You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
And there you go... shifting our energy consumption can't be achieved personally. As it happens, despite being irrelevant, I use the car once a month, have done the insulation we can in this house, ripped out the gas hobs, and use the gas central heating as little as possible. As I said, irrelevant, because as an individual I can't transform public transport, or energy generation or distribution, or insulate social housing and other rented homes... and the people living in them sure as hell can't. Blaming the end user for not making the changes that only the government can instigate is old and boring now.
China is often berated but their 1 child policy probably did more to slow climate change than any other policy from any other government.
Technically that is correct but you only have to look at the figures to know that it's over consumption by the wealthy in the developed world that is more of a problem than having more children in the developing world.
“Politicians know exactly what to do, they just don’t know how to get re-elected after doing it”
The more I think of it the more I think democracy as it currently exists is for the birds. The future is going to require some sort of eco-communist state. Private enterprise will still exist, as will rich people, but only with the consent of the state, and ultimately the state can only operate with the consent of the people.
China is an interesting case, it's massively authoritarian and does some horrific stuff, but it also has the power to make sweeping changes and it often does. For instance it wiped out bitcoin mining almost overnight. It's also cracking down on corporate and government corruption (yeah yeah I know it's not perfect) and I have no doubt they'll rapidly transition to carbon free infrastructure when it suits them.
The problem isn't China, the problem is western states and russia, who operate at the behest of oligarchs. If we can't challenge their power we're doomed, and our current democratic structures are completely unfit for purpose in this regard.
And there you go… shifting our energy consumption can’t be achieved personally. As it happens, despite being irrelevant, I use the car once a month, have done the insulation we can in this house, ripped out the gas hobs, and use the gas central heating as little as possible.
Like I said; token efforts. It requires a much larger commitment than simple changes like that, which probably don't impact on your actual comfort and convenience much if at all. If we ALL make such changes, then yes, that can make a (small) difference, but it's all the stuff people, including yourself, aren't admitting, such as number of holidays per year, or length/type of car journey, what temp you have your thermo set at, etc etc. You could have made all those changes yet still consume more energy/create more pollution than someone else.
It's things like not having a car at all, not making those ultimately unnecessary journeys (you really don't need to go to IKEA for more flat pack furniture or some tealights, you really don't), having your own energy generation, living in a smaller home, living closer to work, not buying new stuff likebikes on a regular basis, fixing things, etc etc. And:
it’s over consumption by the wealthy in the developed world that is more of a problem than having more children in the developing world.
Fact is that most of us are only making these token efforts cos it's fashionable to say you are. When the reality is that it's pissing in the wind. Blaming others cos they don't recycle, or having their heating on one degree higher, or whatever, is just 'othering' the issue. WE are the problem, only WE can change US.
It requires a much larger commitment than simple changes like that
It takes the action of governments.
I don’t know why you want to audit my life, as I’ve said the big changes can’t be made by any of us as individuals. As it happens, I haven’t flown for 15 years, and have cut meat down to once a fortnight, despite loving it (and personally liking livestock farming).
I don’t know why you want to audit my life, as I’ve said the big changes can’t be made by any of us as individuals. As it happens, I haven’t flown for 15 years, and have cut meat down to once a fortnight, despite loving it (and personally liking livestock farming).
I really couldn't give a toss whatever virtue signalling you might claim on an internet forum. YOU are the one trying to prove your green credentials. But it's really not about YOU. It's about US. So try to stop talking about yourself.
It takes the action of governments.
It takes the action of society. WE are society. WE have to change collectively. Why are you still sitting around waiting for governments to do anything? My ice has melted...
Because, the government has all the big levers to pull… we can’t touch them.
We can't? We really can't? Oh well no point trying then.
IMHO Bridges and Kelvin are both correct. We can do more as individuals, but it takes concerted gov action to really make the shift.
Kelvin, perhaps the only way to then shift politicians is for it to become such a front and centre issue for voters, that if they do NOT take action in a major way against climate change, then they will not get voted in again.
Bridges, it then, yes, becomes about individual actions, but those actions are done to ensure that elections are then driven by active, constructive and aggressive climate change policy.
May be talking bollocks, I don't often get involved in argum-alympic threads, but I think you are both absolutely correct.
Why are you still sitting around waiting for governments to do anything?
Because they're the only ones that can affect meaningful change. If everyone in Britain adopted a MUCH lower impact lifestyle that would only make a small difference. It needs a massive concerted plan on many fronts. It's all well and good telling us to travel less (for example) but when our boss makes us travel to work or fly somewhere under thread of disciplinary action what the hell are we going to do? It needs governments to disincentivise that.
There's no one big problem here, there are thousands of small ones. The single most effective tactic is probably the ballot box, and for that to work it needs public opinion. So yes, talking about it IS probably the most effective tactic. And berating others is probably one of the worst, because it leads to resentment and entrenchment.
Why are you still sitting around waiting for governments to do anything?
There are people out there doing just what you suggest, yet you've already condemned them for getting in the way of innocent working people who are just going about their everyday business. What do you want? You can't build consensus on change without pushing the boundaries, and that's exactly what IB are doing.
Of course, I think we all know the real problem you have with IB. It's that they're middle class types who are probably well enough off that they don't have to work or in a position where they don't have to fear losing their jobs. You really need to snap out of your 1970s class war mentality. Climate change is a much bigger issue than class justice, and the solution to it is also the solution to inequality. You just don't seem to like the fact that it's not the working class leading the fight to fix it.
There are people out there doing just what you suggest
They're not, they're just
getting in the way of innocent working people who are just going about their everyday business
You can’t build consensus on change without pushing the boundaries, and that’s exactly what IB are doing.
They're not. They're just pissing everybody off, and turning most people off their cause. Oh look; they've changed their tactics because they realised how ****ing stupid they were.
Of course, I think we all know the real problem you have with IB. It’s that they’re middle class types who are probably well enough off that they don’t have to work or in a position where they don’t have to fear losing their jobs. You really need to snap out of your 1970s class war mentality. Climate change is a much bigger issue than class justice, and the solution to it is also the solution to inequality. You just don’t seem to like the fact that it’s not the working class leading the fight to fix it.
The problem with that imagined scenario is...
...I'm actually middle class myself.
Awkward...
It’s all well and good telling us to travel less (for example) but when our boss makes us travel to work or fly somewhere under thread of disciplinary action what the hell are we going to do?
'I was only following orders...'
Choice. Yours to make.
‘I was only following orders…’
Choice. Yours to make.
Don't be stupid, that's a ludicrous comparison.
I dunno about you but I have to feed my family, and I need a job to do that. Walking out of any job that has negative environmental implications might be a great way for me to signal virtue but it's not really feasible, especially as they'd just give it to someone else who wouldn't complain.
But this was really an example to show how what we can personally do has limits, for a variety of reasons, and it needs government action.
Don’t be stupid, that’s a ludicrous comparison.
No it's not. Nobody is forcing you to do that particular job, are they?
Walking out of any job that has negative environmental implications might be a great way for me to signal virtue but it’s not really feasible, especially as they’d just give it to someone else who wouldn’t complain.
Which is why we need to work together as a society in order to affect change. If nobody took the job, then the employers would have to rethink. You could take a different job that doesn't involve flying; I suspect you won't because you like the level of income your current job provides, and the lifestyle that goes with it. But these are decisions based on choice. Most people on Earth don't have such choice.
it needs
governmentsocietal action.
especially as they’d just give it to someone else who wouldn’t complain.
That's a bit like saying; 'if I don't take this unattended bicycle, someone else will, so I might as well take it'.
…I’m actually middle class myself.
Awkward…
Well it is a bit awkward yes given all the class war nonsense you post on here. 😂
So just to clarify, you don't think governments can fix this, you don't think anyone should protest or take direct action, you think the people already cutting their emissions are middle class virtue signallers, and it's all pointless unless everyone in the world all does the same things at the same time without any action by governments? Is that it?
Well it is a bit awkward yes given all the class war nonsense you post on here
What 'class war nonsense'? The rubbish that's in your own imagination?
So just to clarify, you don’t think governments can fix this, you don’t think anyone should protest or take direct action, you think the people already cutting their emissions are middle class virtue signallers, and it’s all pointless unless everyone in the world all does the same things at the same time without any action by governments? Is that it?
Nope. But keep trying. The great thing about that, is that eventually you'll learn something.
Might take a while, mind...
That’s a bit like saying; ‘if I don’t take this unattended bicycle, someone else will, so I might as well take it’.
It really isn't. Because there's no-one going round looking for someone to take the bicycle.
Which is why we need to work together as a society in order to affect change. If nobody took the job, then the employers would have to rethink.
Yes, but what I'm saying is that is absolutely 100% pie in the sky, and that's never ever going to happen. You can't convince everyone. That's why it needs government action - you have to convince far fewer people to get the same result.
You could take a different job that doesn’t involve flying; I suspect you won’t because you like the level of income your current job provides, and the lifestyle that goes with it.
There's no need to make this personal, not at all, which is why I won't even respond with what I plan to do about it. And I'd point out that by dragging this into a personal slanging match, you risk ruining the thread and having everyone walk away from what should be a positive discussion on an important topic. And so many people being turned off by the discussion is a key reason we are where we are.
Oh look; they’ve changed their tactics because they realised how **** stupid they were.
Seems I underestimated their stupidity:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59133016
Question I have to ask, is; what do they do when they need the loo? Soil themselves?
Nope. But keep trying.
How about you just tell us because all I've heard so far is some reactionary bollocks about people blocking the roads and having a go at those who try to do something as virtue signallers. And yet you say you're a fan of Thunberg, who by any description probably fits your idea of someone who is exactly like the people you seem to despise. I'm afraid you're all over the place on this so please enlighten us.
It really isn’t. Because there’s no-one going round looking for someone to take the bicycle.
Another one missing the point entirely...
Yes, but what I’m saying is that is absolutely 100% pie in the sky, and that’s never ever going to happen. You can’t convince everyone. That’s why it needs government action – you have to convince far fewer people to get the same result.
So; the government are independent of society then?
There’s no need to make this personal, not at all, which is why I won’t even respond with what I plan to do about it.
Wasn't intended as such. I suspect similar criticism could apply to pretty much anyone really, including myself. We make choices based on what suits our own needs best. Such is human nature.
And I’d point out that by dragging this into a personal slanging match, you risk ruining the thread and having everyone walk away from what should be a positive discussion on an important topic
Lol! You can't even see your own hypocrisy here!
No, she’s great, it’d be much better if we didn’t hear shitty comments from you. The difference between you and her is that she’s campaigning to make the world a better place and you’re just posting nasty shit on the internet.
How about you just tell us
How about you just chill out and stop making up fictitious narratives in your own head, in order to try and 'win'? Then, I might be better disposed towards entering into sensible discussion with you.
And yet you say you’re a fan of Thunberg, who by any description probably fits your idea of someone who is exactly like the people you seem to despise.
And there you go again with that fictitious narrative.
Must be just me who couldn't care less if the planet bursts into flames and disappears up its own arse in 200 years time
If I was the govt:
One return flight per year after that a £500 payment per flight.
All new houses built with solar panels, insulation etc.
Massive investment in cycle path infrastructure.
Ban on non recyclable/ biodegradable packaging.
Sort the railways out.
If I was Bill Gates:
Buy loads of rain forest.
Then, I might be better disposed towards entering into sensible discussion with you.
D'you know, I don't think you would be.
That’s why it needs government action – you have to convince far fewer people to get the same result.
I think the queen said as much in her cop26 speech 😕 What was it ?. 'Rise above the politics of the moment'
Bridges you are coming across the angry one here and I think you really are killing the debate and dragging the thread into obscurity, so I think you should sit down for a bit.
I think we can agree that a lot needs to be done, and the consensus seems to be that individual action isn't enough - it needs government or international action, which is affected by public opinion. And that in turn is influenced by individuals like Thunberg, Attenborough and possibly even Monbiot.
Bridges you are coming across the angry one here and I think you really are killing the debate and dragging the thread into obscurity, so I think you should sit down for a bit.
Lol!
Shall I glue my hands to a road?
I think we can agree that a lot needs to be done, and the consensus seems to be that individual action isn’t enough – it needs government or international action, which is affected by public opinion. And that in turn is influenced by individuals like Thunberg, Attenborough and possibly even Monbiot.
Far too simplistic. The key to power resides with massive corporations and big business, who will only do what is in their own selfish interests (so, much like the rest of humanity, really). Such organisations operate beyond the effective reach of governmental control, and have the power to effectively lobby in their own interests. To solve the problem, you have to get to the root of it, which means restricting and removing such powers. Yes, this needs to come from governments, but only if they all work together; no good having laws in one country which don't exist in another; that just shifts the problem elsewhere, it doesn't deal with it. And the problem with governments, is that they are elected by society. So it's pointless imagining governments as some independent power that will solve everything; WE need to work together to solve problems. And if our governments are ineffectual, then we as a society need to take action to rectify that problem. The real question is; how can we achieve that?
Maybe that's a good plan cos you wouldn't be able to type for a while 😉
Remember "There’s no need to make this personal, not at all"?
Perhaps shutting down your computer would save a bit more energy too. And save you from embarrassing hypocrisy.
And if our governments are ineffectual, then we as a society need to take action to rectify that problem.
Like IB are, I agree.
Like IB are, I agree.
Please; do explain just how 'effective' IB are? Once they're all in jail, then what?
Actually; IB've got a much better idea than jail; why not get all IB 'protestors', and make them do a 'Community Service' type thing where they fit insulation to people's houses? That would be a fantastic solution! People with plenty of time on their hands = free labour! That way, their efforts would actually be meaningful.
Please; do explain just how ‘effective’ IB are?
Were their demands widely known before the protests? No - now they're in national newspapers and on television.
Job jobbed, no?
I think the benefits of effective home insulation were known long before IB came along. And I doubt most folk have given IB more thought than 'what a bunch of selfish idiots' really. The government isn't talking about their issues or announcing some nationwide scheme to fit insulation to all homes. The only real debate is about how much disruption they've caused.
And if our governments are ineffectual, then we as a society need to take action to rectify that problem. The real question is; how can we achieve that?
By taking political action. It's literally the only option if our elected representatives fail to do what is in their constituents interests. But you've already declared yourself opposed to that. So I ask again, what do you want? What is your magic solution* if people aren't allowed to take political action to achieve change?
*I suspect I know, but seeing as you've declined to say it I'm not gonna put words in your mouth.
I think the benefits of effective home insulation were known long before IB came along.
Disingenuous.
And I doubt most folk have given IB more thought than ‘what a bunch of selfish idiots’ really.
Doesn't matter.
The government isn’t talking about their issues or announcing some nationwide scheme to fit insulation to all homes.
"The government is exploring plans to link mortgages to green home improvements by imposing targets for lenders, to help decarbonise the UK’s ageing and leaky housing stock."
The only real debate is about how much disruption they’ve caused.
Doesn't matter.
Basically what we need to do is destroy cash we earn. As it does not matter what you spend it on it will eventually get into the hands of someone who is going to spend it on something that needs carbon burning.
Even if you spend it with a company that has green credentials they will pay some of it to their employees, they are going to buy stuff with it.
it will eventually get into the hands of someone who is going to spend it on something that needs carbon burning.
Which is why this needs macroeconomic structural change. Governments are the only organisations with the power and finance to coordinate and implement that sort of thing. Towards the end of the second world war the allied governments came together at Bretton Woods to design a new financial system which would aid in the effort to rebuild after the war and avoid another great depression. It's this sort of thing that's required now, and without it no amount of inidividual action or technological innovation will be enough.
Just what kind of home insulation are IB promulgating?
Is the home insulation something that will be outlawed in 20 years time?
Very few people are daring to contemplate the possibilities of hemp cultivation as a solution to our environmental problems.
So far, I’ve seen no mention on the BBC’s news pages or any discussions about hemp cultivation on the radio.
What if:
a) To improve the habitat for insects, we all stopped mowing our lawns.
b) When we have a haircut, we toss the shorn hair back into the weeds. This will give the birds something to build their nests out of.
c) There’s loads of ‘village green preservation societies’ in the uk. They could easily raise the £536? application fee for a hemp cultivation licence. They could then plant the hemp along the roadsides, etc.
Or we could leave it to the WI could get the ball rolling…
d) the govt should encourage hemp cultivation. Maybe some kind of tax-break or special discount on the DEFRA licence.
For example, there was a bit of a brouhaha down in Peterborough?, with sugar-beet farmers wishing to use nicotine pesticides, and environmentalists saying ‘No’.
I think we’ve got quite enough sugar in this country. (Was the agricultural policy being determined by the whims of the owners of the sugar refinery?)
DEFRA could have encouraged the sugar-beet farmers to grow hemp for a couple of years, thus replenishing the soil after decades of intensive farming.
Easy-Peasy?
e) I think it’s been mentioned, but too much of the urban policy is determined by people who drive to the council offices every day.
We’d need to stipulate that they could only drive to work once every five days.
Only after they have to use public transport would you start to see any real improvements in transport infrastructure.
Sounds like you're smoking the other type of hemp 😆
Basically what we need to do is destroy cash we earn.
Or do things with it other than spend it on manufactured stuff (or flying). For example, I know that the service industry is much derided, but if we spend our money on gaming, or Netflix instead of material goods, that should allow us to save some energy. And yes, I know that data centres for internet services are a huge problem currently, but that is eminently soluble - see efforts to put DCs in cold places, under the sea, or next to renewable energy sources etc.
My kids started asking to spend their pocket money on in-game purchases and initially I said no, it was a waste of money - but then I realised it was probably significantly better than buying the small plastic toys they had been.
Similarly, instead of flying off to exotic locations we could make UK holidays better. Ok so the weather's often poor, but there's no reason we can't create great experiences with luxury accomodation/glamping and whatnot and quality activities. Fortunately this is starting to happen.
I think it should be possible to reduce at least some of our embedded carbon along these lines.
Re hemp - stoners like to go on about it but really, whilst yes it's a useful product, it's not going to solve all our problems. We need thousands of initiatives like that.
As for forcing councils to use PT - that's the 'stick' approach. The 'carrot' approach is to fund PT properly in the first place, then it becomes better than driving.
Disingenuous.
Doesn’t matter.
Doesn’t matter.
What a fantastic argument.
“The government is exploring plans to link mortgages to green home improvements by imposing targets for lenders, to help decarbonise the UK’s ageing and leaky housing stock.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/mortgages-tied-to-green-home-improvements-considered-by-uk
/blockquote>The problem with not reading an article properly, before posting it to support your own argument, is that you miss really important points such as:
"The government is exploring plans"
Which even an idiot would concede, is a very, very long way from 'the government is acting on demands by a bunch of people who glued their hands to roads'. And contains problems such as:
"However, there are concerns that discouraging banks from having less energy efficient homes on their mortgage books would risk disadvantaging poorer customers, who could struggle to improve their property’s rating"
Still; if IB 'protestors' did the labour for free, that could help a bit, I suppose.
By taking political action. It’s literally the only option if our elected representatives fail to do what is in their constituents interests. But you’ve already declared yourself opposed to that.
I haven't. You've just decided that I have, based on an imagined narrative. I'm all for proper effective action; I've been involved in a bit myself. But the action needs to be proportionate and relevant to the issues. Glueing yourself to a road because insulation, is just utterly ****ing stupid.
Re hemp – stoners like to go on about it
Yes, only 'stoners'. Enlightened.
But the action needs to be proportionate and relevant to the issues.
So enlighten us then. All you've said so far is some airy-fairy bollocks about how WE should all work together. Give us some detail of this great masterplan, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.
What a fantastic argument.
Thanks.
The problem with not reading an article properly, before posting it to support your own argument, is that you miss really important points such as:
“The government is exploring plans”
Which even an idiot would concede, is a very, very long way from ‘the government is acting on demands by a bunch of people who glued their hands to roads’. And contains problems such as:
“However, there are concerns that discouraging banks from having less energy efficient homes on their mortgage books would risk disadvantaging poorer customers, who could struggle to improve their property’s rating”
Still; if IB ‘protestors’ did the labour for free, that could help a bit, I suppose.
Don't worry, sneering condescension of every single argument put to you is expected (even though IB are actually and ironically 98% aligned with you).
I love the warmth, generosity, and mutual respect, this thread generates.
I don't believe you. 😉
What we all need to do is buy insulation, triple glazing, heat pumps, solar panels, more efficient white goods and an electric car or 2.
Anyone else worry that the climate crisis is primarily being used as just another way of selling us stuff?
Anyone else worry that the climate crisis is primarily being used as just another way of selling us stuff?
Unfortunately, as above that's baked into our way of life. As it is, there are millions of people employed in making stuff that they need to sell us. If we all stopped buying things overnight there'd be a hell of a crisis.
Yes, only ‘stoners’. Enlightened.
I didn't say 'only' stoners, did I? Like I said, it's a useful crop but it's not the world saviour. However, stoners and/or hippies seem to focus on it for some reason in my experience.
Re hemp – stoners like to go on about it but really, whilst yes it’s a useful product, it’s not going to solve all our problems. We need thousands of initiatives like that.
When I was working in Romania thats a crop the local farmers grew to make cloth and rope from.
I love the warmth, generosity, and mutual respect, this thread generates.
It's the irrational rage boiling up in some people, inevitably contributing to climate change. 🙁
So enlighten us then
Maybe when you've calmed down and stop imagining things.
I didn’t say ‘only’ stoners, did I? Like I said, it’s a useful crop but it’s not the world saviour. However, stoners and/or hippies seem to focus on it for some reason in my experience.
Why mention 'stoners' and 'hippies' at all? Hemp has been used by humanity since the dawn of time. For a multitude of reasons. You clearly don't know very much about the plant species; what we call 'hemp' is different to the variety cultivated for use as a drug:
https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1605/hemp
https://www.healthline.com/health/hemp-vs-marijuana#marijuana
It's worth learning about this amazing, extremely versatile plant.
Maybe when you’ve calmed down and stop imagining things.
Such a tease - "I believe that the only way to progress is for we as a society to take action to rectify the problem (apart from IB) but I refuse to elucidate unless you all speak nicely to me".
Does anyone know what happened to Range Rover driving Karen? Was she charged for her driving, her lack of tax or her bald tyre?
The mental health specialist and entrepreneur? Don't think so, just sold her story of being a victim to the gammon press and made a rakeload, I think.
So; using a sexist slur against the driver is ok? Or is there a male equivalent of 'Karen'?
Does anyone know what happened (to the driver)…?
Her own slot on GBeebies?
As well as being an outstanding carbon-sink and nitrogen-fixer, hemp is also a great source of nutrients.
Most of the Amazonian farming is to grow soy beans to supply Chinese pig farmers.
The Chinese aren’t going to give up pork in a hurry.
If we could grow more hemp, we could sell it to the Chinese pig farmers and reverse the Amazonian deforestation.
When the hemp stalks pass through the pigs, they aren’t completely digested.
The resulting pulpy, fibrous slurry can make an excellent cavity wall insulator.
When we’re done with covid, food security is going to be the next big thing.
As the world powers try to re-jig the food supply, it’s going to get tight…like being squeezed through the backside of a rhinoceros.
So; using a sexist slur against the driver is ok? Or is there a male equivalent of ‘Karen’?
Kevin.
I thought Karen was a slur against racists?
Didn't it originate from African-American community?
Which is why this needs macroeconomic structural change. Governments are the only organisations with the power and finance to coordinate and implement that sort of thing.
@dazh I've recommended Kim Stanley Robinson's book The Ministry for the Future on another thread. Yes, it's a Sci-Fi novel but he's no ordinary novelist.
I won't regurgitate, except to say it takes the idea that all the COPs fail and a global ministry is created to take responsibility for human survival on Earth. It looks at a range of ideas, economic, political, technological, climate terrorism, in quite a lot detail. Well worth reading IMHO.
Here's a review, there's heaps more:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/book-review-ministry-future
From the final paragraph of that review:
" Early in the novel, one character voices the familiar quip that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism. By the end, I concluded that Robinson’s mission was to undo this joke: the purpose of The Ministry for the Future is to make a post-capitalist world order seem not just plausible and realistic, but overwhelmingly beneficial for humanity and the planet. It’s just that, for readers who aren’t trained in economics and monetary theory, it will be very difficult to judge if Robinson has succeeded."
I thought Karen was a slur against racists?
Nah, it's always been about entitled whining middle class women.
I always thought of them as Sheila's (of Broflovski fame) but Australia obviously called dibs on that.
Nah, it’s always been about entitled whining middle class women.
And that was my point. It's a term that is used only towards women; ergo, it is sexist. And I thought we'd done that issue some weeks ago?
I thought Karen was a slur against racists?
It was originally, yes.
I’ve recommended Kim Stanley Robinson’s book The Ministry for the Future on another thread. Yes, it’s a Sci-Fi novel but he’s no ordinary novelist.
Thanks I'll have a look at that. The only viable solution to climate change and other problems is some form post-capitalist economy. It doesn't take a mathematician to work out that exponential economic growth is not a good idea. We're already approaching the limits of what the planet can sustain, so the options in front of us are fairly simple. Either we find a way to reorganise society based on zero or negative economic growth, or we face economic collapse and chaos.
Someone on the sleaze thread said the public want an 'aspirational' government because they themselves are aspirational. The trouble with that is that aspirational means being privately rich, and that is an idea pushed on us by the already privately rich via the media and popular culture. We need to change that narrative so that we see the rich as the parasites which they undoubtedly are. Until we understand this as a society then nothing will change.
And that was my point. It’s a term that is used only towards women; ergo, it is sexist.
Ah, that old bollocks. If it refers to a woman it's sexist.
It reminds me of a particularly moronic comment Jeremy Corbyn once made when he claimed that the term "stupid woman" was sexist and misogynist. Which obviously means that the term "stupid man" is acceptable.
It's nonsense like that which alienates people from genuine issues. It simply pisses them off. Then they wonder why no one is listening.
It reminds me of a particularly moronic comment Jeremy Corbyn once made when he claimed that the term “stupid woman” was sexist and misogynist.
No. He called Theresa May a stupid woman. It was others that claimed he was being sexist and misogynist.
No. He called Theresa May a stupid woman. It was others that claimed he was being sexist and misogynist.
Nope. He vehemently denied that he called Theresa May a "stupid woman". In response to the accusation he said "I would never make a sexist or misogynist comment".
Idiot. It would have been far better if he had admitted to saying it, even if he hadn't, by claiming "yeah that's right, I think she's stupid".
Instead of his ultra politically correct middle-class liberal "kinder type of politics" bollocks. No wonder they were able to wipe the floor with him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46619689
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has denied calling Theresa May a "stupid woman" during Prime Minister's Questions.
He was asked to make a statement to MPs after facing Tory calls to apologise for the alleged insult.
Mr Corbyn said he was "opposed to the use of sexist and misogynist language in any form" and insisted he had actually said "stupid people".
I thought Karen was a slur against racists?
Nah, it’s always been about entitled whining middle class women.
It's so confusing, I don't know whether to be offended or not.
If you aren't sure it is probably best to be offended.
Just in case you should be.
Amendment 319C criminalises “wilful obstruction of a highway”.
Amendment 319D criminalises the obstruction of “major transport works”, including roads, rail lines or airport runways.
Amendment 319A creates an offence of “locking on”, or carrying equipment which might facilitate it. It targets anyone who attaches themselves to “a person, to an object or to land”.
These all come with a potential 51 week prison sentence. In fact, this penalty is plastered all over the legislation.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/priti-patel-anti-protest-powers-stuffed-policing-bill-1316830
Amendment 319C criminalises “wilful obstruction of a highway”.
Amendment 319D criminalises the obstruction of “major transport works”, including roads, rail lines or airport runways.
Amendment 319A creates an offence of “locking on”, or carrying equipment which might facilitate it. It targets anyone who attaches themselves to “a person, to an object or to land”.
These all come with a potential 51 week prison sentence. In fact, this penalty is plastered all over the legislation.
Excellent.
Did't our Prime Minister promise to obstruct construction of an airport runway?
Anyway, this pattern of criminalising more and more forms of protest won't end well.
But where's the quid pro quo?
They have criminalised blocking the road but have the charged the driver of the Chav Panzer with anything?
No thought not.
FFs more draconian measures put into place by this ridiculous government
Edit. What Rich says. You’re fine to assault someone with a vehicle but you dare use your right to protest. ‘Kin joke
Amendment 319C criminalises “wilful obstruction of a highway”.
I wonder if that includes causing a traffic jam by driving a car in a heavily congested area? Or driving a car for journey that easily be done by foot or bike? Or the school run chaos?
I thought Karen was a slur against racists?
Nah, it’s always been about entitled whining middle class women.
It’s so confusing, I don’t know whether to be offended or not.
Barry. Rupert. Sharon. One of those should cover it.