Social media has also made it basically impossible to curate any algorithm because they all run off the TikTok one now - which feeds you content by passive engagement (how long you watch a short video for) rather than active (liking, searching, sharing etc)
Starmer-Rayner/Streeting-???-Farage-???-Polanski
This has reminded me of Polanski's assertion that racism "comes from poverty". He's the political leader we deserve in our short video-dominated, post-literate society
It's also not moving the goalposts to ask you to make more than a semantic defence of ZP
He has previously stated that he was persuaded to conduct the "experiment" by the Sun journalist. In the interview he cites her as a source of credibility for his own work - and says others have got in contact seeking the same treatment.
So just to be clear, you're saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with claiming you can enhance the size of women's breasts if you're doing so as an experiment, but if you start charging for it that's what makes it morally wrong?
Time Trumpet is a six-episode satirical television comedy series which aired on BBC Two in August 2006.[1]
His existence as a political leader is owed to the fact that standards in public life have fallen so far that the difference appears negligible. He's faked it and made it
He's such a fascinating type of grifter because a lot of politicians are on the make for themselves in conventional ways; the freebies, the speaking fees etc, with ZP it's clear that just being regarded as a serious figure in his own right is the grift.
In the clip from 2013 he is citing the Sun journalist as a source that gives him credibility that he can enhance the size of women's breasts. He has clearly not been "misrepresented" in the slightest
Labour MPs need more scrutiny on welfare, not unearned good faith when they make lazy, outright incorrect remarks like this
The notion that the welfare system "doesn't incentivise hard work" is absolutely absurd, but the idea that this is the chief issue with the welfare system can only really be based on a view of appeasing people's misconceptions of those on UC as skivers (not to mention PIP)
What's most revealing about the welfare comment is it appears he's excluding those on welfare from his definition of "economically insecure"
Things may be bad right now but at least people aren’t listening to “electric swing” music anymore.
Tbf Fincher is now totally washed and is making straight-to-Netflix shite like The Continuing Adventures of Cliff Booth and the US remake of Squid Game
Idk about you but I'm not sure I've ever changed my mind based on a post - a well written article, video, etc sure. I feel like this is saying we can reverse engineer Sayre's Law if only pro immigration Blueskyers are brave enough
And the way to parliamentary representation is imo not going to be found in policing the language of pro immigration Bluesky users
Sure - but you're advocating others adopt "saner" language on the pro side, and endorsing Dan's post that those on the pro side should make the argument about why numbers should go up. I fail to see how either are the issue with the pro immigration side? They lack parliamentary representation?
And once you start believing that the specific points taken in defending immigration via posting on Bluesky can influence public opinion you have become delusional in a different but no less absurd way than those who believe civil war is coming to the UK because of immigration
Imo it would be better if less people who are interested in politics didn't LARP as if they were paid strategists or representatives. Usually debates about how best to appeal to public opinion usually end up imposing strict and rigid rules & logic on it when on most issues it is incoherent
And even weirder to basically pretend that the way people talk about it on Bluesky will influence the debate one jot. I feel like were this another issue the agency and political representation of the average pro voter wouldn't be so easily waived away
There is only one national UK party with consistently pro immigration messaging (the Greens), all of the others support restrictions and have employed "stop the boats" messaging. So it seems to me to be a bit odd to be talking about immigration as if the pro side has a lot of representation
What I don't get about this line of thought is it says those with pro immigration views must be disciplined in how they speak about it, "make the argument for numbers increasing etc" "talk about jobs in X industries etc", this line of thought would never be applied to those who are anti immigration?
*no one except City
(I only remember this game because I was there for it tbf)
www.skysports.com/football/new...
