What does the UK election mean?

So, the UK election has been and gone, and social media is currently in meltdown over how awful the Conservative landslide is, and how horrible it’s going to be. There’s also mention of how it just shows that the people of the UK are truly horrible, because they didn’t vote in favour of the left-leaning Labour party.

This is the same social media that would tell you that you are terrible for engaging alternative opinions. That to simply not accept the ideas of your social betters is akin to Nazism.

Yeah. You keep saying that. Keep saying that and stay in the electoral wilderness.

The truth is that we live in a country with vastly different people. We may not share the same ideas, but we may want the same things. The only place where we may vary is in what the solution is. But to simply dismiss others and label them with the worst names a human can wear, simply because you disagree on solutions, is the kind of thinking that leads to genuine fascism.

And I’m not talking about the kind of fascism that is spruiked on social media, in where politicians make decisions that irritate. No, I’m talking about the full-blown fascism where ideas are suppressed, and the Government intimidates dissenters with threat of incarceration or death. Think I’m being hyperbolic? Look at how there’s a growing push for “hate speech” laws.

Hate speech? Defined by whom? By the Government? If you’re comfortable with giving Government power to control speech, then you are paving the road to fascism right there.

If you cannot tolerate alternative opinions and solution proposals, and cannot engage in debate, decided to simply sneer and denigrate those who disagree, then you are part of the problem and need to stay out of debate. Fuck off. Go away. You aren’t needed in the political sphere. Say “ok boomer” as your contribution and fuck off. The adults are talking.

And it’s not just me saying this, either. The UK election is pretty much the embodiment of what I’m saying. It’s a giant Fuck Off to those who would consider themselves enlightened and who know more than you. When they don’t know more – they just have media talking heads and celebrities echoing their views. But the electorate, in this election, have flat out rejected them.

The propaganda doesn’t work anymore. Celebrities can stay out of politics and focus on what they do best – entertain. Media can report the facts impartially. The people will decide on matters after having robust debate and coming to compromise.

If you cannot fathom that idea, then you reveal yourself as the intellectual minnow you truly are.

Fuck off.

Social media is a toilet

There really is no other way to put it. A platform that will openly take whatever mental waste and gleefully devour it to pump it all over the place can only be described as a toilet. Open wide and accept whatever mental faeces is dumped in it, and uncritically circulate it through a network of pipes, ultimately to be absorbed as pollution by the planet.

Today I discovered this nugget.

This bullshit deserves zero consumption. This open declaration that one side of a debate simply does not care serves to only undermine any possible debate. It paints one side as uncaring at best, and gleeful at worst. It is counter to any attempt at reasonable debate, especially when the topics it seeks to address are enormous in scope – particularly in the United States.

It asserts that legal gun owners don’t care about those who are shot.

It asserts that anyone concern with border control wants people imprisoned.

It asserts that anyone who wants status quo on health care takes no sadness in the death of a child.

It asserts that those who feel powerless and guilt should not express their thoughts and prayers in sympathy to victims.

Fuck off.

This is hogwash of the greatest order, and is a reason for the decline in social acceptance. It is a sign of tyrants in the shadows who would, if given the power, would do away with individual rights at the first opportunity, with the sole rationale being “it’s for your own good.”

The slippery slope exists. Not all slippery slopes are a fallacy.

This picture is immaturity of the greatest order. It offers nothing in solution, although postures as Truth to Power. But it ultimately undermines debate on topics that need debate.

It demonises one side of a debate as though their concerns have no validity. Because let’s be clear, it’s not that one side doesn’t care. It’s that the sides differ on what is the solution. The author of this little waste log would probably care little if the government were to simply remove rights and rule on these topics like a dictator, but would likely bemoan a government that attacks what they consider cherished.

Social media is a toilet, and the sooner we ignore it as a prime source of wholesome information rather recognising it as the waste receptacle it truly is, the better.

Politics of fear – Climate Change

The issue of climate change, to put it quietly, is a topic that generates supreme and extreme debate. Unfortunately it seems to dwell on the aspects that relate to the conflict in the best solution versus the phenomena’s existence. Or, at least, this is where the attention seems to be focussed.

Because when the political parties get involved, the thrust of the two sides seems to be “it’s not that bad” and “you’re denying science.”

I do not wish to get into the weeds of the existence of climate change, or even the solutions to it, as I feel the fixes lie in relationships and agreements and actions that are far too complex for a mere blogger such as myself to advocate. Instead, I intend to outline the dynamic I’m seeing play out, as it appears to be an exercise in striking fear into people – specifically affecting votes.

The dichotomy exists today that if you care about the environment, then you simply must align with the party that isn’t conservative. Conservatives are the climate change deniers – or at least there is an easily deployed line that “not all conservatives are climate change deniers, but all climate change deniers are conservative”. This reasoning is particularly annoying, because it tars the entirety of opposing debate with a brush that should be reserved for the people who probably shouldn’t be highlighted as part of the conversation.

But we gotta paint the opposite side as crazy, don’t we?

The alarmist language erupting from the parties who want “Action On Climate Change” is particularly troublesome, if only for a couple reasons. Firstly, simply “demanding action” is not a solution in itself. Secondly, it creates that dichotomy that if you’re not 100% in agreement with the party erupting with those words, then you must be in denial that climate change is occurring.

It doesn’t entertain the slightest notion that someone can both believe that climate change is occurring, and also thinks that all current discussion on solutions are utter garbage.

Again, I’m not going to attempt to proffer a solution. All I am saying is to maintain an awareness on those who would demand that you vote for them because to not vote for them is to vote against the well-being of the planet. With the alarmist language of the state of the planet (ie that if we don’t act now, the world will be largely uninhabitable in less than two decades), I cannot help but fear that the railroading of debate into the lines of “our solution is the only solution, so vote for us” is an attempt to scare voters – particularly the rising youth vote – into voting for one side over another.

Be sceptical of those who try to make you scared of voting against them. While they may care about the issue at hand, the use of fear is a manipulation tool. Look at the solutions they propose, and not the predictions they espouse.

Strip away the pretence

The inconsistencies in reporting would confirm the idea that our social betters – ie the clucking disdainers in the media corporate seats – would have precisely zero standards. Not in the relative lack of ethics – although that is a problem – but in that any standards they may apply are not consistent.

Of particular note is the way the media has reacted to the new comedy special by one of the most celebrated personalities in the field, Dave Chapelle. While Rotten Tomatoes isn’t the only indicator of quality, the disparity between the critic scores and the audience scores are indicative of a critique’s gallery that simply doesn’t understand what people enjoy.

Contrast this with the critically celebrated release of Hannah Gadsby’s “Nanette“, which was widely celebrated, yet panned by audiences. Moreover, observe how the criticism is dismissed as badly motivated, an explanation that is seemingly accepted by our social betters in the press.

Note: I have seen neither Chappelle’s or Gadsby’s respective shows, so cannot (and will not) make any statements as to the quality of either.

So, it’s easy to dismiss haters of “Nanette” as horrible sexists, yet the press can criticise the works of Chappelle but we are to accept that they not motivated by their deeply-entrenched racism? Chappelle is a highly successful person of colour, speaking his own truth to how he perceives the world, and the coddled critics (with white people in the most senior roles) sit in their West 36th Avenue, NY offices attack him for it? That sounds like racism to me.

At least, it would be by their standards.

If they had them.

But no, the staff at Salon are not racists. I am not one to immediately ascribe the worst motivations to anyone, especially in the face of the vast treasure-trove of evidence to suggest that ideology trumps all. Instead, I would suggest that they are just shit at their jobs and are replete with Activist Journalists who would serve at the behest of greater powers. Their “Fearless Journalism” is only bravery in the face of those they oppose, instead of courage in the face of a tyranny that knows no teams – only power.

For all the posturing that the likes of Salon, Variety, or whoever perform (and this even extends to publications on the other side of the coin), when you strip away the pretence of what they say, pull back the veneer of words like “punching up” and “marginalised people”, you only reveal them to be the partisan hacks they are. They don’t care about oppressed demographics if individuals in those demographics says word that don’t align with the ideology.

To them, gay conservatives are traitors. Black right-wingers are no better. Republicans hate women, even if it was a Republican President who appointed the first one to the Supreme Court, or appointed a black woman as Secretary of State.

In the wake of Kevin Hart’s removal from Oscars hosting, and considering how Salon like to talk about how they champion people of colour and members of the LGBTIQ community, it is certainly strange that Salon pushes back on Kevin Hart’s explanation on the Ellen show, even going so far as to rap Ellen DeGeneres over the knuckles for not being hard enough on Hart.

Much like a cult, if the likes of Salon feel that someone has gone off the reservation, they will target them, shun them, and attempt to discredit them – regardless of their identity. Thought crime, it seems, is real. If some bizarre set of circumstances resulted in Hannah Gadsby making some statement about US President Donald Trump that is milquetoast, or even vaguely complimentary, Salon and their ilk in the media will leap to condemn her at the first chance, and their reviews of Gadsby’s future work would not be as glowing.

Chappelle’s poor ratings (from critics) is not that he made something poor. It’s that he made something that doesn’t agree with them.

So, strip away the pretence, and this is all just Left-Right bullshit.

The big issue of minis in politics

I am not alone when it comes to the disdain of pushing kids into politics and political activism. I am deeply cynical on these matters, as watching children engage in something with great passion and worry appeals to the most basic of our biological tendencies; to protect children.

So when children are deployed as a means to influence opinion, or even to guilt politicians into signing potentially flawed – if well-intentioned – policies, my brain kicks into this mode in where I don’t feel I’m being informed, but rather I’m being manipulated. Take, for instance, this exchange between some children and Senator Diane Feinstein.

In this case, Feinstein handles the matter like a seasoned politician, giving what I can only really describe as the diplomatic way of saying “Pipe down, and let adults decide.”

Because, let’s be honest, who would want to take instructions from kids on anything? If some kids came into your office with a placard and told you what you had to do, or else you’d be screwing them over in the future, you’d rightly tell them to fuck off.

Now, there has been the recent case of MiniAOC, the little girl who has pushing political satire as a tiny version of Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. A play on the Mini-Me meme, if you will. This girl has been a viral sensation amid conservative circles, serving as parody of the Queens representative, and poking fun at the popular Congresswoman.

Yet, I cannot get onboard with this, either, for reasons I detail above. It’s a different kind of manipulation. The mockery of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is somehow lightened by the fact that it’s an 8 year old girl doing the performance. Yet, behind all this I can see a parent – or parents – pushing their daughter front and centre of all this, for the baying hounds of social media to target.

And target, they have. The subsequent abuse that was allegedly directed at the creators of the MiniAOC account, and to the actress herself, has resulted in the account being shut down.

In both examples I write here, I condemn the use of children for the purposes of making political hay. It’s manipulative, and a shocking abuse of the unconditional trust that children hold with their parents. This MiniAOC actress has much of her life ahead of her, and who is to say that she won’t later regret her political adventure, especially if she doesn’t agree with conservative values?

Although, there’s also something a bit off about the reasons why the MiniAOC account was removed. Per this story:

(Redacted) will not being doing any more MINI AOC content.

The Left’s Harassment and death threats have gone too far for our family. We have been getting calls on our personal phone numbers.
For our safety and for our child’s safety, we deleted all Mini AOC accounts.

(I have redacted the child’s name for my own reasons – despite the source article stating it clearly).

To use an old Reaganism of “Trust But Verify”, how do they know that this harassment has come from “The Left”? The internet troll gallery is deep, numerous and highly anonymous. To specifically indicate from where the harassment had come would either need some kind of identifying factor before we can assume anything.

Because otherwise it’s just yet another case of one side labelling the other side as horrible people, just to demonise them.

And that, as I’ve said many a time on this blog, is something that needs to fuck off.

Political debate needs level heads and reason. Not drama, posturing, dehumanisation and most of all, children.

Activist Representatives – posturing at the expense of others

There is something really quite harmful when the good of the tribe is put above the good of the broader population. People who hold the reins of power, when given checks and balances, need to be able to reach across the aisle to achieve good.

When there is no attempt to reach across the aisle, and when political actions are driven only by making sure the opponent looks awful, and deny them any political win, it is the path to destruction and pain.

I do find it somewhat bewildering that congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (who I’ll refer to as “AOC” per her assigned moniker) has seen fit to support actions that ensure that those people for whom she professes to care are denied comfort. Why? As a show of care to those who are detained? No.

She outlines that the actions taken to pressure companies from providing bedding to people in detention centres is actually a sign of peoples’ power – that we can, collectively, make change real and tangible.

I am sure that people sleeping on cold concrete floors at night are comforted by knowing that politicians outside the fence can wrangle enough people power to make change.

I have outlined before that we shouldn’t ascribe bad motivations to opponents, as it tends to break down debate and creates divides where there should be none. However, it is difficult to perceive the efforts of AOC as anything other than an effort to not afford the Trump administration with a win.

Seems like a bit of an Own Goal, if I’m honest.

When she poses at the fence, appearing to be emotionally overwhelmed by the atrocities occurring within the wires, while simultaneously celebrating the denial of comfort, would indicate a lack of sincerity about the plight of those inside. To me, it indicates that congresswoman AOC is concerned only about ensuring that Republicans don’t achieve any kind of political win.

This kind of tribalism that would seek to deny victories so that power can be later obtained at election time is the kind of attitude that needs to, bluntly, fuck off. Certainly, this is not limited to Democrats, either – I have serious concerns when Republicans would deny their Democrat colleagues victories for the sole purpose of preserving their own power as well.

This kind of tribalism is eroding reasoned debate, and it has no place in a civilised society where we all try to achieve prosperity for the population. In these times, we need concession and acknowledgement of each others’ perspectives. I am disinterested in pleas of “their side is worse” and “they are unchecked”.

No. Suck it up. Ignore the squealing imbeciles on social media. Stop playing to the radicals and idiots. Start meeting the reasonable voices in the middle and find a solution that, if it doesn’t please everyone, pisses off the fewest.

Fiction and tortured metaphors

I honestly wish for people to stop doing this kind of shit. It’s tedious. It’s rubbish. It’s lazy. It can be tortured enough to be applied to literally anything and anyone. It’s comparing works of fiction to current day situations or people.

In particular, the recent instance of Stephen King watching the harrowing HBO series Chernobyl and comparing the story to the world currently wielding Donald Trump as President of the United States.

I get it. People don’t like him. He’s largely a buffoon. But it has gotten to a point where it seems that literally everything bad in the world can somehow be linked back, however tenuously, to Trump. Heck, I don’t like the guy, but this kind of posturing only appears to me, as a commoner, as the world elite having a massive hissy-fit because their preferred party genuinely lost an election.

Really. Get over it. Four years is a short timeframe in our lives. You lost an election. Look to win the next one and find out exactly why people largely rejected your lady and angel last time. Hint: it’s because she was garbage and ran a largely garbage campaign. How do I know? Because she lost to fucking Donald Trump – someone with literally zero experience in representing people.

So, what is King’s rationale for comparing a literal nuclear meltdown to the world in which Donald Trump presides?

“He’s a man of mediocre intelligence in charge of great power–economic, global–that he does not understand.” – Stephen King

This kind of posturing is exacerbated by the show’s writers and show runner indicating the parallels being drawn.

“At the heart of this show, we are asking a question,” Mazin recently told Men’s Health. “What happens when we debase the truth and celebrate lies instead? Or when we play with the truth and make it our toy, or distort it? What happens when we deny that there’s truth at all?”

Harris, who plays scientist Valery Legasov, the unsung hero who helped to eventually contain the mess in the town of Pirpyat, felt the same way. “If they were lying to you, you didn’t have an ability to correct that narrative. You couldn’t hold power to account,” he said of the Soviet government back then.”It was a state where lies were being passed as being truthful….and if you look at this whole story, once you get to the end of it, it comes down to, essentially, one lie that causes the accident.”

One problem with the questions being posited: What of the actual lies of the media when they cut the wrong direction? Such as when the story was peddled that D-Day a ceremony was delayed due to Trump, when upon later review it was the media darling and French President, Emmanuel Macron, who caused the delay?

Is the issue of truth-telling an actual problem now?

Another fly in the bitter ointment is that the Soviet media back then peddled the lies of the Soviet government willingly, and without question – even going as far as to accuse Western media of exaggerating the level of the threat of the Chernobyl incident. You cannot seriously say with a straight face that the media let’s anything Trump says pass without rebuke or spin.

Secondly, King’s point of the ignorance of the power being wielded by those who were in control of the Chernobyl Reactor 4. I posit that the problem wasn’t that they were ignorant of the level power they wielded, but seemingly they were either arrogant enough to think they could recover the reactor’s loss of power during the test (leading to them disengaging emergency shutdown systems) – or they were too scared to cancel the test for fear that failing to conduct the test would result in punishment.

I also missed the part where Trump presides over the earth’s greatest natural disaster that remains a forever-burning pile of radioactivity that now requires a second sarcophagus to cover.

But let’s torture metaphors further, shall we?

How about we compare the story of Tiananmen Square to that of an Obama Presidency that wilfully used vast military power to kill comparatively innocent civilians, and then conveniently pave over the atrocities with a complicit media? How about we compare the warmongering of Genghis Khan to that of GW Bush invading countries?

Piss off with this pointless posturing and torturing of metaphors.

Your pants are down and your propaganda is showing.