The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] Our Batman's a Plonker
Posts
I think the whole white washing debate is rather overblown. There are no Indians in the film, but they made up less than 1% of the total soldiers on the beach. Sure, the French army was more diverse, but they just didn't appear in the film, with the main emphasis on the British (and there were certainly Black French soldiers shown).
Harry Styles wasn't exactly a lead, and I thought he put in a very good performance. I find your attitude rather snobbish in that regard.
No they don't, that was the director's call. And there were far more non-whites there than the Indians, there's an article in the movie thread covering that. According to the movie these people don't exist. I know, I've seen it.
And would it have really been that bad for one of these people to be the lead? Did every single person have to be white?
Nor is this the first time a Nolan film has had issues with whitewashing casts, he's done it three times with Batman villains RE: Ra's al Ghul, Bane and
Styles did have a good performance, that was more of a joke since he's a famous pop singer.
Harry Styles, isn't it? I think he is or was a member of wand erection (or some other boy band) and he's a surprisingly good actor and a surprisingly eloquent young man who has had more than a few things to say about how the girls who swoon over him are treated by the media, and the world in general.
The whitewashing of Dunkirk is vile though. I'm sick and tired of this weird idea that Europe was 99.999% white until 1950.
http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-unprepared-for-brexit-negotiations-eu-thinks-its-a-trap-david-davis-michel-barnier-2017-8?r=UK&IR=T
Ahahahahahahahahaha ha ha haaaaa... #sob#
It was either Austin Powers or a Simpsons episode, I'm pretty sure.
Whatever, that's what we're doing.
Counter argument:
So they think we're being Sherlock Holmes, obfuscating their plans with a clever disguise, when in fact we're Baldrick.
Casino Dealer: :5.
Austin Powers: I'll stay.
Casino Dealer: I suggest you hit, sir.
Austin Powers: I also like to live dangerously.
Casino Dealer: 20 beat your 5 sir. I'm sorry, sir.
God, this is exactly how it's going to play out.
edit: beat'd
You take that back! Baldrick had the occasional good idea.
We're General Melchett.
Or possibly Captain Mainwaring, if we can mix shows.
I don't know which outcome is worse in this tortured metaphor
I like that the first British government response in the Politico article is ... so incredibly off the mark:
"We've been working so hard, guys! We can't be incompetent!"
And then these people are, based on favours or "strategy" made Minister of Education or Minister of Health or told to go negotiate Brexit.
These people are fucking idiots.
People who don't stand on the right aide of the escalator are fucking animals
Steam: adamjnet
The idea that this is strategy is laughable. Lord Bucketheat was right; it's a shitshow.
Aren't they horrendously understaffed and under funded?
RBS Investment Bank Income Jumps, Amsterdam Picked as EU Hub
We'll continue to see firms make these moves.
Needless to say, these are not minimum wage or even semi-skilled jobs. Virtually all of them will be upper tax bracket roles, and every job like that typically supports 3-4 other jobs in the local economic area.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/05/brexit-uk-food-industry-eu-fruit-veg-pickers
Steam | XBL
Have any positives actually been out forward by the government?
The problem is that so many of the consequences are either positives or negatives depending on perspective and priorities.
So, some view reduced immigration as positive in and of itself, even if this means shortages of key workers.
Similarly, some regard EU regulation as necessarily bad (red tape!) because it is, in principle, easier for businesses to make money in a low regulation environment with consequently lower overheads. Though this means that the likelihood is that product standards will be lowered and consumer protection weakened.
The ability of the UK to sign its own trade deals is a notional positive, but needs to be weighed in the context of whether it's likely that the UK will be able to achieve better deals independently than it will without the backing of one of the world's largest trading blocs.
A mature conversation around this would take the form of "what do you want, and what are you willing to give up to achieve it?" Instead people talk past each other because leavers don't tend to recognise the consequences pointed out by remainers as negatives, and remainers don't understand why the things leavers want are considered positives.
It's a tough thing organising seasonal labour in a high cost of living country - someone from a low cost of living area coming in temporarily is an okay solution, no one is really getting screwed if the pay is minimum wage.
But a local can't do a minimum wage job for only 3 months a year and survive, whilst someone who lives somewhere cheap for the rest of year can. Ironically GBI would be good for this - locals could pick up extra cash in summer without worrying about how they're going to pay for housing in winter time.
What's GBI in this context?
Guaranteed basic income. The government pays everyone a liveable wage regardless of employment status or other circumstances.
I am wondering what the labour requirement in other countries is like - my aunt, for example, is 60, and every summer she spends some time picking apples at the local orchard. Is Britain unique in its reliance on immigrant labour to bring in the harvest? Because structurally, it seems like every western country has the same issue (stagnant wages requiring low food prices meaning the pay for the back-breaking labour isn't worth it.)
The current welfare system is carefully set up to actively discourage people from taking part-time or short term employment.
There are only certain demographics willing/able to do that, plus if you're going to try to make a living doing it then you realistically need to be able to follow the harvest across the continent
Edit: seasonal labour is actually a very good example of an area where a lot of policy is made on the basis of how uninvolved people think it operates
Aye. Just put a price tag to "no freedom of movement" and then ask people if they want to pay it. Is not like Brexit doesn't have a reasonable chance to pass anyways on that hypotetical scenario. "Just lie back and think of kicking the browns, my dear".
Yeah as said elsewhere one of the problems is the unemployed tend not to live where the seasonal labour is required. I picked up seasonal farm work as a teenager...because my parents had affluent enough jobs they could live in the countryside and commute. I would not have been able to survive on it without that parental housing subsidy, and travel costs would have eaten away any profits.
Western europe has 80%+ urbanisation rates whilst eastern and southern have a good 10% more people in their rural areas. Britain has shittier public transport for rural areas than most of western europe as well.
I'm pretty sure Remainers understand exactly what Leavers want and why they want it. It's just they also understand that what they want is racist claptrap and they are often so disconnected from facts that they don't understand the consequences of that and live in a fantasy world or they just don't care because "keeping Britain pure" is worth any amount of misery for other people.
No. North America does this too. It's very common in rich developed countries.
Honestly people weren't given enough information before the vote.
probably about 5 minutes after its too late to stop it.