Things can only get better

[goldfishboy]

4 hours ago, al_coholic said:

Referring directly to the topic title, and I am in no way endorsing the Conservatives, but I am curious as to what "Things" people think are going to get better after Labour win. 

 

Starmers In Tray will be huge and dealing with Israel, Russia and migration will be high on the list. I also don't think there is much cash around to fix the multitude of socio-economic issues we have in this country. 

 

So in my opinion I don't think "Things" are going to get a lot better for many months or possibly years. But it will be interesting to find out. 

yes and I'm surprised Brian Cox, with his science background, failed to consider the possibility that Things might continue to worsen

[Colorblindjames]

30 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

Using the term genocide to describe actions of a democratically elected Government defending itself is obscene enough.  To use it in respect of a Government representing nearly half of the jews in the World (even a Government led by the appalling Netanyahu) is unforgivable.  The trend of using the word against Israel was first started by the holocaust deniers in the 90's of course in case you need a history lesson. But if you don't need that lesson and are using the term anyway, then.... people might draw their own conclusions. 

Two things here. You seem to be of the misguided notion that democratically elected governments cannot commit genocide.

 

You also keep linking Israel to Jewish people. All Jewish folk to not support Zionism or the actions of the Israeli state. Israel does not get a genocide pass because of its history. 
 

Also you are in danger of crossing the line by implying that I am a holocaust denier. 

[Physical_graffiti]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I completely agree, both the Saudi and Israeli governments are horrendous evil murderers, and I would describe both situations as genocide using British weapons. I just wanted to make clear that there is another comparable situation happening where our government is also complicit.

 

I haven't looked at numbers in several months for my own wellbeing, the total numbers in Yemen certainly were comparable last time I checked, and given that's another ongoing, very one-sided "conflict" and again, using British weapons, I have felt they're comparable. Those numbers are brutal though. It's horrific.

Out of upvotes but yes totally fair. Agree with all that.

[devonhammer]

3 minutes ago, goldfishboy said:

yes and I'm surprised Brian Cox, with his science background, failed to consider the possibility that Things might continue to worsen

You should listen to the Brian Cox remix "Things are likely to get better, but this is only a hypothesis at this stage and we can't rule out that they'll stay the same, or even get worse, until we have performed more rigorous testing"

 

Brilliant, but underplayed

[Colorblindjames]

21 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

yes you would.  The problem is that this isn't anything like genocide and yet that's what you call it, knowing the historical context of the word itself. It was literally invented to describe what happened in the holocaust. 

In this instance there have been multiple opportunities for the Arab world generally to accept Israel and to live alongside a Jewish nation in peace.  From day 1 they have not done so (though some have moved more than others) and Israel has had to defend itself with a significant military force. To fight the war it is fighting in Gaza is not a 'choice' but a consequence of years of decisions being taken by both sides, but as Israel showed when they withdrew from Gaza nearly 20 years ago, they really don't want anything to do with it if they can help it. 

Except the ICJ have said there is a plausible case for genocide. 

[Physical_graffiti]

19 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

yes you would.  The problem is that this isn't anything like genocide and yet that's what you call it, knowing the historical context of the word itself. It was literally invented to describe what happened in the holocaust. 

In this instance there have been multiple opportunities for the Arab world generally to accept Israel and to live alongside a Jewish nation in peace.  From day 1 they have not done so (though some have moved more than others) and Israel has had to defend itself with a significant military force. To fight the war it is fighting in Gaza is not a 'choice' but a consequence of years of decisions being taken by both sides, but as Israel showed when they withdrew from Gaza nearly 20 years ago, they really don't want anything to do with it if they can help it. 

Ok. So we are in agreement there is a world where the Israeli government can commit genocide. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum defines genocide as "Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group."

I think the actions of the Israeli gvt are consistent with genocide then ("destroy...in part...a national, ethnic group"), you don't - fair enough. I don't think this is anti-semetic to think so however, and to go back to the original point, I don't think any Glasto goer choosing to express similar opinions are doing it for any other reason than to protest what they see as an actual genocide.

[Blisterpack]

2 minutes ago, Colorblindjames said:

Two things here. You seem to be of the misguided notion that democratically elected governments cannot commit genocide.

 

You also keep linking Israel to Jewish people. All Jewish folk to not support Zionism or the actions of the Israeli state. Israel does not get a genocide pass because of its history. 
 

Also you are in danger of crossing the line by implying that I am a holocaust denier. 

nearly half of the world's jews live in Israel. The majority of those who don't support the existence of Israel as a legitimate Jewish 'homeland'. 

You're right, and apologies, that was close to saying something that clearly isn't true. There is a problem though that there is a reluctance from many to accept that if Israel had been allowed to get on with simply 'existing' in the 1940's (like Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and a whole host of other countries that came into being around the same time) without being attacked from every country surrounding them then that's exactly what they would have done. Just existed and thrived. That they have done so despite being under permanent attack is actually quite remarkable. Doesn't mean Netanyahu isnt a c**t cos he clearly is. 

[Spindles]

12 minutes ago, goldfishboy said:

yes and I'm surprised Brian Cox, with his science background, failed to consider the possibility that Things might continue to worsen

 

[Blisterpack]

1 minute ago, Physical_graffiti said:

Ok. So we are in agreement there is a world where the Israeli government can commit genocide. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum defines genocide as "Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group."

I think the actions of the Israeli gvt are consistent with genocide then ("destroy...in part...a national, ethnic group"), you don't - fair enough. I don't think this is anti-semetic to think so however, and to go back to the original point, I don't think any Glasto goer choosing to express similar opinions are doing it for any other reason than to protest what they see as an actual genocide.

using your interpretation then any country that fights back and kills civilians in the process is committing genocide. I argue that if Israel isnt attacked then they don't fight back. That has been the pattern for 70 odd years.  Peace breaks out when whichever Arab country is attacking them decide to stop. 

[Guest]

Shouldn't this be moved to the International Politics thread?

Mods?

[Nuthugger]

4 hours ago, tarw said:

Why are you so keen to stifle any discussion. This is a Glastonbury forum and Glastonbury has been about discussing political/world issues throughout its history. 
 

If you don’t want to partake avoid the thread. Don’t deprive others who wish to debate

 

wouldnt it be just as easy for you to ignore my replies? because you seem to be a bit obsessed with me at the moment and i think i have a valid point when there is literally a section for political discussion. and I dont particularly want to see lengthy discussion about attrocities when i come here to chat about glasto especially when the forum is meant to be about glasto and the topic of this thread is about our election. so why should i be seeing all this israel stuff??? again there is literally a different section for this. im not stifling discussion unless you think moving it to the right place is stifling it. if anything it stifles the discussion by putting it in the wrong place where people with informed opinions might not see it 

[Crazyfool01]

3 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Mod note

 

We're leaving this thread up for now, as Glastonbury is political, D:Ream are playing, and this song was part of the '97 election. Organic discussion is of course welcome.

 

That said, please have a reminder that we have a UK politics and International Politics thread over in the discussion section, and we'd urge users to focus most ongoing and in-depth political conversations over there.

 

If this thread starts to descend into name calling and insults, those comments will be edited or deleted, and the thread locked.

 

 

MOD decision here FYI .... 

[Ayrshire Chris]

28 minutes ago, goldfishboy said:

yes and I'm surprised Brian Cox, with his science background, failed to consider the possibility that Things might continue to worsen

Yes, strange thing for a scientist to say, I blame his dad 

[Colorblindjames]

12 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

using your interpretation then any country that fights back and kills civilians in the process is committing genocide. I argue that if Israel isnt attacked then they don't fight back. That has been the pattern for 70 odd years.  Peace breaks out when whichever Arab country is attacking them decide to stop. 

Except they aren’t fighting back against an army an accidentally killing civilians. They don’t allow Palestine to be an independent state with its own army. They are deliberately attacking civilians. They are cutting off water, food and electricity. Even in the West Bank not under the control of Hamas they continue kill civilians and steal land. 

[Blisterpack]

4 minutes ago, Colorblindjames said:

Except they aren’t fighting back against an army an accidentally killing civilians. They don’t allow Palestine to be an independent state with its own army. They are deliberately attacking civilians. They are cutting off water, food and electricity. Even in the West Bank not under the control of Hamas they continue kill civilians and steal land. 

This Netanyahu Government is hardline when it comes to an independent palestinian state. He would argue that it is a security risk, but other Israeli leaders have been much more open to it. Problem is, the Palestinians won't accept a two state solution because it involves recognising Israel as a legitimate state and they won't do it. Tough circle to square I accept. 

[CharlotteB]

24 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

Shouldn't this be moved to the International Politics thread?

Mods?

 

17 minutes ago, Nuthugger said:

 

wouldnt it be just as easy for you to ignore my replies? because you seem to be a bit obsessed with me at the moment and i think i have a valid point when there is literally a section for political discussion. and I dont particularly want to see lengthy discussion about attrocities when i come here to chat about glasto especially when the forum is meant to be about glasto and the topic of this thread is about our election. so why should i be seeing all this israel stuff??? again there is literally a different section for this. im not stifling discussion unless you think moving it to the right place is stifling it. if anything it stifles the discussion by putting it in the wrong place where people with informed opinions might not see it 

 

I agree. I've been trying to ignore this, but it's difficult not to get sucked into all the debate. I don't see how this thread is any different from that post about the Theatre & Circus guy who may or may not have been banned because of his political views. And that thread was closed. Shouldn't there be some sort of consistency?

 

This sort of post just gives off a bad vibe on the whole forum, which should be reserved for the joyous occasion that is Glastonbury.

[Crazyfool01]

3 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

That had already descended into insults at the time, and had become further removed from any link to the original topic of the post.

 

Also, to be clear, we will not be engaging in ongoing public debate about moderation decisions. We will politely respond to questions like this once to make our reasoning clear, but there will not be continued discussion and we will delete any attempts to try and create ongoing arguments about moderation.

 

3 minutes ago, CharlotteB said:

 

 

I agree. I've been trying to ignore this, but it's difficult not to get sucked into all the debate. I don't see how this thread is any different from that post about the Theatre & Circus guy who may or may not have been banned because of his political views. And that thread was closed. Shouldn't there be some sort of consistency?

 

This sort of post just gives off a bad vibe on the whole forum, which should be reserved for the joyous occasion that is Glastonbury.

 

[Blisterpack]

Just now, CharlotteB said:

 

 

I agree. I've been trying to ignore this, but it's difficult not to get sucked into all the debate. I don't see how this thread is any different from that post about the Theatre & Circus guy who may or may not have been banned because of his political views. And that thread was closed. Shouldn't there be some sort of consistency?

 

This sort of post just gives off a bad vibe on the whole forum, which should be reserved for the joyous occasion that is Glastonbury.

Fair enough. I've said a few things, heard a few things and hopefully learned a few things though in this discussion and I only really go on the chat thread.  So I'd have probably missed it on the international politics one.  I think it drifted from people being excited about Starmer being PM into people calling him a killer or something and it probs did get out of hand a bit.  Anyway thanks to physical graffiti, colourblindjames and a few others for the chat. 

[stuie]

If we were at Glastonbury and you didn’t like the conversation you wouldn’t tell them to shut up or gag them, you’d move on.

 

Apply the same to this thread and everything is fine. 

[Mich1268]

13 minutes ago, CharlotteB said:

 

 

I agree. I've been trying to ignore this, but it's difficult not to get sucked into all the debate. I don't see how this thread is any different from that post about the Theatre & Circus guy who may or may not have been banned because of his political views. And that thread was closed. Shouldn't there be some sort of consistency?

 

This sort of post just gives off a bad vibe on the whole forum, which should be reserved for the joyous occasion that is Glastonbury.

Yes, I was just posting a jokey kind of "blimey D:Ream is gonna be a laugh this year" post and not sure what happened there...I'll get my coat..

[CharlotteB]

If I find something upsetting I will say it, and express my concern. If the moderators feel like they need to delete my replies then that's up to them, but I wouldn't want to be a part of a place that would do that for a harmless expression of my feelings (especially after reading some of the things said in this thread that remain).

[CharlotteB]

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

If we were at Glastonbury and you didn’t like the conversation you wouldn’t tell them to shut up or gag them, you’d move on.

 

Apply the same to this thread and everything is fine. 

 

I've literally just been told my reply will probably get deleted, so...?

[stuie]

4 minutes ago, CharlotteB said:

 

I've literally just been told my reply will probably get deleted, so...?

Probably easiest to just leave the thread, like I’m going to. 

[CharlotteB]

Just now, stuie said:

Probably easiest to just leave the thread, like I’m going to. 

 

True, but it's difficult. It's like someone having a fight outside your house. 

[Blisterpack]

4 minutes ago, CharlotteB said:

 

True, but it's difficult. It's like someone having a fight outside your house. 

You. Outside. Now.