

I love Voyager, but of all Treks it’s the hardest to make a move of. Their whole thing was to get home and… they did! You can’t have ‘We need to reunite the old gang to get home from the Delta Quadrant one last time’.
London-based writer. Often climbing.
I love Voyager, but of all Treks it’s the hardest to make a move of. Their whole thing was to get home and… they did! You can’t have ‘We need to reunite the old gang to get home from the Delta Quadrant one last time’.
Funnily enough, I was also thinking of Oxford! Huge noise about it, but what happened? Pro-environment politicians re-elected, anti completely smashed!
This man’s almost total lack of people skills is incredible to me.
It’s a myth that people dislike 15 minute cities. If you look at election results, all the places that have put LTNs and similar in place have re-elected the politicians who pushed for them.
Fair enough. I look forward to aggressively agreeing with you again in the future.
No, because there’s no conflict between being rational and radically leftwing. Quite the opposite, I would argue! We have unprecedented crises to deal with, and the correct (rational) response to an unprecedented crisis may well be radical.
‘Hello, I’m a left wing person. We have lots of social and economic problems and actual crises, and we need radical action to fix them, in the form of left wing politics. My key dispute with the current Labour party is that its policies are insufficient to fix the problems and what I mean by that, specifically, is that they’re neither radical enough nor left wing enough’.
^This bit, I’m on board with. This bit is basically me, give or take an Ed Miliband here and there.
‘… and that’s why I’m going to spend a lot of time getting offended if people on the internet refer to me, the politicians I like or, indeed, the radical, left wing action I’m proposing as “radical left”’.
^This bit I am baffled by.
They do address energy storage in the full plan e.g.:
Exactly the sort of arrant nonsense I expect from GCs. I can’t see this case succeeding.
The issue is not that you don’t understand the arguments but that you don’t appear to understand the sentences! Respectfully, I think you can probably understand why I’m not interested in reading my comments back to you, which is what the discussion would entail at this point.
UPDATE:
Well, they lost the appeal and from midnight it will be illegal to be a member. Maximum sentence 14 years in prison, so I strongly suggest you don’t choose this moment to join.
I don’t think you read or understood my comment if this is your response.
Just for anyone still following this odd developing story, Corbyn has now issued a statement in which he says ‘discussions are still ongoing’ about a ‘real alternative’, but does not say he’s going to be co-leader of anything. This seems to me to match what Jessica Elgot and Gabriel Pogrund were reporting yesterday: that, contra Zarah Sultana’s statement, there’s not (yet) a new party and Corbyn is not co-leader.
No. You’ve taken one thing - the BBC pressurises their journalists to cover Israel positively, which I agree is true - and assumed it means a second thing - that (1) the BBC (2) smeared Corbyn (3) as an antisemite (numbers here because these are three separate claims that you haven’t justified, within the broader claim you also haven’t justified). You’ve then additionally taken that bundle of unproven claims as evidence of another different claim: that ‘the media’ as a whole, i.e., not just the BBC, ‘smeared Corbyn’ because he ‘opposed Israel’.
With respect, this is exactly what I meant about conspiracist thinking: you’re taking loosely related ideas (some of them true, some of them not) and bundled them together to claim a vaguely defined malevolent entity (‘the media’) is out to get someone. This is conspiracist thinking! That’s what that is!
Right, but we mitigate that harm (good) by depriving people of their freedom (bad). It is necessary to do it, for the exact reasons you suggest - to reduce evil overall.
I’ve been meaning to read some stuff about how to approach criminal justice if we don’t have free will, but I keep reading other stuff instead. So many books, so little time!
I still think prisoners should be treated well, no matter the crime.
Yes, absolutely. Even for the worst of the worst, their should be rehab attempts, whether it’s anger management, getting them away from gangs - whatever it is they need. I think there are only small numbers of people, if there are any at all, who are really irremediably violent and dangerous, but even for them I’m not exactly happy about putting them away indefinitely.
Yes, it’s fair - and indeed, good and right - to be sceptical. But we have to temper the scepticism with realism, which is the tricky bit!
Not about Corbyn!
Yeah, they did what a lot of the LTNs did elsewhere, which was to rebrand but keep the policies the same. Our car culture remains ridiculous but we’re moving against it every day!