved truckloads of captured Iraqi army guys being executed en masse. The 'lucky' ones were dragged through pools of the blood of those who went before them, shot in the back of the head, and tossed in the river. The unlucky ones were held down and beheaded, and their skulls put on spikes in the town centre. This was all clearly very real. Local civilians don't seem to fare much better in many cases. Our good friends the Iraqi government has also been mass executing people, and more stuff has been coming out about their torture chambers. And the other people Islamic State are fighting, the Assad regime, are also known for massacring lots of people. So yeah Islamic State are awful and everyone hates them but their war crimes are pretty much what you would expect, hyperbole about their crimes being on the level of the Nazis isn't helpful. Saying they are beyond any other conflict in recent history just shows you haven't been paying attention to other conflicts in recent history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Our good friends the Iraqi government has also been mass executing people, and more stuff has been coming out about their torture chambers. And the other people Islamic State are fighting, the Assad regime, are also known for massacring lots of people. So yeah Islamic State are awful and everyone hates them but their war crimes are pretty much what you would expect, hyperbole about their crimes being on the level of the Nazis isn't helpful. See that's what I thought initially, but the more I read and see, the more I feel that there's a level of wanton violence with them that I haven't noticed elsewhere. There's always the implication with most autocratic regimes that fear and bloodshed are a tool to keep hold of the reins of power, and that if an individual chooses to keep their head down and not challenge the government they won't generally be directly targeted (of course, that doesn't protect them from being in the wrong place at the wrong time). It is ruthless, but it is pragmatic. I do however admit that this could be skewed as Assad et al always made at least some effort to cover up the worst of their atrocities. With ISIS, I feel that something is different. Their violence seems to be conducted in a way that is deliberately and needlessly brutal, while also being so casual as to imply a complete dehumanisation of their opponents (alongside 'undesirable elements' in the areas they control). While there's certainly an argument that this remains pragmatic to a point (instilling absolute fear in your enemies is a fairly tried and tested propaganda strategy) I get a very unsettling feeling that it goes beyond that. It just looked like there was a pure ideological joy in the executions, and often in the very cruel and drawn out way they were performed. That's the really troubling thing that I feel is new - you've always had isolated instances of deliberately brutal ideological murder, and you've always had mass war crimes, but it has been some time since the two have gone together on this scale. I don't bring up the Nazis lightly, and I hate inviting Godwin accusations so readily, but it really does seem that the absolute ideological hatred of their opponents is worryingly similar to that experienced in the more terrifying of 20th Century conflicts (WW2, the Cambodian Genocide, possibly the Balkans etc). I think there's a really important distinction that has to be made between indifference to death/suffering and death/suffering as a primary goal in itself. They're both lovely attitudes, but the latter is a lot scarier. I get the impression that ISIS actively promotes that attitude towards those who they consider infidels or heretics (i.e. most people). It's not that they wouldn't piss on your if you were on fire, they'd actively set you on fire because gently caress you. What I'm saying is that Assad, Saddam, Gaddafi etc were terrible, ruthless dictators and it looks pretty clear that Saddam and Gaddafi at least were outright sadists too. However, the implication is always that on the broader political level they were pragmatists - they did whatever they did to maintain or further their power and, as a general rule, they wouldn't kill for the sake of killing on an large scale, ideological basis. ninja edit: Before someone calls me out on the obvious, I agree that Saddam's treatment of the Kurds might well have constituted active ideological genocide, but I really don't know enough of the specifics of that conflict to comment either way. It doesn't really matter to the general argument about ISIS though. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Phoon posted:
This but worse and more common.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:What I'm saying is that Assad, Saddam, Gaddafi etc were terrible, ruthless dictators and it looks pretty clear that Saddam and Gaddafi at least were outright sadists too. However, the implication is always that on the broader political level they were pragmatists - they did whatever they did to maintain or further their power and, as a general rule, they wouldn't kill for the sake of killing on an large scale, ideological basis. You could certainly make the argument that IS (along with similar insurrectionists through history) use this level of brutality for exactly those same, pragmatic reasons. A nation of 50 million people isn't going to be scared of 50,000 people singing Kum Baya, but 50,000 people who murder the living poo poo out of everyone in their path? That's going to make people think twice about not giving them exactly what they want. And of course thanks to the internet they don't even have to live one person alive to tell the tale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:You could certainly make the argument that IS (along with similar insurrectionists through history) use this level of brutality for exactly those same, pragmatic reasons. A nation of 50 million people isn't going to be scared of 50,000 people singing Kum Baya, but 50,000 people who murder the living poo poo out of everyone in their path? That's going to make people think twice about not giving them exactly what they want. And of course thanks to the internet they don't even have to live one person alive to tell the tale. Yes, I mentioned that argument and I do accept that it holds water. However, when you listen to the fighters speak and see how they treat their captives you really do get the impression that there's a level of ideological hatred that runs far deeper than any pragmatic propaganda strategy. I guess that could just mean their propaganda is very effective!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
It also means that they have basically zero support from, really, anyone outside of their own organisation. I mean, even with Al-Qaeda, some people were very careful not to unequivocally denounce them. With IS, there's none of that. It's not necessarily the fact that they kill so many people, it's the sadistic gleefulness they do it with that really worries people. They're not recruiting the pious and ideologically-driven; they're recruiting shitheads and morons who think it's all a bit of a laugh. The sort of people only their families will mourn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
The circumstances and brutal violence reminds me of the Khemer Rouge a little bit
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:It also means that they have basically zero support from, really, anyone outside of their own organisation. I think we can be too ready to write people like this off as 'shitheads and morons'. Even the biggest rear end in a top hat thugs would probably flinch at that level of brutality. I really do think that you have to completely believe in what you're doing ideologically (or just be a sadist, but there aren't really that many honest to god sadists about) to do this kind of poo poo. That's why the numbers they are managing to recruit in are genuinely scary. JFairfax posted:The circumstances and brutal violence reminds me of the Khemer Rouge a little bit Yes this is exactly what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Yes, I mentioned that argument and I do accept that it holds water. However, when you listen to the fighters speak and see how they treat their captives you really do get the impression that there's a level of ideological hatred that runs far deeper than any pragmatic propaganda strategy. I guess that could just mean their propaganda is very effective! This doesn't really mean anything other than their methods are working. ISIS is pretty much working on their reputation to get them where they're going. It's not a coincidence that they managed to steamroll through areas that were largely aligned with them to begin with, and areas that are actively opposed to them are giving them a lot of trouble. It's a blitzkrieg/shock and awe advance that has run out of steam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:It's a blitzkrieg/shock and awe advance that has run out of steam. I hope you're right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it was in the Middle East thread but there was some sort of statement about their tactics being pretty much recycled and refined Al Qaeda tactics of using suicide bombers for the initial attack and overwhelming poorly disciplined, poorly guarded targets. I mean, the US and the UK did a spectacular job of loving up Iraq enough for these kinds of attacks to work, but I imagine they would crumble against any meaningful resistance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Yes, I mentioned that argument and I do accept that it holds water. However, when you listen to the fighters speak and see how they treat their captives you really do get the impression that there's a level of ideological hatred that runs far deeper than any pragmatic propaganda strategy. I guess that could just mean their propaganda is very effective! If human history has taught us anything it's that a depressingly large proportion of the human race are capable of the most incredible cruelty on the flimsiest of pretences. The ideology is an excuse, not a cause.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:If human history has taught us anything it's that a depressingly large proportion of the human race are capable of the most incredible cruelty on the flimsiest of pretences. The ideology is an excuse, not a cause. But what possible motive would they have? Very few people are outright sadists/psychopaths. Yes, history has shown the human race to be capable of a lot of poo poo, but most examples of large scale violence like this are either found in a heavy ideological context or one in which the people involved are trying to save their own skin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
It's a very effective military tactic. I mean, this kind of poo poo has been used throughout human history to scare the enemy into submitting. It's practically the basis of total war: Surrender or you and everything you hold dear will be destroyed. Coupled with a force that has very little regard for their own lives, let alone the enemy they're facing and you have the perfect scary army. I have no doubt that there are many in IS who truly are inhuman monsters, they'd have to be, but the ideology is most certainly secondary to their goals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:But what possible motive would they have? Very few people are outright sadists/psychopaths. Yes, history has shown the human race to be capable of a lot of poo poo, but most examples of large scale violence like this are either found in a heavy ideological context or one in which the people involved are trying to save their own skin. Here you are. It's not a chicken and egg question: which comes first, the violence, deprivation, disenfranchisement and ignorance that make fertile soil for such movements or the movement? When things like this explode they latch onto whatever justification is most effective. The most terrifying thing about things like ISIS or the Khmer Rouge is that they're not populated with cackling psychopaths but normal, if severely damaged, human beings. "There but for the grace of God go I" and all that. The other way of asking this question is 'why don't such movements spring up in prosperous, egalitarian societies'? Sadism/psychopathy/whatever term isn't a switch that goes on and off in people's heads. It's the result of a process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:But what possible motive would they have? Very few people are outright sadists/psychopaths. Yes, history has shown the human race to be capable of a lot of poo poo, but most examples of large scale violence like this are either found in a heavy ideological context or one in which the people involved are trying to save their own skin. Well are you saying the ideology reprograms previously harmless and good people, transforming them into something different entirely? Rather than, say, tapping into existing characteristics and circumstances and allowing them the space and justification to stop holding back? It's a complicated subject, but the point is it's easy to lay the blame entirely on ideas (which are part of a broader philosophy that gets tainted by association) and not the people acting under that banner. Any ideology has the power to move people in a unified direction, that's why you tend to see large-scale violence associated with it. Every group or state has a narrative for its people to latch onto. Truly terrible things happen in wars, when people are in extreme situations and the normal rules no longer have any power. It's why, for example, the US could wage terrible war on Vietnam in the name of 'freedom', and the massacres and torture that went on there weren't done because people identified with FREEDOM so heavily
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Also remember to wash your hands really well, preferably after scrubbing them with some sort of oil. At a party a few years ago my mate ate some 'badman' chopped chilli on a dare, then 10 minutes later went upstairs with someone. The literal scream that followed is how we all learned he was a giving lover.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
In addition, ISIS are one of the first major mass murdering groups to make full and very effective use of modern social media. Their pr videos, which are primarily mass executions and torture, are excellently shot in HD, with good soundtracks, editing and post production. For someone of an extremist mindset I imagine they're very inspiring. They also do twitter campaigns using hashtagging to spread violent images and messages. They're very well organised in that respect. They are also extremely dangerous as a result. It is not a leap of mental faith to see good extremist PR + very rapid successes on the ground mixing poorly with vulnerable impoverished young men and women in the UK. People were handing out flyers in Oxford circus to go fight for the Kaliphate [sic] and they were well put together. Extremism and intolerance, whatever its form - British nationalism, Islamism, etc, is extremely poisonous and flourishes in times of hardship for many like we're seeing right now. Cameron has a damned good point, although I expect it to be thoroughly obscured by 'muzzers go home'. Edit: also remember the social and historic significance of the Caliphate, and the fact you don't need to be pro ISIS necessarily to be pro Caliphate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:Extremism and intolerance, whatever its form - British nationalism, Islamism, etc, is extremely poisonous and flourishes in times of hardship for many like we're seeing right now. Cameron has a damned good point, although I expect it to be thoroughly obscured by 'muzzers go home'. Cameron is the point, it's massively hypocritical to stoke these sentiments and then turn around and say 'oh no British muslims are feeling excluded for some reason', and that hypocrisy isn't lost on those people. All this talk of 'winning hearts and minds' is just that, a lot of talk, meanwhile his education secretary is sending in counter-terrorism experts to investigate what muslims are up to in schools, etc. The government has traded on this and lots of other prejudices for a long time, in times of austerity-led hardship, precisely because it's so expedient - all the talk of 'we need to be inclusive and help people' is pure lip service while they carry out the exact opposite. What we should be doing is fostering a society of respect and inclusion, where your Britishness isn't qualified by your religion or your name or what you look like, where extremism is something extremists do and there isn't even a hint that this somehow implicates everyone else. So people are inherently Us instead of Us and Them. Not this bollocks. And working on a fairer society while we're at it, so people aren't ready to reject it and go on heroic crusades in the first place Cameron's point is going to be obscured alright, by the massive smokescreen he and the
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
twoot posted:FPTP basically, although there is always the hilarious issue of left-wing unity. Today both parties are chasing the same swing voters in a few dozen seats which can deliver them a majority. Unless you live in one of those marginal seats then neither of the two big parties cares about appealing to you. That's why both the old Labour left and the old Tory right think they've been abandoned by the modern incarnations of their parties. They have, because the party leaderships have assumed they'll keep voting for them anyway because there's no-one else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What we should be doing is fostering a society of respect and inclusion, where your Britishness isn't qualified by your religion or your name or what you look like, where extremism is something extremists do and there isn't even a hint that this somehow implicates everyone else. Why is it that certain groups of second generation immigrants identify strongly with being British, and others don't?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Maybe because some face massive amounts of racism and bigotry, and some don't? Also, maybe you'd like to clarify which "certain groups" you're referring to. Is there some defining characteristic you use to group them together? Something readily apparent at a glance?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The circumstances and brutal violence reminds me of the Khemer Rouge a little bit Except that we were funding them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28831242quote:All government policies will have to pass a "family test", David Cameron has announced. gently caress offfffffff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
I love the language in that second line. It makes it sound as though Mr. Cameron is battling to have his brave and controversial view heard against hordes of rabidly anti-family commentators and MPs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
To be fair he didn't mention whether it was a bad thing that families were worse off. Fits in perfectly with Tory policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
^^ nah, Tories want to encourage sprog-dropping because if the birth rate falls there might be a future  labour shortage and they'll either have to let foreigners in *spit* or watch workers get an upper hand in the job market *double-spit*big scary monsters posted:I love the language in that second line. It's the third line that does it for me. It suggests that the impact of policies isn't examined at all. Microplastics fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
thehustler posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28831242 I read the article in the Guardian about that, it makes it sound like the family test is going to be used to get rid of any single parent supplements in benefits. Because they are obviously a reward for feckless people instead of recognition that a one adult household will almost certainly bring in less money than a household with two adults. quote:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/18/parents-separating-children-family-test-david-cameron
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
With this and the cutting of legal aid it is fairly clear the Tories are pro-domestic abuse at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I love the language in that second line. It makes it sound as though Mr. Cameron is battling to have his brave and controversial view heard against hordes of rabidly anti-family commentators and MPs. I mean yes in this case the "family" is just code for "the traditional nuclear family" and if this is anything other than a contentless soundbite it'll end up being used to promote marriage. But if someone actually took real family life a bit more seriously it would be a refreshing change. Between the second-most expensive childcare in the world and the insane cost of housing this is not a very child-friendly country. Zephro fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Speaking as someone with kids, though, lots of things make no loving sense. It's easier to work when your child is in nursery than when it's in school because school only runs from 8.30 till 3 or so. Some schools have after-school clubs and some don't, and even those that do charge for it so you can only use them if you've got a significant amount of spare cash. But nurseries cost a poo poo load too - When I was paying nursery fees for childcare when I was working full time it was over £100 a week and that was 10 years ago so I'd guess it's a lot more now. I know we get 16 hours free a week but for most places round here that's split over 5 daily sessions of 3 and a bit hours so not mucch use for working unless your work is on the doorstep of the nursery and you only work 3 hours a day. At least when they are at school it's free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:I read the article in the Guardian about that, it makes it sound like the family test is going to be used to get rid of any single parent supplements in benefits. Because they are obviously a reward for feckless people instead of recognition that a one adult household will almost certainly bring in less money than a household with two adults. This is just further evidence that tories are incapable of imagining people being motivated by anything other than money
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Speaking as someone with kids, though, lots of things make no loving sense. It's easier to work when your child is in nursery than when it's in school because school only runs from 8.30 till 3 or so. Lots of people give up their jobs when their kids hit 5. Some schools have after-school clubs and some don't, and even those that do charge for it so you can only use them if you've got a significant amount of spare cash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:But nurseries cost a poo poo load too - When I was paying nursery fees for childcare when I was working full time it was over £100 a week and that was 10 years ago so I'd guess it's a lot more now. I know we get 16 hours free a week but for most places round here that's split over 5 daily sessions of 3 and a bit hours so not mucch use for working unless your work is on the doorstep of the nursery and you only work 3 hours a day. quote:At least when they are at school it's free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Yeah I don't doubt it, it was more that no politician ever has come out with an explicit anti-family stance and making a vague claim to stand for children and families (while actually introducing policy that directly harms them) is the most cliché piece of populism I can imagine. So the BBC saying that Cameron is "arguing" for it just sounded funny to me. It might well work though, there was a thread here a few months back about an American right wing economist floating a trial balloon for people without kids to specifically pay more tax because not having kids leaves them with more money in their pocket Several people argued in favour of it even when it was pointed out that a)Childless people already do this via tax credits, tax money going to schools etc they wont use and so on. b)It is really divisive and unreasonable to directly tax people for choosing / not being able to have kids. and C) That childless people have a relatively tiny amount of money more than people with kids compared to actual rich people who it would be far more worthwhile to tax. This did not matter, childless people were selfish and raising kids is really hard so they should pay a penalty for it. It was by no means all parents in the thread but there was clearly a seam of resentment that could be mined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:It might well work though, there was a thread here a few months back about an American right wing economist floating a trial balloon for people without kids to specifically pay more tax because not having kids leaves them with more money in their pocket gently caress that, kids are loving awful and should be discouraged
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:It might well work though, there was a thread here a few months back about an American right wing economist floating a trial balloon for people without kids to specifically pay more tax because not having kids leaves them with more money in their pocket Maybe it's more of an American thing? I know things aren't great in the UK but with tax credits, universal healthcare, maternity pay and child benefit the majority of people can raise children without having to live in a shed (unless they are in London) whereas it sounds like having kids in the US if you are low income is pretty poo poo. Personally I've never understood the argument that not having kids is selfish and I feel really guilty about having so many of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
apropos of nothing:
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:56
|
|
