He's always been a lazy, bumbling shithead who would rather not do the hard work whatever position he's in requires.
The most frustrating part of this is people acting like Boris has slipped from some imagined high point. Literally nothing has changed, Boris has always been Boris. He's followed a pretty much identical arc to his time as London Mayor. Great campaigner, everyone finds his schtick very amusing, terrible at actually governing and everyone acts surprised that when you elect an idiot he turns out to make idiotic decisions.
I wonder if Boris is frustrated by this fact as well. He's literally done nothing different then he always has but suddenly it's not working.
The electorate tires of Boris the way Boris tires of his baby mothers.
Boris's entire support was built on the promise of a brexit bonus. It is becoming increasingly apparent that it will not be forthcoming so his support is crumbling.
Of course, his supporters can't complain about the brexit thing. That would mean admitting it was a sham. So instead they are using something else to voice their displeasure.
M'lud, is it any surprise I stole that bus and drove it into Gregg's considering there's a female Doctor Who? If anything, I'M the victim. Not all those sausage rolls what got damaged.
+2
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
It’s like there’s a competition to be the thickest one.
Well, if Boris is on the way out, there's going to be competition. And that's exactly the kind of competition that everybody expects from a Tory leadership contest.
(Tweeter is an academic forensic linguist at Lancaster)
tl;dr: "I'm not stupid, you're stupid"
Yeah, it's not like there aren't a fuckload of television cops/detectives*, lawyers*, firefighters, doctors, soldiers/sailors/airmen/spacemen, that are overwhelmingly men for them to look up to on television.
* portrayed as noble members of their positions, reality less so.
It's the typical case of "equality" being seen as a threat to those who have dominance of representation. If you're seen in 90% of roles and account for half of the population, and it goes down to 80%, all some people see, is the loss.
EDIT- I mean, if men were seen in "subservient" roles to the same extent women are (secretaries/personal assistants, stay at home or "supplementary workforce" parents, nurses in a show about doctors, etc), to a strong woman protagonist, like they currently do the reverse, these people's heads would explode.
I never had any positive IRL men in my life all throughout my childhood, so yes I agree with his general point. However, he really did fuck up that whole argument with how he wrote that speech, christ...
Euphoriac on
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I think the idea that you can only have role models of the same sex as you is outdated, personally.
If he wasn't linking a female Doctor Who to his other statements surrounding that one, then what was he linking it to? What was the purpose of bringing it up in the speech?
Also, re: the minimum wage experiment, those things almost always have at least 3 major factors that stay at play even when you lock off the bank accounts:
1. It's always dudes with a college degree, meaning even if they don't put it on their resumes or anything they still have access to the education and experience.
2. It's always dudes with perfect health and no medical issues eating up their paychecks.
3. It's always dudes with no previous sources of debt.
Even aside from the knowledge that they always have a safety net, I'm pretty sure those three things alone put them ahead of most people working minimum wage jobs.
+8
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
The tone of the letter was very much "it's France's responsibility to stop people from trying to reach Britain" with a side order of "therefore it's your fault that 31 people died despite it being our formal policy that channel migrants should, ideally, die at sea*"
So it's hardly surprising that they're furious
*Tories will deny this, but they have explored every legal option to prosecute anyone offering assistance to people in distress in the channel, which is the same thing whatever they say
Unrelatedly i kind of want to put some time aside to read the feasibility study for Johnson's bridge of hubris, because by all accounts the cognitive whiplash contained therein is incredible
Should I be worried that Boris's open letter is talking about "reciprocal" operations and surveillance? Are we expecting an exodus from the British isles?
Less tongue in cheek though: there's a lot of talk about things that France is expected to do to protect the UK border, but not really an incentive for the French to do them.
France didn't kick these people out on a boat, these desperate immigrants WANTED to go to the UK, knowing that a dingy is a terrible idea, but still preferable to all alternatives. (They had been granted asylum in France, but had their own reasons for moving on)
The only thing that really bothers France is that they died, and they feel kind of bummed about it, especially since it's good optics for their election to feel bummed about it. (Might be a few percent real sadness, even politicians have some weird black core that can feel things)
A solution that would suit the French fine is if they just send them over on a real ferry: Immigrants go to the place they wanted, France doesn't have to worry about them, and they won't drown.
Of course, letting people in is contrary to what the Tories want, they'd be much more happy if they drown, as long as the optics can be "Those Europeans send them out to drown, sad-face, if only they would've reached save British harbors..."
I can understand the people coming here after being denied asylum in the rest of Europe, but to be granted asylum in France and choose to risk paddling across the channel is just sheer insanity. I don't understand what they think we have that the French don't?
I can understand the people coming here after being denied asylum in the rest of Europe, but to be granted asylum in France and choose to risk paddling across the channel is just sheer insanity. I don't understand what they think we have that the French don't?
Can't speak for them, but if I had to hazard a guess it would be a combination of:
- not knowing the language
- no feeling with the culture, if you're not from the Francosphere, it can be really different.
- having no ties to France, but possibly in the UK, things like Family or friends, etc..
- if they're from the Anglosphere, things like degrees might be recognized in the UK, while they won't be in France, and starting with "no degree, foreigner, doesn't speak the language" is not a great starting point
- There is a dire shortage of "manual labour" in the UK, less so in France.
- Broken taste buds and a medical need for only the blandest foods, with a sprinkle of Curry once a month.
0
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
"Without elaborating on which issues he was referring, Mr Blair likened Labour's situation to 1983 – when the party was attacked over support for LGBT rights.
He argued that “large numbers of Labour voters in 1983 felt our economic policy was not credible and our attitudes across a range of cultural questions profoundly alienating”.
Just say what you mean you cowardly prick. Tell us which minority groups you think are worth throwing under the bus. (as if we didn't already know, it's all of them)
From what I understand the biggest driver is the presence of diaspora communities that people can integrate with. One of the legacies of colonialism is that there are many such communities well embedded within UK society.
It makes perfect sense, in that if you want to rebuild your life from nothing you would, on balance, probably prefer to do it among people with whom you share a culture and language.
France has this as well - there are refugees drawn to such communities embedded there (esp East Asia and East Africa), which are not necessarily the same communities that would be drawn to the UK.
It's like: if you were going to be transplanted with nothing to an unfamiliar country, would you prefer it was Fiji or New Zealand?
From what I understand the biggest driver is the presence of diaspora communities that people can integrate with. One of the legacies of colonialism is that there are many such communities well embedded within UK society.
It makes perfect sense, in that if you want to rebuild your life from nothing you would, on balance, probably prefer to do it among people with whom you share a culture and language.
France has this as well - there are refugees drawn to such communities embedded there (esp East Asia and East Africa), which are not necessarily the same communities that would be drawn to the UK.
It's like: if you were going to be transplanted with nothing to an unfamiliar country, would you prefer it was Fiji or New Zealand?
Yeah, you put it way better then I did, having a community to integrate into is very important.
Do note that the UK only grants a very number of people asylum, for instance, in 2021, where Germany granted access to 1.2 million people, the UK only let in 10k, and of those, about 6k are projected to be granted permanent asylum.
So all these proposals of sending in the navy and building a sonar buoy net is there to stop a trickle. And if it would've been spend on actually helping these people, they would've lived as kings.
I can understand the people coming here after being denied asylum in the rest of Europe, but to be granted asylum in France and choose to risk paddling across the channel is just sheer insanity. I don't understand what they think we have that the French don't?
Anecdotally, some refugees think there are more jobs and a less brutally unpleasant police force in the UK compared to France.
Let's be honest about this, France is pretty anti-immigrant and especially immigrants who are Muslims. The French authorities are perfectly happy for every single one of those people to leave it's shores and go to the UK by whatever means.
I'm very pro immigration myself and I fucking hate this gov and it's immigration policy but France ain't exactly better.
Yes he rabbits on about Corbyn for a bit but I can give him a pass this time because it's relevant to the topic at hand given Boris was a previously unthinkable option wheeled out to stamp out the threat of "Marxism".
The media narrative since peppa-pig gate has left me feeling a little like I've been taking crazy pills and I wouldn't have thought it would be Jones of all people to confirm that I'm not the only one that's noticed what's happened.
That does seem to be an identifiable trend with the populists though, people expect there to be a gradual errosion of credibility with them but there just isn't. It's entirely black and white, they're just totally untouchable right up to the second the men behind the throne decide they're not and it all goes away like a switch has been flipped. I can understand it's bewildering to people used to the status quo.
The tone of the letter was very much "it's France's responsibility to stop people from trying to reach Britain" with a side order of "therefore it's your fault that 31 people died despite it being our formal policy that channel migrants should, ideally, die at sea*"
So it's hardly surprising that they're furious
*Tories will deny this, but they have explored every legal option to prosecute anyone offering assistance to people in distress in the channel, which is the same thing whatever they say
Basically everyone's refugee policy is to try and make someone else deal with them. Being an island or having a buffer country or two makes this easier.
Posts
The electorate tires of Boris the way Boris tires of his baby mothers.
MWO: Adamski
Of course, his supporters can't complain about the brexit thing. That would mean admitting it was a sham. So instead they are using something else to voice their displeasure.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
And everyone is bringing their A-game.
Well, if Boris is on the way out, there's going to be competition. And that's exactly the kind of competition that everybody expects from a Tory leadership contest.
(Tweeter is an academic forensic linguist at Lancaster)
tl;dr: "I'm not stupid, you're stupid"
Yeah, it's not like there aren't a fuckload of television cops/detectives*, lawyers*, firefighters, doctors, soldiers/sailors/airmen/spacemen, that are overwhelmingly men for them to look up to on television.
* portrayed as noble members of their positions, reality less so.
It's the typical case of "equality" being seen as a threat to those who have dominance of representation. If you're seen in 90% of roles and account for half of the population, and it goes down to 80%, all some people see, is the loss.
EDIT- I mean, if men were seen in "subservient" roles to the same extent women are (secretaries/personal assistants, stay at home or "supplementary workforce" parents, nurses in a show about doctors, etc), to a strong woman protagonist, like they currently do the reverse, these people's heads would explode.
???
The Master went Mistress before the Doctor did
Cyberwomen? Rosie the Riveter as the inspiration?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o9uKNgF96M
Also, re: the minimum wage experiment, those things almost always have at least 3 major factors that stay at play even when you lock off the bank accounts:
1. It's always dudes with a college degree, meaning even if they don't put it on their resumes or anything they still have access to the education and experience.
2. It's always dudes with perfect health and no medical issues eating up their paychecks.
3. It's always dudes with no previous sources of debt.
Even aside from the knowledge that they always have a safety net, I'm pretty sure those three things alone put them ahead of most people working minimum wage jobs.
I wasn't talking specifically about Doctor Who. I don't know anything or care at all about Doctor Who.
Has he tried looking at his own party? 3/4 male, and not a single positive role model amongst them.
Whomst could have imagined
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59428311
Policy seems to be to just shut down every avenue by which someone could claim asylum and sit on the edge of Europe, arms folded, holding our breath.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
So it's hardly surprising that they're furious
*Tories will deny this, but they have explored every legal option to prosecute anyone offering assistance to people in distress in the channel, which is the same thing whatever they say
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
(Guardian media editor)
"I didn't say the thing that there is video evidence of me saying"
fuck back off to whatever crypt you've been living in for the past decade my dude.
Should I be worried that Boris's open letter is talking about "reciprocal" operations and surveillance? Are we expecting an exodus from the British isles?
Less tongue in cheek though: there's a lot of talk about things that France is expected to do to protect the UK border, but not really an incentive for the French to do them.
France didn't kick these people out on a boat, these desperate immigrants WANTED to go to the UK, knowing that a dingy is a terrible idea, but still preferable to all alternatives. (They had been granted asylum in France, but had their own reasons for moving on)
The only thing that really bothers France is that they died, and they feel kind of bummed about it, especially since it's good optics for their election to feel bummed about it. (Might be a few percent real sadness, even politicians have some weird black core that can feel things)
A solution that would suit the French fine is if they just send them over on a real ferry: Immigrants go to the place they wanted, France doesn't have to worry about them, and they won't drown.
Of course, letting people in is contrary to what the Tories want, they'd be much more happy if they drown, as long as the optics can be "Those Europeans send them out to drown, sad-face, if only they would've reached save British harbors..."
He was elected with a flagship policy of introducing a national minimum wage
Is he getting his political definitions from Fox News?
Can't speak for them, but if I had to hazard a guess it would be a combination of:
- not knowing the language
- no feeling with the culture, if you're not from the Francosphere, it can be really different.
- having no ties to France, but possibly in the UK, things like Family or friends, etc..
- if they're from the Anglosphere, things like degrees might be recognized in the UK, while they won't be in France, and starting with "no degree, foreigner, doesn't speak the language" is not a great starting point
- There is a dire shortage of "manual labour" in the UK, less so in France.
- Broken taste buds and a medical need for only the blandest foods, with a sprinkle of Curry once a month.
Just say what you mean you cowardly prick. Tell us which minority groups you think are worth throwing under the bus. (as if we didn't already know, it's all of them)
It makes perfect sense, in that if you want to rebuild your life from nothing you would, on balance, probably prefer to do it among people with whom you share a culture and language.
France has this as well - there are refugees drawn to such communities embedded there (esp East Asia and East Africa), which are not necessarily the same communities that would be drawn to the UK.
It's like: if you were going to be transplanted with nothing to an unfamiliar country, would you prefer it was Fiji or New Zealand?
Yeah, you put it way better then I did, having a community to integrate into is very important.
Do note that the UK only grants a very number of people asylum, for instance, in 2021, where Germany granted access to 1.2 million people, the UK only let in 10k, and of those, about 6k are projected to be granted permanent asylum.
So all these proposals of sending in the navy and building a sonar buoy net is there to stop a trickle. And if it would've been spend on actually helping these people, they would've lived as kings.
Anecdotally, some refugees think there are more jobs and a less brutally unpleasant police force in the UK compared to France.
Let's be honest about this, France is pretty anti-immigrant and especially immigrants who are Muslims. The French authorities are perfectly happy for every single one of those people to leave it's shores and go to the UK by whatever means.
I'm very pro immigration myself and I fucking hate this gov and it's immigration policy but France ain't exactly better.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/26/scrutiny-boris-johnson-served-purpose
Yes he rabbits on about Corbyn for a bit but I can give him a pass this time because it's relevant to the topic at hand given Boris was a previously unthinkable option wheeled out to stamp out the threat of "Marxism".
The media narrative since peppa-pig gate has left me feeling a little like I've been taking crazy pills and I wouldn't have thought it would be Jones of all people to confirm that I'm not the only one that's noticed what's happened.
That does seem to be an identifiable trend with the populists though, people expect there to be a gradual errosion of credibility with them but there just isn't. It's entirely black and white, they're just totally untouchable right up to the second the men behind the throne decide they're not and it all goes away like a switch has been flipped. I can understand it's bewildering to people used to the status quo.
Basically everyone's refugee policy is to try and make someone else deal with them. Being an island or having a buffer country or two makes this easier.