New UK Prime Minister. 2022 edition. Liz Truss, conservative.

[FAST6191]

Isn't this the person saying she wants to maximize pear production? In the UK of all places? Lmao.

They grow wild in the lanes and hedges around here (I usually harvest them a few weeks before most apples come in, quite like https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/chocolate-pear-crisp myself if doing a dessert, they are also quite nice when pickled), and generally thrive under the same conditions apples do which grow basically everywhere in the UK and have commercial apple orchards everywhere as well. Generally in the UK if you are offering someone a piece of fruit or fruit pie then apple or pear would not show a terribly great preference, cider is probably more popular then perry (cider made from pears) but there is still enough of that around too.

Was too lazy to see what you might be referencing (much less any greater context. I don't think they are a particular solution to a pest, disease or apple monoculture problem which is where some might go) but on the face of it then hardly the most laughable thing to come out of a politico's mouth.

 

[mrdude]

Isn't this the person saying she wants to maximize pear production? In the UK of all places? Lmao.

She was actually talking about world trade and about imports and exports and here's the quote:

"At the moment, we import two-thirds of all of our apples.

"We import nine-tenths of all of our pears.

"We import two-thirds of our cheese.

"That is a disgrace!"

Maybe you should try to put things into context, rather than trying to make people look silly, because you just make yourself look silly if you don't.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Maybe you should try to put things into context, rather than trying to make people look silly, because you just make yourself look silly if you don't.

Why would I put effort into it when it makes capitalist dogs wig out anyways LMAO

 

[FAST6191]

Why would I put effort into it when it makes capitalist dogs wig out anyways LMAO

More flies with honey.

If you want to be the freak everybody points and laughs at/clown they entertain the presence of as them soiling themselves is amusing, at least until the smell catches up, then so it goes. I would generally hope to aspire to more though. Present a balanced and reasoned argument and whether you win over your debate opponent or not is up in the air (some are too far gone, or indeed you would first have to go back to very fundamental assumptions, others might just have different risk tolerances and breakdowns for best of bad choices) but there are always those silently observing that might be swayed. Get yourself a reputation as an unreliable and unreasonable actor and you then handicap yourself to having to overcome that before your point gets contemplated, possibly even more so if wish to claim to be an exemplar or ambassador for a way of thought (or grouping if that could be said to be a relevant notion).

 

[LainaGabranth]

More flies with honey.

If you want to be the freak everybody points and laughs at/clown they entertain the presence of as them soiling themselves is amusing, at least until the smell catches up, then so it goes. I would generally hope to aspire to more though. Present a balanced and reasoned argument and whether you win over your debate opponent or not is up in the air (some are too far gone, or indeed you would first have to go back to very fundamental assumptions, others might just have different risk tolerances and breakdowns for best of bad choices) but there are always those silently observing that might be swayed. Get yourself a reputation as an unreliable and unreasonable actor and you then handicap yourself to having to overcome that before your point gets contemplated, possibly even more so if wish to claim to be an exemplar or ambassador for a way of thought (or grouping if that could be said to be a relevant notion).

The problem is this wall of text generously assumes I care what my opponent thinks about anything.

 

[FAST6191]

The problem is this wall of text generously assumes I care what my opponent thinks about anything.

That counts as a wall of text?

You need not necessarily care what your opponent is thinking, though the better debates do care how they think*. That said if you are not trying to change their mind on something are you not almost just spamming at that point? Indeed the "wall" you just dismissed noted that there are generally assumed to be undecided observers of various leanings to a discussion and those are possibly your main audience when all is said and done. Dismiss those by playing the clueless idiot at your peril.

*from the Art of War

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

 

[LainaGabranth]

That counts as a wall of text?

You need not necessarily care what your opponent is thinking, though the better debates do care how they think*. That said if you are not trying to change their mind on something are you not almost just spamming at that point? Indeed the "wall" you just dismissed noted that there are generally assumed to be undecided observers of various leanings to a discussion and those are possibly your main audience when all is said and done. Dismiss those by playing the clueless idiot at your peril.

*from the Art of War

The problem with pseudo intellectual rants like this is that they do not account for the fact that no one inherently comes to a piracy forum to have their opinions changed, and that in a modern era of radicalization, many people hold beliefs without any real evidence or logic to support them, meaning debate, despite how much braindead liberals and centrists prop it up as some holy icon, is functionally worthless. For example, holocaust deniers do not adopt their position based purely on evidence, they adopt it on aesthetics. You cannot convince someone who's identity is linked to an epistemic anti-realist position to suddenly value evidence and reason.

Or, to put it more bluntly, debate is overrated, DBL shitflinging is funnier.

 

[FAST6191]

Despite you making a committent to meaningless spamming we might as well try to extract some value.

the fact that no one inherently comes to a piracy forum to have their opinions changed

Are you sure about that? The pirate parties that sprung up some years ago now have some quite interesting ideas on how the world should work, ones that differ from a lot of other more mainstream offerings and are generally formed by the core audience of this place. The disaffected by the systems and unsatisfied by the basic binary choice, or entrenched and unchanging plurality in a few others. Indeed what little change the entrenched binary choice tends to see come from said outsiders and disaffected when the clueless in charge take their finger from the pulse for long enough.

As far as radicals adopting positions on aesthetics. I am sure it has happened, in internet parlance they tend to called edgelords, however looking at how cults work then embracing of those that find themselves outsiders in one way or another is the predominant one. We return then to "more flies with honey".

 

[LainaGabranth]

Despite you making a committent (sic) to meaningless spamming we might as well try to extract some value.


Are you sure about that? The pirate parties that sprung up some years ago now have some quite interesting ideas on how the world should work, ones that differ from a lot of other more mainstream offerings and are generally formed by the core audience of this place. The disaffected by the systems and unsatisfied by the basic binary choice, or entrenched and unchanging plurality in a few others. Indeed what little change the entrenched binary choice tends to see come from said outsiders and disaffected when the clueless in charge take their finger from the pulse for long enough.

As far as radicals adopting positions on aesthetics. I am sure it has happened, in internet parlance they tend to called edgelords, however looking at how cults work then embracing of those that find themselves outsiders in one way or another is the predominant one. We return then to "more flies with honey".

So none of that actually addressed anything I said. This is why I refer to you as a pseudo intellectual.

To start with, this is a forum that was spawned around piracy. People are not coming here to have their opinions changed on shit like nationalism, or the like. 99% of people who come here are here to get video games for free. The others that remain here to discuss politics and the like are a minority to the actual userbase. Sorry, but there's no deflecting from that fact. People expressing their opinions are not the same as people trying to have said opinions changed, if you ask most people here how they feel about piracy laws they'll probably give you an argument as to why, for example, games past a certain year limit should be free to download, whether or not the company keeping it around on modern systems would depend on where the individual stands on that, but generally most people here at best think laws on software preservation should be loosened a bit. The second largest group are the people who think the laws and the like are perfectly fine.

(inb4 pivot to trying to talk about software piracy laws, I do not care what you think about it)

You can look at the posts of everyone here who comes to discuss politics and there is a demonstrable difference between the rhetoric of people who value observation, and those who adopt opinions irregardless of where the facts stand on it. The second group are people you cannot change the opinions of, because debate to them is functionally worthless. This is a demonstrable fact that can't really be ignored, because it is the result of deeply rooted systemic and cultural issues in a lot of countries nowadays, not to mention the relevance of severe paranoia and schizophrenia being highly prevalent amongst people who subscribe to conspiracy theories like the Flat Earth, QAnon, and so on. These people, too, cannot be reasoned with, because reason was never necessary to hold such a position. There's no way you haven't heard sayings about these mentalities either.

I would hope that for your posturing as an intellectual you'd be familiar with phrases like "You cannot logic someone out of a position they did not logic themselves into," for example, because it's true. If someone adopts the idea that, for example, the different "races" as we've conceptualized various traits to be equal to are deeply linked with things like intelligence and aggression, two conclusions that have never been reproduced under any levels of scientific study (outside of literal eugenicists creating intentionally bogus studies, such as those present in The Bell Curve, to push their agenda of eugenics, for a great video debunking it, I'd recommend Shaun's feature length video on the topic.), and yet these positions are still held by people to this day. Not by many, but enough to be problematic in discourse at large.

Debate is worthless until we fix the systemic problems that have compelled people to come to conclusions without a need for evidence. When groups like neo nazis and other fascists, such as tankies, come to moronic conclusions like "Degeneracy exists as a concept and will destroy "Western Civilization,"" or "Capitalism as a whole will corrupt and destroy society" (good luck finding out which group said either!), they do not adopt these positions on evidence or even theory, but purely on aesthetics. That's also why I think civility politics are overrated, because no one is going to adopt moronic positions like "Women should just be incubators" because some old white dude was "nice" about it. No, it's because these psychos spend all day posturing with inflammatory language about how we need to "purge" the "degenerates" and bring back undefined buzzwords like "Western values" and the like.


If you are looking for a sparknotes of this wall of text, it's this: Erase from your mind the idea that all people are reasonable, because they aren't. People are not coming to this forum to have their minds changed through reason, even the people LARPing as intellectuals under the hilarious moniker of "centrists" do not have their minds changed on the topic. They operate on the same nature and anti-intellectualism as these extremists here who believe unscientific claims like "soy feminizes men" or "radio waves can make you gay" and so on. If you want a prime example of debate not changing anyone's mind, look at Andrew Tate. The guy was debated by two of the biggest Twitch streamers, and you know what he did? He dug in, refused evidence, and came to the conclusion that everything he thinks is right, and anyone who disagrees is just a "soy beta cuck" or some other nonsense. He, ultimately, was deplatformed because he continued to post misinformation, with no debate changing him on the topic. These are not people who rationally hold positions, they hold it purely on emotions and aesthetics, and you should recognize that instead of trying to appease insecure people and their identity politics, you should instead recognize that until systems of power and social programs are changed and restructured to allow people to come out of these positions of raw emotion and personal insecurity, there is no universal value to debating them. We face existential threats in the form of rising fascism, climate change, vastly growing wealth disparity, and much more on the horizon that we haven't even conceptualized yet. It's better to focus on fixing them, than give a shit about what extremists think about anything, beyond recognizing their ideas as the threats to modern society that they are.

 

[mrdude]

So none of that actually addressed anything I said. This is why I refer to you as a pseudo intellectual.

TBH I never read any of that crap you posted as your views are nothing but worthless drivel. Still it's good to see you have now been outed as a hatefull and spitefull fragment of a human. The next time people see you whining on about your "rights" etc, just be thankful that the only reason you have those is because the British defeated the axis forces (twice), defeated the slave traders, and brought democracy to at least a 3rd of the world when we conquered it. Our ancestors colonized the USA and helped make that part of the world good, in the same way we that did with Australia and many, many other parts of the world.

Long Live the king and hopefully new PM will get on with doing a good job, just like she was doing when she got all those trade deals done after Brexit!

 

[LainaGabranth]

TBH I never read any of that crap you posted as your views are nothing but worthless drivel.

Not an argument!

 

[FAST6191]

So none of that actually addressed anything I said. This is why I refer to you as a pseudo intellectual.

To start with, this is a forum that was spawned around piracy. People are not coming here to have their opinions changed on shit like nationalism, or the like. 99% of people who come here are here to get video games for free. The others that remain here to discuss politics and the like are a minority to the actual userbase. Sorry, but there's no deflecting from that fact. People expressing their opinions are not the same as people trying to have said opinions changed, if you ask most people here how they feel about piracy laws they'll probably give you an argument as to why, for example, games past a certain year limit should be free to download, whether or not the company keeping it around on modern systems would depend on where the individual stands on that, but generally most people here at best think laws on software preservation should be loosened a bit. The second largest group are the people who think the laws and the like are perfectly fine.

(inb4 pivot to trying to talk about software piracy laws, I do not care what you think about it)

You can look at the posts of everyone here who comes to discuss politics and there is a demonstrable difference between the rhetoric of people who value observation, and those who adopt opinions irregardless of where the facts stand on it. The second group are people you cannot change the opinions of, because debate to them is functionally worthless. This is a demonstrable fact that can't really be ignored, because it is the result of deeply rooted systemic and cultural issues in a lot of countries nowadays, not to mention the relevance of severe paranoia and schizophrenia being highly prevalent amongst people who subscribe to conspiracy theories like the Flat Earth, QAnon, and so on. These people, too, cannot be reasoned with, because reason was never necessary to hold such a position. There's no way you haven't heard sayings about these mentalities either.

I would hope that for your posturing as an intellectual you'd be familiar with phrases like "You cannot logic someone out of a position they did not logic themselves into," for example, because it's true. If someone adopts the idea that, for example, the different "races" as we've conceptualized various traits to be equal to are deeply linked with things like intelligence and aggression, two conclusions that have never been reproduced under any levels of scientific study (outside of literal eugenicists creating intentionally bogus studies, such as those present in The Bell Curve, to push their agenda of eugenics, for a great video debunking it, I'd recommend Shaun's feature length video on the topic.), and yet these positions are still held by people to this day. Not by many, but enough to be problematic in discourse at large.

Debate is worthless until we fix the systemic problems that have compelled people to come to conclusions without a need for evidence. When groups like neo nazis and other fascists, such as tankies, come to moronic conclusions like "Degeneracy exists as a concept and will destroy "Western Civilization,"" or "Capitalism as a whole will corrupt and destroy society" (good luck finding out which group said either!), they do not adopt these positions on evidence or even theory, but purely on aesthetics. That's also why I think civility politics are overrated, because no one is going to adopt moronic positions like "Women should just be incubators" because some old white dude was "nice" about it. No, it's because these psychos spend all day posturing with inflammatory language about how we need to "purge" the "degenerates" and bring back undefined buzzwords like "Western values" and the like.


If you are looking for a sparknotes of this wall of text, it's this: Erase from your mind the idea that all people are reasonable, because they aren't. People are not coming to this forum to have their minds changed through reason, even the people LARPing as intellectuals under the hilarious moniker of "centrists" do not have their minds changed on the topic. They operate on the same nature and anti-intellectualism as these extremists here who believe unscientific claims like "soy feminizes men" or "radio waves can make you gay" and so on. If you want a prime example of debate not changing anyone's mind, look at Andrew Tate. The guy was debated by two of the biggest Twitch streamers, and you know what he did? He dug in, refused evidence, and came to the conclusion that everything he thinks is right, and anyone who disagrees is just a "soy beta cuck" or some other nonsense. He, ultimately, was deplatformed because he continued to post misinformation, with no debate changing him on the topic. These are not people who rationally hold positions, they hold it purely on emotions and aesthetics, and you should recognize that instead of trying to appease insecure people and their identity politics, you should instead recognize that until systems of power and social programs are changed and restructured to allow people to come out of these positions of raw emotion and personal insecurity, there is no universal value to debating them. We face existential threats in the form of rising fascism, climate change, vastly growing wealth disparity, and much more on the horizon that we haven't even conceptualized yet. It's better to focus on fixing them, than give a shit about what extremists think about anything, beyond recognizing their ideas as the threats to modern society that they are.

I thought most relevant things were addressed.

Still.
Piracy. Indeed. People by their very nature, or self selection if you want another term, that question things and try to go deeper and beyond that which is provided. Bloody good candidates for discussions of more abstract concepts in economics, philosophy, politics and morality, as well as considered choice rather than blind allegiance to their parents, locale or genes. Most won't, those that might wander in here/actively click on threads at least have a chance of it. Others do go in for a bit of partisan doom mongering though...

You otherwise appear to take a dimmer view of humans than I, impressive. Your justification for it is rather thin on the ground though. All people are not reasonable, most are at some level though, and to conflate the two or attribute the two is rather antithetical to the ideas.

Fascism remains a minor fringe concept, readily ignored. Wealth disparity seems like a minor thing as well, and natural course of things as science comes to the fore and selects for things here. Systemic concepts also would seem like one of those ill defined buzzwords you claim to dislike. Climate fears are similarly rather overblown for most of the world (sucks to be near the equator though), more science to sort that one.

Positions of raw emotion and personal insecurity... project much? Though if indeed it was the case then yeah Maslow's hierarchy would be in play.

 

[LainaGabranth]

I thought most relevant things were addressed.

Still.
Piracy. Indeed. People by their very nature, or self selection if you want another term, that question things and try to go deeper and beyond that which is provided. Bloody good candidates for discussions of more abstract concepts in economics, philosophy, politics and morality, as well as considered choice rather than blind allegiance to their parents, locale or genes. Most won't, those that might wander in here/actively click on threads at least have a chance of it. Others do go in for a bit of partisan doom mongering though...

You otherwise appear to take a dimmer view of humans than I, impressive. Your justification for it is rather thin on the ground though. All people are not reasonable, most are at some level though, and to conflate the two or attribute the two is rather antithetical to the ideas.

Fascism remains a minor fringe concept, readily ignored. Wealth disparity seems like a minor thing as well, and natural course of things as science comes to the fore and selects for things here. Systemic concepts also would seem like one of those ill defined buzzwords you claim to dislike. Climate fears are similarly rather overblown for most of the world (sucks to be near the equator though), more science to sort that one.

Positions of raw emotion and personal insecurity... project much? Though if indeed it was the case then yeah Maslow's hierarchy would be in play.

You actually haven't responded to anything I said.

"People by their very nature, or self selection if you want another term, that question things and try to go deeper and beyond that which is provided."
Did you forget the other half of this sentence?

"Your justification for it is rather thin on the ground though. All people are not reasonable, most are at some level though, and to conflate the two or attribute the two is rather antithetical to the ideas."

And your reasoning for this is? The difference between you and I is I don't think these people have these issues by nature, but by environment. The systems they live under and have been affected by lead a lot of people to come to these awful conclusions like fascism, authoritarian communism (or, as I like to call it, fascism 2), anarcho capitalism, and so on come to them because they haven't had any real education on history and economics, they just come to conclusions based on personal feelings. The people I am calling unreasonable are objectively unreasonable as a byproduct of their environment. You're not, for example, going to convince someone like Creamu that radio waves are harmless, because for him his position is sourced in the aesthetics of rebellion and intellectualism if he genuinely holds them, or, just starting shit with people who care about misinformation if he does not genuinely hold such positions.

Take any gander into fascist circles online and you'll immediately see what I mean, with rhetoric and arguments that suggest, among other things, the "failings" of the west like inflation, wealth inequality, and crime, can be attributed to women having voting rights, interracial marriage, immigration, and so on. None of these arguments (if you could even call them that) actually *address* these issues or how they create these "problems" for society, they're based entirely on emotion, because fascists, especially neo nazis and tankies, are incredibly insecure people whose insecurities were exploited by cult-like leaders to bring them to these positions. It's actually been quite documented for a while, you can even see itself falling into US politics. Recently arrested dumbass Steve Bannon used to target isolated teenage males in video games to try to radicalize them to his positions. His words, not mine.

"Fascism remains a minor fringe concept, readily ignored."
Demonstrably untrue, if you had even the slightest understanding of US history you'd know how incredibly close we came to fascism taking roots in this country. If it wasn't for Japan bombing Pearl Harbor we likely would've been buddy buddy with Hitler at some point. For starters, we had a lot of eugenics and race science directly from Hitler's own curriculum taught in our schools at the time, and eugenics was starting to take hold politically. It is straight up the Holocaust and the war against the Axis that, among other things, bombed (pun not intended) Hitler's political alliances with us, among other alliances.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/how-american-racism-influenced-hitler
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/us/eugenics-craze-america-pbs

The point to all of this? Fascism can easily take hold in any country. It doesn't matter if there are only a "fringe" number of parties becoming more fascist or more open to it (barring how delusional of a take this would be in the first place to hold, given that our previous president was a straight up fascist, hitting almost all 14 of Umberto Eco's points of fascism.), America culturally can be and always has been susceptible to it. That's kind of what happens when your nation is built on fucking white supremacy. (INB4 "centrist" whataboutism, a nation whose infrastructure is built with slavery and fought to preserve it is a nation built on and propped up by white supremacy, objectively.)

"Positions of raw emotion and personal insecurity... project much?"
I suppose if one were delusional enough you could boil down an aversion to literal fascism as an "emotional position," disregarding the immoral nature of it fundamentally as a worldview, that deprives liberty and freedom from everyone while also essentializing the identities of everyone else in the world, both as "ingroup/outgroups," as well as "citizens" and "targets." Irregardless however, far right positions are insecure by nature, because they prey on the belief that people with problems with self confidence and greed are only that way because of the "degeneracy" of the world around them, and that it can be fixed by excising these scapegoat groups, be it black people, hispanic people, jews, and so on. It's why racially speaking Irish people and Italians got to play hot potato with the "white" card, because ethnic nationalism as an ideology will select who gets to be included in the raids on various marginalized people, before turning its sights on those it allied with, ultimately before crumbling on itself.

It is a deeply stupid take to ever think that radicalization culturally is a "fringe" issue. Culture should always be examined and questioned to ensure that people don't fall to things like this, and similarly, that epistemic anti-realism is rebuked where it rears its ugly head. I don't expect you to value fighting these things, just like I don't expect you to have any real values at all. At your core, your positions are centered in the aesthetics of intellectualism, appearing like a non-partisan while espousing genuinely some of the dumbest, least informed responses to anyone with even a moderate, layman's understanding of history.

Or, to tl;dr it, you are pretty much as dumb as Creamu and people like him, you just try to mask it. Which is why, ethically speaking, the only correct (and also the most entertaining) position is just to fling shit.

 

[FAST6191]

You keep trying to insult me, though in this case that was a quick reply before dinner, however I think we get to twist an earlier concept

The problem is this wall of text generously assumes I care what my opponent thinks about anything.

In this case there are people that I can respect, even if disagreement on a variety of positions and concepts is otherwise the case, I might take issue with receiving a barb from. You have thus far entirely failed to showcase why you might want to be such a person, and not just another doom seer with a victim complex. We have however worked up from the "joke's on them I was just pretending to be retarded" that characterised some of the earlier aspects so I will consider that positive development.

On all people not reasonable.
The usual breakdown between sociopaths, saints and followers.

The "unfinished" sentence was plenty finished. I would view most of the user base as being able to question things, see beyond that which is spoonfed them by those without their interests at heart (or at least wildly differing self interest). That was to say as such.

So something that extremely questionably (see lend lease) happened in the 40s is particularly relevant today? If you have to reach that far back to find something to ponder then I will return to the readily ignored and save for a few tasked with watching for it.

"inflation, wealth inequality, and crime, can be attributed to women having voting rights, interracial marriage, immigration,"
While there are some that dislike in the US the 14th amendment that is fringe. Joining the workforce is the usual one to ponder, along with the pill, and if you double your workforce (give or take female preference for lesser paying/demanding roles) in very short order then supply-demand does rather change matters.
Immigration can be a fun one. It does change the character of the country, sometimes for good (some idiots call it cultural appropriation, everybody else calls it exchange of ideas), sometimes for bad (it is not always the best and brightest that make their way*, and sometimes things are radically incompatible).
Interracial marriage is a fringe one but if you are concerned with the red pill/manosphere then no fault divorce laws are what is usually talked about there.

*though often times it is, which is even worse for their countries of origin on a variety of fronts (between brain drain and remittances not doing much other than creating an idle rich most of the time).

"literal fascism" being so readily (re)defined as things not that (though often as equally unpleasant) does rather serve to undermine a position, or at best you get to be a boy who cried wolf. Again though we appear to be making positive progress so hey maybe I was off in my weightings when I pondered playing more to the invisible audience.

I look out into the world and see one of the safest, healthiest, meritocratic, highly educated unwashed masses in human history, even if there are still some relatively minor problems within it and improvements to be made. Those crying the sky is falling, and perhaps those envious that troubles are so minor that their marks on history can never be much (some call it envy of those in years past that faced some stuff and truly moved the needle, I am not sure but it is heading in the right direction)... I think I might join you in considering it a sport.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Your wall only needs one simple rhetorical question for a response.

Are there only minor, non issues and major "sky is falling" threats in your worldview, or can systems and what they create be criticized without your cowardice to recognize problems for what they are and what they can do?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I suggest you read this non-fiction book, which is the personal account of a white American (survivor of slavery) sea captain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletons_on_the_Zahara

Rather than some fiction book based on someones personal feelings.

Even someone as dim-witted as you should understand that simply saying "So what about X" doesn't diminish nor excuse the british slave trade.

Also, fiction book? The guy became PM of his own country and his book was censored for 80 years since people were terrified of it. I'd say he's more accomplished than some rando retracting a dead memoir. Also, he did experience firsthand slavery so again, you're (again), wrong.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Long Live the king and hopefully new PM will get on with doing a good job, just like she was doing when she got all those trade deals done after Brexit!

LOL trade deals so good they actively harm UK GDP and farmers, you're such a moron. and a traitor who hates his fellow countrymen, you get sociopathic pleasure seeing others in poverty and destitution, and drinking sewage water?

ust be thankful that the only reason you have those is because the British defeated the axis forces (twice)

Yeah no, Britain was sitting its ass while America and Russia and local resistance did the heavy lifting. Only good Britain did was deciphering the Enigma machine which was accomplished, surprise surprise, by one of those "alphabet people" you want beat up.

defeated the slave traders

You mean, defeated British slave traders? That's not called "defeat", that's just "stop". because it was financially inconvenient, that's it.

rought democracy to at least a 3rd of the world when we conquered it.

Yep, nothing says democracy like genociding at least 4 populations. All British former colonies are contemplating telling UK monarchy to F OFF now that Liz is dead. The 3rd of the world was much happier without "british democracy", an oxymoron anyway.

 

[Marc_LFD]

Conservative? She wishes she actually was.



Truss keeping the WEF happy. And now, they have King Charles.



One awful leader was guaranteed, but two? Holy shit. The West really hates itself.

 

[Marc_LFD]

That's literally the only card left to play. Some people are so fucking desperate that they'll pull shit out like 'have people forgotten Gordon Brown?!'. The whataboutism is off the charts.

Voting for the left/right only creates an illusion of power ("democracy").

Unelected humans think they can force others to obey.

 

[Marc_LFD]

Truss is another May, a scapegoat to run the party while public sentiment is negative - so that once it's time for a serious election, an actual Tory star can come to the forefront and attempt to win. Whereas no one expects any Tory wins any time soon.

Election is 3 years out, but Labour is ahead like mad at the moment

I just searched for "Theresa May WEF" and what a surprise, she has her own profile as well.

You'll own nothing and you'll not say a word.