this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
68 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4060 readers
76 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

the protestors affected emergency services

Cars affect them way more, so if anything JSO would prolly in the long term make things better for them.

the protesters were repeat offenders

Based.

the protesters said they are glad they broke the law

Based.

the protester who got the longest sentence was in contempt of court and got arrested again during the court case

Based.

the protestor who got the longest sentence was continually rude to the judge and constantly tried to create drama in the courtroom, generally a terrible idea.

Based. Being a judge prosecuting fucking climate protestors is the real crime.

the protester who got the longest sentence said he would commit more crimes, he would never stop, and he couldn't wait to get out there and commit more crimes.

Unreal, I don't even know the guy but have enormous respect for him. Thanks for sharing this.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Saying Based isn't a counter argument. Please come up with some of your own opinions and demonstrate how you arrived at them or shut the hell up.

You're as bad as the thugs, you let somebody else tell you what your opinion should be and you don't actually know why they're your opinions, because you've just absorbed them from the ether, and did not arrive at them on your own, so you just shout at people without any idea about why you're angry at them. Grow up.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Idk what to say? Corporate terrorists who shit up our planet from oil execs to their political lackeys all deserve to be put to the sword. Someone bringing attention to that in a legal system that serves capitalist interests in such a brazen, dedicated fashion is a hero of mine.

This is my original opinion I've come to over many years from being a dedicated establishment defender concerned with "civility" and broadly unaware of the concept of negative peace that serves the purpose of denying justice to those affected, then to moderate "shit sucks but neither side is right" to now radicalized, and I know exactly why my opinion is that way - it is witnessing the collapse of this country in real time that got me to open my eyes to the fact things here are run by thieves who steal from us all tangibly and less so, from the landleeches who leech off labour when we have enough excess housing to house everyone right now, literally solving homelessness, to the oil execs who leech off our very planet - a planet that it's very hard to argue does not belong to all of us, and when the system fails to account for this it is a failed system, and thus direct action outside of the justice system run by and for those same thieves is almost always justified - nay - morally required.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have to agree with you. I've tried my best to get on board with how the system functions, the outcomes it produces and forgive its flaws but it just doesn't reflect my values. Apart from the physical destruction its causing, tolerating a system which is working against you like that for long enough just crushes your spirit. Accepting that I oppose it is liberating.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I found it much easier to cope with the world when I acknowledged that the system isn't broken, it's working exactly as intended. Sounds cynical, but I have found a lot of comfort in solidarity with people who feel similarly, and that gives me more hope than I have felt in years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To me it's kind of the opposite. The realization that yes the system is rigged in this way only makes it seem more powerful and everlasting.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's only everlasting if you choose to be a scab and bend the knee.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Unfortunately the "you" in this case is generic, and plural. And most people, in the UK, even the progressive folks, as evidenced by ITT, are definitely so inclined.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I've heard others say that too. It definitely removes chaos and chance from equation. I recently heard a former Australian PM asked how to get power and he said that it's just a case of being a small faction and capturing a mainstream political party. Somehow that made it click with me how things are up for grabs if you are willing to accept the system as it is and exploit it, rather than completely rejecting it.

[–] TheGrandNagus 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Cars affect them way more, so if anything JSO would prolly in the long term make things better for them.

You can't be serious. People purposely blocking a motorway that's critical for emergency services are less at fault for blocking emergency services than a person in a car or bus in your eyes?

Based.

That's not a legal defence.

Based.

Dunno why you replied to the same line twice, but see above.

the protesters said they are glad they broke the law

See above.

Based.

See above. And no, being in contempt of court isn't based.

Based. Being a judge prosecuting fucking climate protestors is the real crime.

No it's not based. It's stupidity. Insulting the judge handling your trial is moronic.

And no, judges prosecuting people guilty of committing a crime, whether you believe the charge is worthy or not, isn't a crime. It's their job.

Unreal, I don't even know the guy but have enormous respect for him. Thanks for sharing this.

Funny. I feel the opposite. I was sympathetic to him before I looked into the facts and saw how much of a moron he is. The disservice he's doing to the climate debate is immense. I hope he has a good think about his actions while he's in prison.

He literally said he wanted people in ambulances to die due to the traffic jam FFS.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

And no, being in contempt of court isn't based.

1984

[–] TheGrandNagus 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

"Breaking the law and getting arrested for it is literally 1984"

Do you even know what being in Contempt of Court is?

Do you think, for example, that not turning up to court shouldn't go against you? Or purposely trying to derail the trial? Or defying court orders? Or disclosing details of an ongoing court case, risking the entire case being dismissed? We have laws for a reason.

I suppose you must love people like Tommy Robinson, who has on multiple occasions been charged with contempt of court? Is he "based"? Is it Orwellian to bring criminal charges to him?

You surely must be trolling.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I agree with Tommy Robinson being charged in contempt of court because I disagree with his views.

I disagree with JSO members being charged in contempt of court because I agree with their views.

Because the former's views are racist vile shit, but the latter's views are well intentioned calls for reform.

The two are in fact, not equal, and treating them as such, judging them only by how well they play the system we all know is designed to benefit the status quo is putting that system onto a pedestal of perfection and ignoring all nuance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You literally just accused me of this and then you admit to actually it being your base belief structure. God you're obnoxious.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Never accused you of this, that was another user.

[–] TheGrandNagus 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I agree with Tommy Robinson being charged in contempt of court because I disagree with his views.

That's not how courts work, and it's not how laws work. It shouldn't be done based on feels.

I disagree with JSO members being charged in contempt of court because I agree with their views.

They explicitly said they would rather people in ambulances die than let them through. Do you agree with that?

Because the former's views are racist vile shit, but the latter's views are well intentioned calls for reform.

Killing people is fine?

The two are in fact, not equal, and treating them as such, judging them only by how well they play the system we all know is designed to benefit the status quo is putting that system onto a pedestal of perfection and ignoring all nuance.

You can't just say "no the law shouldn't apply to you because I like you". That sounds like the way some fascist shithole would be run.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not how courts work, and it's not how laws work. It shouldn't be done based on feels.

Fee-fees != Morality, context, nuance

They explicitly said they would rather people in ambulances die than let them through. Do you agree with that?

It's a shitty situation. They are not being listened to, what are they supposed to do? Idk I'm not them I can't unpack all that, but somehow I doubt they have genuine contempt for random people in ambulances.

Killing people is fine?

Depends. In self-defense? Yeah, absolutely. Are they Nazis? Yeah go for it man. Landlords? Geez wait for me! Oil execs? Wait wait, slow down, let me grab my S&W.

You can't just say "no the law shouldn't apply to you because I like you". That sounds like the way some fascist shithole would be run.

Well we are in a fascist shithole and it's not run like that so checkmate redditor.

The problem is that when you let only bad guys use hypocrisy, they win.

[–] TheGrandNagus 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It is fee-fees.

Christ. Imagine defending someone who says that they'd rather let people in ambulances die than let them through. Yikes. I can't even comprehend being that hateful.

Depends. In self-defense? Yeah, absolutely. Are they Nazis? Yeah go for it man. Landlords? Geez wait for me! Oil execs? Wait wait, slow down, let me grab my S&W.

Nope. People in ambulances needing hospital treatment.

Well we are in a fascist shithole and it's not run like that so checkmate redditor.

Yawn.

People being charged for crimes they've committed isn't fascism.

The mother of the person who was jailed said it was wrong as it meant her son wouldn't be able to attend a wedding in America, which was retweeted by JSO. Absolutely hilarious for two reasons:

  • they think they (because they're wealthy posh twats) shouldn't be interrupted or made late for things, yet they are happy to make others late for things (such as being rushed to fucking A&E)

  • they are fine with rich people getting flights, but not poor people

We're done here. I don't want to talk to someone who thinks leaving people to die needlessly in ambulances is a good thing. If that really is what gets your dick hard, you need help.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

When I'm in a "don't comprehend nuance" competition and my opponent is the average Trekkie. Bet you like discovery!

We're done here.

Woah there we got a tough guy on the internet.

I don't want to talk to someone who thinks leaving people to die needlessly in ambulances is a good thing.

And is this someone in the here with us right now?

Because you made up a strawman in your head. I never said it is a good thing to leave people to die in ambulances needlessly.

But all the most effective protests and riots in history have had their casualties, and yet brought us the quality of life we enjoy today. That's not fee-fees, that's historical fact.

There's no need to get so worked up and upset that you must twist my words to make them easier to attack.

People being charged for crimes they've committed isn't fascism.

Yeah if you strip away all context from an action nothing can be anything. The anti-protest law isn't fascistic either, it's just a bill to keep the peace.

The mother of the person who was jailed said it was wrong as it meant her son wouldn't be able to attend a wedding in America, which was retweeted by JSO.

Yeah I'll agree with you there. I don't defend those cringelords as individuals, most anprims and other climatoids are absolute morons beyond all help.

Okay, now we're actually done :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My God you are utterly pathetic individual. You actually think that your personal opinion is the same as objective reality. Either you have an ego the size of a small continent or you don't actually understand what you're talking about.

I honestly suspect it to be the latter, your response to me was basically copy paste eco warrior bullshit. None of it has any real recognition of the challenges faced by changing, or any real desire to moderate or come to some kind of mutual agreement. All it is is pronouncements with your nose in the air firmly telling everybody how utterly scummy they are they don't follow your belief structure.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't actually really care that much about the climate and I'm pro-natural-exploitation so long as the spoils of it are shared evenly amongst the proletariat (present and future, so including some degree of preservation), but if some pathetic centrist system-defender wants to label me an eco-warrior I'll wear it with pride.

challenges faced by changing

Aww, profits go down? What a shame. Degrowth would be such a bad thing what will I do without the AI crypto meta verse being made in 2 years :(

any real desire to moderate or come to some kind of mutual agreement.

A mutual agreement between a rapist and a victim of rape is not a compromise of a rapist being allowed to "rape a little bit" lmao it is an acknowledgment that one party is 100% right, and the other is absolutely fucking wrong.

All it is is pronouncements with your nose in the air firmly telling everybody how utterly scummy they are they don't follow your belief structure.

I don't really care if you don't believe this shit, I think you should consider it, my zealous advocatry for one side I believe is right is not a moral condemnation of opposing and especially not more moderate-but-broadly-in-agreement individuals, it is a condemnation of the system.

The le evil socialists that comprise little more than half of Gen-Z in the UK aren't out to get some slobby middle manager's Toyota Camry, he's just part of a system, they're there for those who embezzled billions to actively enforce the system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A mutual agreement between a rapist and a victim of rape is not a compromise

If you have to descend to erroneously equating the situation to rape then you've lost the argument. You cannot rely on an emotional response to an intellectual exercise it's not only dishonest it's also unhelpful.

The world is in the state it is in not because some evil person decided to be evil one day but because of a natural development of the human condition. We can't all go back to living in caves that wouldn't work, we can't sustain the current population sitting around campfires and singing camping songs. So unless your advocating for mass genocide I don't really understand what you want here.

I would prefer to live in the real world and be a realist, I want the world to improve, but I don't believe that the way to improve it is to be an unmoving obstacle. Doing that is counterproductive to your own argument anyway because everyone will just get fed up with you and eventually ignore you.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

erroneously equating

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

emotional response

And where did I mention emotional responses?

The world is in the state it is in not because some evil person decided to be evil one day but because of a natural development of the human condition.

I somewhat agree, but it's not so much a question of nature and the human condition as a question of material circumstances and class warfare.

We can't all go back to living in caves that wouldn't work, we can't sustain the current population sitting around campfires and singing camping songs. So unless your advocating for mass genocide I don't really understand what you want here.

Ah yes the two options boring cyberpunk dystopias and hunter-gatherer. No in-between. None at all. /s

would prefer to live in the real world and be a realist, I want the world to improve, but I don't believe that the way to improve it is to be an unmoving obstacle

But you just said that you don't even understand what kind of world people want these days. I'm all for being effective, but it doesn't seem like you believe in the possibility of structural change we need.

Doing that is counterproductive to your own argument anyway because everyone will just get fed up with you and eventually ignore you.

Not how it works at all historically.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago
[–] feedum_sneedson 1 points 3 months ago

The way you reply to comments is not endearing you to anybody.