Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yorkie1999

Also in the news

Recommended Posts

 

Re. Handshakes:

 

"The history of the handshake dates back to the 5th century B.C. in Greece. It was a symbol of peace, showing that neither person was carrying a weapon. During the Roman era, the handshake was actually more of an arm grab. It involved grabbing each other’s forearms to check that neither man had a knife hidden up his sleeve. Some say that the shaking gesture of the handshake started in Medieval Europe. Knights would shake the hand of others in an attempt to shake loose any hidden weapons.

While handshaking is still the most ubiquitous greeting around the world, it may be losing ground in the US. The fist bump was, until recently, a gesture mostly used by athletes and young people. Now it’s becoming more and more common among everyone, including older people. Even the President of the United States is a fan of the fist bump. According to one survey, forty nine percent of Americans sometimes choose the fist bump over a traditional handshake greeting. The fist bump, made by making a fist and lightly touching knuckles, may be a more fashionable greeting, but for many it’s a pragmatic choice. Many survey participants said they preferred the fist bump because they were afraid of catching germs by shaking hands."

 

https://deepenglish.com/2014/07/handshake-history-listening-fluency-116/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

You mean as in Nazis and Bolsheviks alike competing for the title of Greatest Mongoloid?

 

Also, judging by the sheer percentages, Switzerland must be a totally rotten and evil place to live in...

:whistle:

Funny the BBC don't go into further detail as to the situation over here. I wonder why - could it be that it doesn't fit their narrative?

 

On a more serious note, I wouldn't freak out yet. History of politics shows you that it's usually but a matter of swings and roundabouts.

You get parties on the left dominating the political landscape for a while, before the more conservative voices fight back, before the left dominating again, and so on and so forth...

The Left have left many a European country in a bit of a mess in recent years, so this is but a pushback.

Sweden, for instance, has a big problem with immigrants creating their own suburbs, importing their values, failing to integrate, intimidating even the local police - plenty of videos online available.

Been to Paris lately? Tug of war in many areas, Saint-Denis in particular. Asylum seekers in Calais - I've been there.

Strasbourg last year, Nice before that.

Remember Molenbeek in Belgium? The 2015/2016 New Year's attacks by young male Muslims on women in Cologne, Hamburg and other major German cities?

 

There needs to be a serious discussion surrounding immigration and integration, and to a lot of these countries' populations, the right seemingly lends the one and only ear for their sorrows and concerns. The Left has distanced itself that much from its original voting base, it's horrendous. Over here, we call them Aperitif Socialists, more interested in indulging themselves in pointless meetings, self-adulation and clinging onto office.

 

And the Left needs a serious re-examination of its core values and its positioning and policies. These days, it's all about blaming the Right, when they ought to dig deeper into their own collective psyche and re-build from within. Virtue signaling, pandering to minorities in order to secure votes and outrage culture only get you that far, at some point, even the most ardent Left lover finds out that there's not much left behind the facade.

 

It remains to be seen whether the extremists will take over the discussion or not. As long as there are checks and balances, I'm not overly concerned.

More than anything, this is but media hype in order to sell content and to create an atmosphere of hate towards everything that is right of the left. I find that worrysome.

The debate needs to be had, and that is not achieved by censorship and/or one-sided media portrayals.

I agree that there is a swing from one dominant ideology to another, but quite frankly you're mistaken if you think at a fundamental level I like either one more than the other because it's somehow morally justified rather than for another reason entirely. 

 

All of this, the nationalism, the posturing, the pissing contests, the immigration "debate" (as much as it may or may not need to be had), the talk back and forth about racism and virtue signalling and whatever petty accusations can be levelled to score political points, the very same swings and roundabouts that you talk about here as a matter of fact (and they are) serve only to stoke self-justified conflict (let's not beat about the bush here, that is all it is once you strip all the rhetoric away, a want to prove oneself "better" than the other guy) and so put the future at risk through neglect or full-on malice.

 

It's not just nationalists to blame for that (though of course, they embody many of those ideas) - it's any tribe, any religious group, any organisation, who thinks themselves inherently better than someone else to the point that they won't co-operate with them on matters that require co-operation. My concern about the rise of nationalism isn't just because of the nationalists themselves, but also of the response to them.

 

The entire system is rotten - I'm not sure what the solution is to fix it, but there needs to be one. If wanting global work on global concerns without petty differences interfering makes me part of the Left, then so be it.

 

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Yep - you would thought the idea of a united Europe with less nationhood and democracy for individual states wouldn't be tried again for some time would you? Let alone forced austerity from a central banking system.

 

Amazing that politicians never learn, the result of such things is always the same, a significant proportion of the populations won't like it and fight back.

See above - I'm not for the idea of the persistence of the power of the nation-state for some fuzzy warm moral reason, I'm not for it because pragmatically it may well shorten the length of human civilisation, and that is utterly needless.

 

Show me a way and examples that humanity can maintain nation-states while at the same time consistently advancing as one on global matters that need addressing and I might think differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Buzzfeed. The source of all that is... news? Really? Can't you go any lower?

They are the worst of the worst when it comes to trustworthyness - their leftist bias evident to all:

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

 

You can make a scandal out of anything by the use of deliberate editing techniques, here are some of Benjamin's statements in context:

D5BIAaJW0AM3aYs.jpg:large

I know Buzzfeed is largely crap but these are his quotes, straight from the horse's mouth. Idea any of this 'context' you've added makes his comments at all any better or even more understandable is downright laughable, the geezer is a disgrace, idea he's running for public office really does show what a state the country is in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Show me a way and examples that humanity can maintain nation-states while at the same time consistently advancing as one on global matters that need addressing and I might think differently.

NATO would be the best and most successful example. Has its problems but has an incredible multi-nation effort that has kept the peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MattP said:

NATO would be the best and most successful example. Has its problems but has an incredible multi-nation effort that has kept the peace.

A conglomerate of a few nations that has managed to keep humans from killing each other for a few decades through the threat of mutually assured destruction while doing nothing about addressing exactly why they would want to kill each other in the first place and nothing about other possible threats both human caused and otherwise.

 

If that's the best example of nation state co-operation on an international level - addressing a single global matter among many in blunt but at least successful fashion but addressing no others - then I think we need to do better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I know Buzzfeed is largely crap but these are his quotes, straight from the horse's mouth. Idea any of this 'context' you've added makes his comments at all any better or even more understandable is downright laughable, the geezer is a disgrace, idea he's running for public office really does show what a state the country is in

My take is that it's mildly exonerating in that he isn't actually making the blatantly racist statements that buzzfeed are depicting, however he's still a complete buffoon for thinking it's ok to casual throw such terms around. The important thing though - at the risk of becoming a broken record - is that it plays into his narrative that the msm are oppressing him because to most people (including myself) context actually is quite important when judging a person's actions.  I will keep banging the drum that this man is a gateway drug to unsavoury ideologies and an effective seducer of easily misled YouTube viewers and by taking rude words out of context instead of attacking what his words mean you're only helping him convince more people that he's right when he goes on to utter genuinely bad thoughts using smarter language.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bovril said:

lol when I read that story about Robin Popley I thought "wasn't someone on foxestalk with that username". Didn't think it'd actually be him. 

He was the guy always banging on about being a Christian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

A conglomerate of a few nations that has managed to keep humans from killing each other for a few decades through the threat of mutually assured destruction while doing nothing about addressing exactly why they would want to kill each other in the first place and nothing about other possible threats both human caused and otherwise.

 

If that's the best example of nation state co-operation on an international level - addressing a single global matter among many in blunt but at least successful fashion but addressing no others - then I think we need to do better.

I say making sure we avoid nuclear destruction is actually pretty impressive. 

 

What example do you propose that is better that achieves a common good whilst also sustaining independence for the participants? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I see Jezza has decided he isn't going to the banquet with Trump because Trump is a nasty person. Problem is, such a principled stance only works if you don't spend your whole life meeting terrorists, employing anti-semites and taking money off Iran. Oh and also going to the same event with Xi Jinping.

It's absolutely unbelievable he's taken this stance less than two years after turning up to the same thing with President Xi.

 

What a complete virtue signalling arsehole, no shame at all. If only Trump had a kalashnikov and a cause against the West Jezza would have ordered the tea already.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattP said:

It's absolutely unbelievable he's taken this stance less than two years after turning up to the same thing with President Xi.

 

What a complete virtue signalling arsehole, no shame at all. If only Trump had a kalashnikov and a cause against the West Jezza would have ordered the tea already.

Can't argue against this even as a Labour supporter lol. 

 

I'm already fed up of the furore around this Trump visit. The first protest was fair game, but I just don't get the point of doing another protest. What is it going to achieve? Everybody already knows that he's a narcissistic POS, however he isn't a murderous dictator unlike some other leaders who have had a UK state visit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MattP said:

I say making sure we avoid nuclear destruction is actually pretty impressive. 

 

What example do you propose that is better that achieves a common good whilst also sustaining independence for the participants? 

Fulfilling one singular objective, though important, while doing nowt about any others...reasonable in that it's kept away one threat (while not actually addressing why that threat exists and so having the threat there in perpetuity), but not all that impressive when viewed through the lens of all the other stuff that needs to be done IMO.

 

I'd like to see an organisation like the UN made up of folks with no national affiliation (or at least limited national interest) that can address matters that are clearly international concerns (emissions and their effects, pollution that is widespread beyond a single area, wildlife conservation etc) and more importantly be able to enforce the decisions they make. Such organisations do exist right now but frankly they're toothless - all they can do to the bigger players is write a Hans Blix-style strongly worded letter saying just how angry they are, and you can see how well that works.

 

Of course, such an idea would never get close to getting off the ground because the big guns and muh soveriegnteeee means they would never accept someone being able to overrule them on any matter so this is moot really, but that doesn't stop it may well being necessary for the sake of a sustainable future.

 

And that's the heart of the matter, really - there may come a time where the tribal idea of "X country first" is actually incompatible with maintaining global civilisation as it is now (or at least close to). It may well already be here. I'd like to hope that I'm wrong and that somehow the leading players can actually show they can co-operate on more than simply not blowing themselves and everyone else to kingdom come as that would certainly make the necessary changes easier as more people would agree with it.

 

I say again - I'm not interested in reduced sovereignty for its own sake. I'm interested in long-term civilisational survival, however best that may be achieved - first, last, always.

 

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

I see Jezza has decided he isn't going to the banquet with Trump because Trump is a nasty person. Problem is, such a principled stance only works if you don't spend your whole life meeting terrorists, employing anti-semites and taking money off Iran. Oh and also going to the same event with Xi Jinping.

Yeah, no argument here either. Trump is someone whose administration needs to be questioned at every possible turn because the decisions it makes are pretty much entirely highly questionable, but not then doing this to Xi and whoever else is keen on authoritarianism too just makes you a hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Nicola Sturgeon trying to plow ahead with Indyref2 when all polling shows they'll get a worse result that last time?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I know Buzzfeed is largely crap but these are his quotes, straight from the horse's mouth. Idea any of this 'context' you've added makes his comments at all any better or even more understandable is downright laughable, the geezer is a disgrace, idea he's running for public office really does show what a state the country is in

I don't see what's controversial or outrageous about him calling a neo-nazi the N-word. Shouldn't people embrace him standing up against the far-right? All he did was using their own vocabulary against them.

Context is everything - or is this more about policing speech?

 

What is controversial about criticizing identity politics?

 

His quote towards the end pokes fun at people who enter a debate with a mindset of still being part of a historically oppressed group or are using it to stifle debate as some sort of last resort. You can argue that it does black people no good to endlessly perpetuate the victimhood mentality and that they'll never break out of that vicious circle by constantly buying into this train of thought. Yes, there are racists out there, but today's society is much more tolerant and open than it was a 100 or 200 years ago. I'm sure pretty much anyone can agree on that.

 

The "retard" comment wasn't aimed at the mentally handicapped, but at people who speak on their behalf.

 

The media talk about a "rape tweet" of his, when it factually was an anti-rape tweet as a joke aimed at Jess Phillips who tried to stifle a debate about men's issues, laughing at it. Why the media are obsessed with a three-year old tweet and not his current political views or what he has to offer as an MEP is staggering. The very first question to Benjamin at that UKIP press conference was about a three-year old tweet. Someone should set their priorities straight.

This is all but a diversion from the actual conversation that needs to be had.

 

He is controversial for the sake of it, but on the surface - it gets him the attention he craves to stand out in the crowd. He's openly admitted to it numerous times. But once you sit down with him, he does argue quite well and coherently.

 

How often do you see Labour, Tory or Lib Dem representatives sit down with people within their own constituency or in a random place for an extensive public debate on current political and social issues?

Edited by MC Prussian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Corbyn refuses to attend the state banquet for Trump.

 

Also Corbyn:

 

 

 

 

It's worth bearing in mind that he is under greater scrutiny as leader than when he was a backbench MP, and therefore has a greater responsibility to behave in a way that reflects the values of Labour Party voters, most of which are supportive of his stance.

 

 

I'm rather surprised that our resident Royalists aren't up in arms about Trump's visit - fancy requiring the poor woman to break bread with the uncouth, racist misogynist.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn not attending is playing up to his own supporters for the most part because he knows they'll support it and that there is this appetite to boycott trump.


He'll surely be well aware of the hypocrisy people are rightly pointing out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Buce said:

It's worth bearing in mind that he is under greater scrutiny as leader than when he was a backbench MP, and therefore has a greater responsibility to behave in a way that reflects the values of Labour Party voters, most of which are supportive of his stance.

 

I'm rather surprised that our resident Royalists aren't up in arms about Trump's visit - fancy requiring the poor woman to break bread with the uncouth, racist misogynist.

If this is now his genuine stance though, it surely means if Trump wins in 2020 then voting Labour we are electing a leader that will refuse to meet with the US president? 

 

But it also doesn't excuse why he was prepared to meet President Xi at a banquet whilst in the same position as he is now?

 

It's just complete nonsense and everyone can see it, self-righteous virtue-signalling is replacing practical politics. Crazy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MattP said:

Why is Nicola Sturgeon trying to plow ahead with Indyref2 when all polling shows they'll get a worse result that last time?

 

 

 

Weird. The Times reporting a Yougov poll today that says 51-49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It's worth bearing in mind that he is under greater scrutiny as leader than when he was a backbench MP, and therefore has a greater responsibility to behave in a way that reflects the values of Labour Party voters, most of which are supportive of his stance.

 

 

I'm rather surprised that our resident Royalists aren't up in arms about Trump's visit - fancy requiring the poor woman to break bread with the uncouth, racist misogynist.

 

True, though I for one have always been baffled as to why the backbench member for Islington North is going around the world meeting terrorists and laying wreathes for them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

True, though I for one have always been baffled as to why the backbench member for Islington North is going around the world meeting terrorists and laying wreathes for them. 

 

The same reason our government have no problem meeting the king of a nation that executes homosexuals and adulterers, crucifies people without fair trial, and removes limbs from petty thieves - because a politician with integrity is as rare as rocking-horse shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

Weird. The Times reporting a Yougov poll today that says 51-49

Literally just read that, bizarre.

 

No idea how they can be that far apart.

 

42 minutes ago, Buce said:

The same reason our government have no problem meeting the king of a nation that executes homosexuals and adulterers, crucifies people without fair trial, and removes limbs from petty thieves - because a politician with integrity is as rare as rocking-horse shit.

But at least the government does these things for reasons of trade, economics and security etc

 

Corbyn did it as a backbencher in his own time, which is pretty insane even for someone with his beliefs on the World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

The same reason our government have no problem meeting the king of a nation that executes homosexuals and adulterers, crucifies people without fair trial, and removes limbs from petty thieves - because a politician with integrity is as rare as rocking-horse shit.

Governments are in power and have to do those things for a reason though. Corbyn has never been in power, and even when his party was he spent his time in total opposition to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Governments are in power and have to do those things for a reason though.

 

 

Nope, they don't. They choose to for the most ignominious of reasons - money.

 

I'm not defending Corbyn, I'm pointing out that it is not more worthy of news than when all the other lying, self-serving hypocrites do it.

Edited by Buce
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Buce said:

Nope, they don't. They choose to for the most ignominious of reasons - money.

 

I'm not defending Corbyn, I'm pointing out that it is not more worthy of news than when all the other lying, self-serving hypocrites do it.

They do it for the economy of the country - no Prime Minister personally meets the leaders of Saudi etc for personal reward.

 

Although St Jeremy has even done that, taking a personal payment from the gay-hanging regime of Iran for an appearance on Press TV.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...