Author Topic: UK internet censoring  (Read 12206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #125 on: July 14, 2023, 11:09:44 pm »
The Third Reich got support because the alternatives appeared worse. Once it got that support a huge number clearly had an "oh shit" moment when they realised what they had freely voted for. With a booming economy it took quite a while for that moment to occur for many people. For a long time they had achieved the end to chaos they had voted for.

Compare and contrast with the Brexit vote. :(

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
Brexit is nothing but a small cut, compared to the huge injury of lockdown and mass immigration, which would have happened anyway.

That's avoiding doing the compare and contrast exercise between comparing UK and 2016 Brexit vote, with Weimar Republic and their 1933 vote.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #126 on: July 15, 2023, 08:58:09 am »
The Third Reich got support because the alternatives appeared worse. Once it got that support a huge number clearly had an "oh shit" moment when they realised what they had freely voted for. With a booming economy it took quite a while for that moment to occur for many people. For a long time they had achieved the end to chaos they had voted for.

Compare and contrast with the Brexit vote. :(

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
Brexit is nothing but a small cut, compared to the huge injury of lockdown and mass immigration, which would have happened anyway.

That's avoiding doing the compare and contrast exercise between comparing UK and 2016 Brexit vote, with Weimar Republic and their 1933 vote.
That's like comparing chalk and cheese.
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #127 on: July 15, 2023, 09:41:59 am »
The Third Reich got support because the alternatives appeared worse. Once it got that support a huge number clearly had an "oh shit" moment when they realised what they had freely voted for. With a booming economy it took quite a while for that moment to occur for many people. For a long time they had achieved the end to chaos they had voted for.

Compare and contrast with the Brexit vote. :(

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
Brexit is nothing but a small cut, compared to the huge injury of lockdown and mass immigration, which would have happened anyway.

That's avoiding doing the compare and contrast exercise between comparing UK and 2016 Brexit vote, with Weimar Republic and their 1933 vote.
That's like comparing chalk and cheese.

Not so. :(

How about many voters becoming pissed off with their current leaders, populist demigogs appearing, blame for current woes placed on Them, where "Them" is (a) foreigners and (b) experienced specialists.

That rhymes all too well, and hasn't fully played out here and now :(

And that's all the politics I will discuss here.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #128 on: July 15, 2023, 10:17:05 am »
The Third Reich got support because the alternatives appeared worse. Once it got that support a huge number clearly had an "oh shit" moment when they realised what they had freely voted for. With a booming economy it took quite a while for that moment to occur for many people. For a long time they had achieved the end to chaos they had voted for.

Compare and contrast with the Brexit vote. :(

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
Brexit is nothing but a small cut, compared to the huge injury of lockdown and mass immigration, which would have happened anyway.

That's avoiding doing the compare and contrast exercise between comparing UK and 2016 Brexit vote, with Weimar Republic and their 1933 vote.
That's like comparing chalk and cheese.

Not so. :(

How about many voters becoming pissed off with their current leaders, populist demigogs appearing, blame for current woes placed on Them, where "Them" is (a) foreigners and (b) experienced specialists.

That rhymes all too well, and hasn't fully played out here and now :(

And that's all the politics I will discuss here.

Popularism is good, because it aligns with democracy.

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about Brexit. It's not something I voted for, but I can certainly understand why people voted for it. There's no point in remoaning. We have far worse problems.

People are rightly fed up with their leaders. The two parties are essentially the same, so as long as people vote for either one of them, nothing will change.

One does not have to dislike foreigners, to be against mass immigration. It is the cause of many problems in our society. It's the main reason why housing is in short supply and young people can't afford to buy. It's no good building new homes. We need to deal with the demand, caused by an increasing population, due to immigration. The idea pushed by the mainstream media, that we need it due to the ageing population and for the economy is nonsense. Foreigners get old too and there are other countries such as Japan who appear to be doing fine without it. Immigration benefits the rich, elites, at the expense of the poor, hence why those in power are so keen on it. The majority who support so-called far-right parties who want to cut immigration, do not dislike foreigners, or want to harm anyone, just to see immigration cut to a sustainable level. I don't support any political party. They're all rotten.

Going back to the original topic. We're truly stuffed. Voting Labour won't make and difference, because they want to go further and the Liberal Democrats will simply form a government with the next largest party. I don't know what the Green Party's position is on this, but I don't support their extreme environmental taxes, which would damage the economy. There are other more right-wing parties, too small to have an impact, but I disagree with many of their other policies.
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4931
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #129 on: July 15, 2023, 12:19:09 pm »
One does not have to dislike foreigners, to be against mass immigration. It is the cause of many problems in our society. It's the main reason why housing is in short supply and young people can't afford to buy. It's no good building new homes. We need to deal with the demand, caused by an increasing population, due to immigration.

No it isn't. It's because the Thatcher government changed some of the financial rules for councils, making it effectively impossible for them to replace the stock they were being forced to sell, or that was just no longer fit for purpose.

Building new social housing, and also affordable housing, is the answer. Immigration is a separate issue.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2023, 01:14:50 pm »
One does not have to dislike foreigners, to be against mass immigration. It is the cause of many problems in our society. It's the main reason why housing is in short supply and young people can't afford to buy. It's no good building new homes. We need to deal with the demand, caused by an increasing population, due to immigration.

No it isn't. It's because the Thatcher government changed some of the financial rules for councils, making it effectively impossible for them to replace the stock they were being forced to sell, or that was just no longer fit for purpose.
You are right there.

Building new social housing, and also affordable housing, is the answer. Immigration is a separate issue.
Incorrect. It's simply a matter of supply vs demand. Importing around a million people per year will increase demand for housing, because they all require somewhere to live. Cutting immigration will reduce the need for new homes.

Building more homes will not solve the problem. It will just make a few people very rich. The government will never cut immigration because the rich and powerful want property and land to be expensive. It's funny I get often accused of being far-right for stating this.
 

Offline Infraviolet

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1185
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #131 on: July 15, 2023, 05:04:19 pm »
" comparing UK and 2016 Brexit vote, with Weimar Republic and their 1933 vote. "
A bit extreme definitely, I was a very determined remainer from 2016-2020 (now I'm brexit-agnostic, it's bad but nowehere near as bad as I feared and the EU is in a mess now anyway which we might yet be glad not to be inside), and whilst I expected many terribe things to come of it Nazi style rule wasn't one of them. The snoopers charter of 2016, and the lockdowns of 2020, were much more like voting in Hitler than brexit was. In the aftermath of brexit I expected we'd lose a lot of our fundamental rights due to the UK sneaking away from the EU human rights courts, but then those human rights courts spent 2020 proving they no longer cared about human rights (while the Uk was still in), and the EU now is becoming increasingly tyranical itself with plans for digital IDs and for mass scale internet censorship*. Brexit wasn't the biggest problem, all the other things which went on while brexit had people distracted were. Today ofcourse, the political class use immigration as as a distraction, to keeppeople's attention while truly dangerous things with CBDC plans are done in the background. Also, since Britain has been out of the EU, it has actually morphed a lot more in to the bad things (unified EU vaccine digital ID passes, EU digital services diktats, EU plans for close collaboration wih the disgraced WHO, EU plans to spy on journalists...) which brexiteers claimed (incorrectly at THAT time) it was in 2016.

*just the same asmost of the rest of the world, virtually everywhere is in need of a regime change in which the bureaucratic authoritarian busy-body jobsworth tick-box class all get kicked out of politics and sent in to eternal unemployment where they can do no further harm
 
The following users thanked this post: Zero999

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #132 on: July 15, 2023, 05:16:30 pm »
Building new social housing, and also affordable housing, is the answer. Immigration is a separate issue.
Incorrect. It's simply a matter of supply vs demand. Importing around a million people per year will increase demand for housing, because they all require somewhere to live. Cutting immigration will reduce the need for new homes.

Building more homes will not solve the problem. It will just make a few people very rich. The government will never cut immigration because the rich and powerful want property and land to be expensive. It's funny I get often accused of being far-right for stating this.
In places nobody wants to live, housing is usually very cheap. Places that go out of favour (e.g. industry shuts down) often have plenty of available houses at low prices. Supply and demand are clearly a huge part of house prices. However, where people want to live, generally because there are good incomes to be made there, houses generally cost the same - the very limit of what people can pay. Push up the interest rate and prices goes down. Push down the interest rate and prices goes up. Push up incomes and prices go up. Drive down incomes and prices go down.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #133 on: July 15, 2023, 05:32:44 pm »
Building new social housing, and also affordable housing, is the answer. Immigration is a separate issue.
Incorrect. It's simply a matter of supply vs demand. Importing around a million people per year will increase demand for housing, because they all require somewhere to live. Cutting immigration will reduce the need for new homes.

Building more homes will not solve the problem. It will just make a few people very rich. The government will never cut immigration because the rich and powerful want property and land to be expensive. It's funny I get often accused of being far-right for stating this.
In places nobody wants to live, housing is usually very cheap. Places that go out of favour (e.g. industry shuts down) often have plenty of available houses at low prices. Supply and demand are clearly a huge part of house prices. However, where people want to live, generally because there are good incomes to be made there, houses generally cost the same - the very limit of what people can pay. Push up the interest rate and prices goes down. Push down the interest rate and prices goes up. Push up incomes and prices go up. Drive down incomes and prices go down.
Even the crappiest places in the UK are still better than many parts of the world.

It's certainly true having low interest rates is a big driver of house prices. It encourages people with money to in invest in property, which increases prices further, rather than putting the money in the bank, where they get bugger all back. The government here are doing their level best to keep the price of property and land as high as possible. They might say otherwise, but their policies and actions clearly show this, whatever they claim.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #134 on: July 15, 2023, 05:42:29 pm »
Building new social housing, and also affordable housing, is the answer. Immigration is a separate issue.
Incorrect. It's simply a matter of supply vs demand. Importing around a million people per year will increase demand for housing, because they all require somewhere to live. Cutting immigration will reduce the need for new homes.

Building more homes will not solve the problem. It will just make a few people very rich. The government will never cut immigration because the rich and powerful want property and land to be expensive. It's funny I get often accused of being far-right for stating this.
In places nobody wants to live, housing is usually very cheap. Places that go out of favour (e.g. industry shuts down) often have plenty of available houses at low prices. Supply and demand are clearly a huge part of house prices. However, where people want to live, generally because there are good incomes to be made there, houses generally cost the same - the very limit of what people can pay. Push up the interest rate and prices goes down. Push down the interest rate and prices goes up. Push up incomes and prices go up. Drive down incomes and prices go down.
Even the crappiest places in the UK are still better than many parts of the world.
Huh? Weird response. How did crappiness come into this? Many dead seaside towns in the UK are not crappy (although steady decline isn't helping with that) but without available jobs the houses sell for scrap value, and large numbers are empty.
 

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3266
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #135 on: July 15, 2023, 07:09:54 pm »
one thing the uk needs to sort is  reusing brownfield/intown sites that have sat derelict for years instead of extending the urban sprawl into the countryside.Of course for this to succeed it helps if your councillors dont own large swaths of land on the outskirts of town that gets sold of with planning for "much needed new housing"
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #136 on: July 15, 2023, 07:19:58 pm »
one thing the uk needs to sort is  reusing brownfield/intown sites that have sat derelict for years instead of extending the urban sprawl into the countryside.Of course for this to succeed it helps if your councillors dont own large swaths of land on the outskirts of town that gets sold of with planning for "much needed new housing"
There used to be huge amounts of land fitting that description in London, but most of it eventually got reused. There is plenty of derelict land in many UK towns, but those aren't the towns that are doing well, and offer reasonable employment prospects.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf