Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

as shown in his choice of the Tory power pose:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Is... is that considered a power pose in Britain? :|

It looks like he pissed himself twenty minutes ago and has only just gotten up to deal with it, tbh.

[smjjames]

I also read in the BBC that Theresa May could be in further trouble over it, more of a ‘what did you know and when’, since one MP is calling for May to answer questions about it.

[Loud Whispers]

as shown in his choice of the Tory power pose:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Is... is that considered a power pose in Britain? :|

It looks like he pissed himself twenty minutes ago and has only just gotten up to deal with it, tbh.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

British politicians assert dominance through ritual combat centered around the strength of their calves. Through the power stance, where they demonstrate the wide expanse of their calves' reach, politicians are capable of sizing one another up without risking their precious calves in actual combat.

*This goes back in history.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Authority figures often deploy it to denote that they are in charge of the situation.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Here the notable actor Aidan Gillen adopts the power stance to denote his characters feel comfortable and in charge.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The most obviously wide by far was Cecil Rhodes, whose calves stretched from Cape to Cairo.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Queen Elizabeth I pictured here standing on England. No wide stance here though, as she was the virgin Queen and that would be rather unbecoming in those days, but the message is clear: I am the metaphorically widest, as shown by my hips.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Romans were known for defeating their enemies with potent power stance formations.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Queen Boudicaa of the Iceni, here flipping off the Romans whilst power stancing on a war chariot.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Stonehenge is in fact the first recorded power stance in human history

[Kagus]

Y'know, I'd heard somewhere that the chariot was as useful as it was in Egypt because they had a lot of nice flattish desert to ride around on, without all the bumps and rocks and shrubs of other regions.

Which makes me wonder just what exactly ancient Britain must have looked like if the locals felt that chariots were a good idea there, too.

[SaberToothTiger]

Let's just say that in the context of Victoria 2 being called an Anarcho-Liberal is the worst insult one could fling.

[Kagus]

That Thatcher is his guiding idol in political principle concerns me, that his guiding idol in philosophical principles is Ayn Rand

Please tell me you're joking. Because the more I learn about Ayn Rand, the more she seems like the guiding light of the bloody Anarcho-Liberals from Victoria 2

There are still a lot of folks who idolize Ayn Rand, despite most likely not knowing anything about her other than that she wrote some big books this one time. Atlas Shrugged is a centerpiece of any respectable unread personal library.

Also, my phone's predictive text is fun to play with. After "Ayn Rand Paul and I don't think" and "Atlas Shrugged off the cone", I'm half tempted to just let it write a post full of nonsense.

Pretty sure no one would know the difference anyways.

[Loud Whispers]

Y'know, I'd heard somewhere that the chariot was as useful as it was in Egypt because they had a lot of nice flattish desert to ride around on, without all the bumps and rocks and shrubs of other regions.

Which makes me wonder just what exactly ancient Britain must have looked like if the locals felt that chariots were a good idea there, too.

Loadsa forests and marshes. Egyptians had mass chariots, celtic Britain kept their charioteers to use by their elite warriors. Might have also been a procurement issue, as Egypt assembly line factory-manufactured their chariots while the celts had theirs made by craftsmen, who were obviously much slower. The chariots were useful in fending off the first Roman incursions through hit and run tactics, as it allowed the celtic skirmishers to avoid any decisive engagements with the Romans. This strategy fell apart when the Romans began occupying and entrenching themselves in Britannia, gradually annexing tribe after tribe, attacking their Forts and food stores in order to force the celts into battle.

I'm saying "Please tell me you're joking that the guy looks up to those two, *especially* Ayn Rand."

Just before Christmas, Sajid Javid performed a ritual he has observed twice a year throughout his adult life: he read the courtroom scene in The Fountainhead.

It's all ogre now

[scriver]

Y'know, I'd heard somewhere that the chariot was as useful as it was in Egypt because they had a lot of nice flattish desert to ride around on, without all the bumps and rocks and shrubs of other regions.

Which makes me wonder just what exactly ancient Britain must have looked like if the locals felt that chariots were a good idea there, too.

Loadsa forests and marshes. Egyptians had mass chariots, celtic Britain kept their charioteers to use by their elite warriors. Might have also been a procurement issue, as Egypt assembly line factory-manufactured their chariots while the celts had theirs made by craftsmen, who were obviously much slower. The chariots were useful in fending off the first Roman incursions through hit and run tactics, as it allowed the celtic skirmishers to avoid any decisive engagements with the Romans. This strategy fell apart when the Romans began occupying and entrenching themselves in Britannia, gradually annexing tribe after tribe, attacking their Forts and food stores in order to force the celts into battle.

Chariots might also have worked as a power symbol in itself. Compare the viking age Norse, who even though chariots had gone completely out of style in their society (as far as I know, only a few then-comtemporary chariots have ever been found - in burial mounds, likely as a symbol of wealth) was very particular about how their gods travelled with chariots (and what animals drove them). I don't think Norsemen every drove chariots into battle the way Brits or Egyptians did though. If their use would ever have been widespread it is likelier they would have used them the same way they used horses - never as cavalry, they simply rode the horses to the battlefield, then dismounted and fought on foot.

I'm saying "Please tell me you're joking that the guy looks up to those two, *especially* Ayn Rand."

Just before Christmas, Sajid Javid performed a ritual he has observed twice a year throughout his adult life: he read the courtroom scene in The Fountainhead.

It's all ogre now

Among Swedish parties it's the leader of the Centre Party, Annie "I AM NOT a neo-liberal!" Lööv who worships Ayn Rand. For reference, this is the party whose youth organisation wants to legalise necrophilia.

Neo-liberals. Neo-liberals everywhere.

[TD1]

Kinda is dying.

[Kagus]

I'm reminded of a panel from an informative cartoon book on... Something or other, I forget which one it was.

Boy: "Granny, can necrophilia be consensual?"

Grandma: "Read my will!"

[Reelya]

I still feel that neoliberalism needs to die. It's a shoddy system that was given a good trial run in the late 20th-early 21st century and it failed miserably.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnessing-death-neoliberalism-imf-economists

You hear it when the Bank of England’s Mark Carney sounds the alarm about “a low-growth, low-inflation, low-interest-rate equilibrium”

This is the reason for the short-sighted sell-offs of public assets - it creates a spasm of investment opportunities for the investor class. e.g. it wrings blood from a stone and creates the illusion of growth, for a while, but isn't sustainable. The big issue is the difference between an emerging economy - capable of rapid growth, and a mature economy. e.g. the mantra is that if we don't constantly produce more, and consume more, then the whole gravy train will derail: which explains the hostility to conservationism.

The problem is that now most nations have already sold off everything plausibly sold off, and they have to resort to talking about selling off things that don't make a whole lot of sense to sell off, like air traffic control, the national postal service*, main roads etc. The Neo-Liberal strategy thus far has been to forestall the plateau of a mature economy by finding new things to sell off, or getting rid of regulations / laws. e.g. say we loosen the law about how much of the metal lead is allowed in toothpaste, then we could open up a whole slew of business opportunities in putting lead waste into toothpaste, deliberately. * most countries never actually sells off the national post office even though it's a neo-liberal wet dream. Having a uniform stamp price is dependent on some people subsidizing other people, which breaks down if you leave it to pure market forces. And if you mandate that the newly-private post office must maintain price equity, then they react like the UK's privatized post office did and merely close down 20% of their branches.

EDIT: So, one of the main reasons neo-liberalism is flailing is that selling off public assets is one of their main tactics, for the above short-term thinking reasons, but it's sold to the public as being a long-term panacea. The problem is that that they sold everything off already so you can't really sell the "fire sale" solution any more.

[scriver]

Kinda is dying.

The Swedish Social Democrats are right now doing an "inquiry" (not sure how to translate, basically a research done in preparation for a law suggestion) on whether people really should be able to freely unionise, and the right-wing wants to legally mandate lower-than-minimum-wage salaries for immigrants, so no, I'd say that neo-liberalism is still well and breathing and getting stronger every day.

[Loud Whispers]

Kinda is dying.

Public opinion is turning against them, but their power and wealth both in governmental and non-governmental institutions further entrenches

[Sheb]

and the right-wing wants to legally mandate lower-than-minimum-wage salaries for immigrants, so no, I'd say that neo-liberalism is still well and breathing and getting stronger every day.

This can make some sense if done well. It's hard for new immigrants to compete with native Swedes when they just arrived if they have to be paid the same level. Now, for some migrants you could say though luck to them, but for those that you can't/don't want to deport if they can't sustain themselves (refugees mostly), you can end up trapping them out of employment, with all kind of negative consequences, both for the state's finance, for the integration of the refugees and so on.

This explain part of the reasons why employment rate for refugees is much higher in place like the US and Germany than Sweden or the Netherlands.

Letting them compete on wage for a few years while can give them the leg up they need to enter the job market, and get the experience they need to get jobs normally. I dunno about Sweden, but lots of countries do it for young people for that same reasons. In the UK minimum wage is 5.9 £/hour when you're 18, but raise top 7.83 £/hour when 25 or older. Belgium got a system where the minimum wage depends both on your age and your amount of work experience, although the variations are small, going from 1530 euros/month to 1590 for people over 20 with at least 12 month of experience. 

Obviously, there is also downsides to the idea, and scope for bad implementation causing more harm to the native workers, but the idea isn't entirely stupid and/or evil either.

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm aghast someone here would defend that bull. You actually think it's ok to mandate slave wages to immigrants, just because they are immigrants? It's utter crap, and harmful for both native workers AND foreigners. Sweet jebus, you think the latter will be happy on stsrvstion wage?