|
Gum posted:"Those with limited political power often end up getting screwed over" no poo poo, what's your point? I would say rather that over time, inconvenient identities get displaced by those whose dialectic axis is more salient to the ongoing political discourse the amount of people who are Welsh but for whom Welshness is their primary political identity will just continue diminishing from its 1970s peak
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
About loving time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Sorry if I came across as dismissing the idea of intersectionality, it wasn’t my intent. Actually, I was thinking of that 4chan table What's this? That one where you get + or - points depending on attributes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:About loving time. Yeah, only rich people should be allowed to binge drink, it's only a social problem or public health issue when poors do it
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:Yeah, only rich people should be allowed to binge drink, it's only a social problem or public health issue when poors do it lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
I have to say, the number of leftists who equate having a cultural identity with nationalism is a bit out of hand. To use a historical example, would a monolingual Gaelic speaker be a nationalist for campaigning for more opportunities for Gaelic speakers? Their language is an inherent part of their cultural identity, and if the systemic oppression that has led to the language's decline is not opposed, their culture will become extinct. What option is there? I think this is something of a blind spot in this thread. International socialism does not have to equate an international monoculture. Cultural diversity is an important thing, globally and locally, and we should focus on extending equal rights to people of all cultures and classes without calling them 'nationalists' for actually trying to protect their culture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Have you been to Cardiff? Why would you want it? Cardiff is really nice. On the other hand, I could happily never see Pontypool again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:Yeah, only rich people should be allowed to binge drink, it's only a social problem or public health issue when poors do it While the minium pricing, I believe does actually reduce deaths, yeah I'm not sure it's my preferred solution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Cardiff is really nice. On the other hand, I could happily never see Pontypool again. To be fair my sample size is of having been once. I'll say this in its favour, drat cheap beer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:Yeah, only rich people should be allowed to binge drink, it's only a social problem or public health issue when poors do it I guess those all those alcohol charities are supporting minimum pricing because they're a bunch of bougie fucks then, am I right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
So what's a good book about the history of Maoist China?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
namesake posted:Even if your CLP is out of action since there's momentum around you should go to their meetings because they should point you towards things that are happening. I’ll take a look, cheers!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
I’m entirely comfortable with encouraging varied and complex cultures and identities, and expressing this through things like languages. I do not confuse this with nationalism - I do not even confuse patriotism with nationalism, although that’s sometimes more challenging. I call nationalism nationalism, and nationalism is mind poison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Have you been to Cardiff? Why would you want it?  .(disclaimer: I work at Techniquest).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Peanut Butter posted:I have to say, the number of leftists who equate having a cultural identity with nationalism is a bit out of hand. To use a historical example, would a monolingual Gaelic speaker be a nationalist for campaigning for more opportunities for Gaelic speakers? Their language is an inherent part of their cultural identity, and if the systemic oppression that has led to the language's decline is not opposed, their culture will become extinct. What option is there? that's the wrong question the right question would be whether said speakers are predominantly willing to sign up for the rest of the left manifesto, especially the bits on multicultural toleration in their own midst that's how you can distinguish a movement for more opportunities for themselves from a movement for fewer opportunities for others ronya fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:I’m entirely comfortable with encouraging varied and complex cultures and identities, and expressing this through things like languages. I do not confuse this with nationalism - I do not even confuse patriotism with nationalism, although that’s sometimes more challenging. If we see any nationalism we'll be sure to let you know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
I went looking for ye old minimum alcohol pricing effortpost and found it back in a 2012 thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3483266&pagenumber=15&perpage=40#post403615995 vvv As the effortpost covers, taxation is an imperfect tool as retailers can absorb the cost as a loss leader. Minimum pricing sidesteps this Party Boat fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:I guess those all those alcohol charities are supporting minimum pricing because they're a bunch of bougie fucks then, am I right? They support it because, like OwlFancier said, evidence shows that it reduces deaths. I'm sure they'd equally support just taxing the gently caress out of it like they do for cigarettes, which would have the exact same effect for cheap booze but would also apply to rich people. I'd support that wholeheartedly, but I can't support a measure that literally only applies to poor people whilst having no effect whatsoever on richer problem drinkers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
I've fairly recently cut back on my drinking, but from my past experience being able to buy 20 cans of cider for £15 from a supermarket definitely lead to me having more booze in the house, and once you've got the booze and you're already lagered up, it's easy to carry on drinking and regret the amount later. I wasn't particularly poor either, I just liked to get a "good deal" on my poisonous beverages. The poorest people get hospitalised for alcohol-related reasons far more than richer people (a multiple of 7 in Scotland), and minimum unit pricing in Canada has proven to be effective in combating that, so I say bring it on. Borrovan posted:I'm sure they'd equally support just taxing the gently caress out of it like they do for cigarettes Nah, you need to do some reading on this, it's nowhere near as simple as "lol they just want to tax the poor". Gort fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:So what's a good book about the history of Maoist China? Read Combat Liberalism 100 times in a row
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
You can’t raise the prices on the poor bloody wineos without also massively reinforcing the infrastructure that helps with supporting alcoholics through withdrawal. If you simply make it unaffordable and go “job done” then A&E is just going to be flooded with DOA homeless people who have switched to methylated spirits or anti freeze. Why do I see a Tory policy behind all this? Kill all the people made homeless by all the other Tory policies, yay the statistics are down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:I'm sure they'd equally support just taxing the gently caress out of it like they do for cigarettes, which would have the exact same effect for cheap booze but would also apply to rich people. I'd support that wholeheartedly, but I can't support a measure that literally only applies to poor people whilst having no effect whatsoever on richer problem drinkers. tax doesn't work because the supermarkets are selling cheap alcohol at a massive loss already, and would continue to do so as it is a relatively viable business practice. Hard minimum pricing as a de facto tax hike is a ready answer. When this first came up I was pretty heavily against the idea but the models do show it has a function in reducing deaths. I think a lot of my dislike of the idea came from a place where I thought this isn't enough, and it still isn't. There is no way to deal with the UKs absurd drinking problem without heavy public information campaigns, expanding the mental health provisions of the NHS to allow earlier intervention of problem drinkers and normalise mental health care as a practice similar to going to the GP, and active outreach into communities to seek out the problem instead of waiting for it to hit us. We're already seeing that Gen Y/millenials drink less for a bunch of reasons, and this is an opportunity. Reducing deaths in the most vulnerable is also an opportunity, and it can still be a tool we use within a better framework that addresses the wider issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
consider Walder's China Under Mao: A Revolution Derailed focuses on Mao's impact rather than on the party power struggle
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
ukmt: evidence-based policy except when i don't like the policy
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Daily Politics is like an episode of Brass Eye now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
agreed. all alcohol should be free at the point of delivery. it's only fair
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Gort posted:Nah, you need to do some reading on this, it's nowhere near as simple as "lol they just want to tax the poor". Well no, people genuinely do want to prevent harm, which minimum pricing will achieve. But, this could also be achieved by tax reform (literally half of the page you linked argues this - and the only counterargument raised is basically just  ).I'd agree that a minimum unit price is better than nothing, but I just can't support a measure that literally only applies to poor people - I know plenty of wealthier problem drinkers who this will have literally no effect on. Yes, alcohol related problems disproportionately affect the poor, but that's because being poor is loving poo poo, which is the real problem here (as anywhere).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:You can’t raise the prices on the poor bloody wineos without also massively reinforcing the infrastructure that helps with supporting alcoholics through withdrawal. If you simply make it unaffordable and go “job done” then A&E is just going to be flooded with DOA homeless people who have switched to methylated spirits or anti freeze. not implementing minimum alcohol pricing will absolutely kill more poor people than implementing it like, orders of magnitude more
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
And workfare would kill fewer people than not having any sort of welfare system but that doesn't make it a desirable welfare system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:Well no, people genuinely do want to prevent harm, which minimum pricing will achieve. But, this could also be achieved by tax reform (literally half of the page you linked argues this - and the only counterargument raised is basically just they're rich, why'd they care if their bottle of plonk costs £10 more? they were already buying top-shelf stuff
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Cerv posted:agreed. all alcohol should be free at the point of delivery. it's only fair I'd like to see NZ style home distillation too, but the UK is vastly more urbanized, so it might have to come in the form of tested and licensed electric stills, because otherwise someone is going to take out a couple of houses boiling ethanol over a gas burner in an enclosed space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And workfare would kill fewer people than not having any sort of welfare system but that doesn't make it a desirable welfare system. it does when you currently don't have a welfare system
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Peanut Butter posted:a monolingual Gaelic speaker These people don't exist btw. Níl aon duine ina chónaí in Éirinn nó Albainn nach bhfuil aon teanga eile agat ach Gaeilge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:it does when you currently don't have a welfare system That depends on whether you expect the establishment of the deeply flawed approach to be used as a cudgel to deter the establishement of an actually good one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
As a tee-totaller I don’t have a personal dog in this fight but wouldn’t a minimum price combined with additional tax offer the best of both approaches?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:These people don't exist btw. Níl aon duine ina chónaí in Éirinn nó Albainn nach bhfuil aon teanga eile agat ach Gaeilge. This does kinda support the argument that if you don't fight cultural erasure it'll happen OwlFancier posted:That depends on whether you expect the establishment of the deeply flawed approach to be used as a cudgel to deter the establishement of an actually good one. The tories don't give a flying gently caress and Labour already committed to the expansion of the NHS and mental health care. A fully expanded early intervention into substance abuse team, similar to the psychosis one but actually funded, could end up generating enormous amounts of taxable income. You can turn a person with substance abuse issues into a taxpayer but you can't do the same with a person with being dead issues, which is why the minimum pricing can be both a gross misdirect from much bigger problems and a good idea for now
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
I think it is fair to say that intersectionality - * as expressed by young American internet people * - doesn't take into account class or wealth, so it's a pretty limited tool to actually determine privilege and power.
mediadave fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:Well no, people genuinely do want to prevent harm, which minimum pricing will achieve. But, this could also be achieved by tax reform (literally half of the page you linked argues this - and the only counterargument raised is basically just Thanks for reading the link. The point I was making was in refutation to your implied assertion that drinks charities just want to frivolously raise taxes on alcohol and they're not considering the problem in detail - you can see from the link that they've had multiple professors make multiple fully-referenced arguments for multiple ways to tackle binge drinking culture. I think the thing that clinches the argument for me is that minimum unit pricing has been proven to work for the Canadian provinces that have tried it. The professor arguing instead for alcohol tax reform has to rely entirely on hypotheticals, since her approach has never been tried. You can also use the exact same argument you're using against minimum unit pricing to target her idea of tax reform - at the end of the day if money is meaningless to you, the cost of alcohol is equally meaningless to you, so the tax won't affect you. This is unfair since it will be meaningful to poor people, so let's not do anything about the problem at all, even though it's disproportionately damaging to poorer people. Sure, I would like to see bigger fixes to the problems of inequality, but I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
'Being aware of' privilege is also a pretty abstract goal that doesn't have any reliable measurement to determine if a group is Sufficiently Aware. That's not to say don't raise awareness, just think twice before considering "hmm, is the thread really aware of minority group-specific discrimination and poverty?" just because they are ambivalent about a lack of solutions WRT the topic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Minimum alcohol pricing doesn't exist to stop homeless alcoholics: It exists to make binge drinking (and drinking large amounts of cheap alcohol at home for pre's) more expensive, so that people wreck their liver less and are less likely to drink enough to end up in hospital that night. Sure, can they still buy a £15 bottle of Sminorff and do the same thing instead of a £9 bottle of own-brand vokda? Yes, but the evidence from other places shows they don't .
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:17
|
|
