It is maddening, we seem to be stuck watching this happen in slow (well faster now) motion. I think a lot of people don't know exactly what to do, and while we try and make personal changes really we need government to regulate, cut subsidises etc.
😢 Poor bibis. I feel so sad for you. You got your fee fees hurt by the mean man saying genocide bad. Have you tried not supporting genocide? That’s been working for me.
Edit: Oh, I see. You weren’t encouraging me to check your post history, you were suggesting that there was something objectionable in mine. I observe that you do not choose to be more specific than that. I think that makes you a whiny bitch who lacks the courage of their supposed convictions, whatever they’re supposed to be.
Edit 2: OH. I see now. You’re not objecting to my post history like a bitch.
You’re saying I’m stupid and/or ignorant with a very polite suggestion to educate myself, because apparently my pithy little comment about “dont support genocide” is somehow lacking important historical nuance.
Wow, no wonder I didn’t get that vague stupid throwaway line. What a braindead take. Eat the block you fucking troll.
“lol hey everyone look at this guy’s history he said something… I don’t choose to be specific because im a bit of a cowardly whingebag, do it yourself you lazy cunts”
No he called them out because they remained seated. He asked them if they were Israeli, they said yes, then he told them to leave (which he can’t do to paying customers) and set the crowd against them. Their views on genocide or Israel’s actions weren’t even determined, it was just the fact they were Israeli and didn’t give him a standing ovation.
He then asked him whether he enjoyed the show, to which the audience member replied that he had enjoyed it until he had taken the Palestinian flag out.
You ignored this part. There are few reasons one would object to the Palestinian flag being taken out and not the Ukrainian flag.
Based on the article he called them out after they didn’t show support for Palestine at the end of the show. The comedian also is from Belfast which explains why he has such a strong opinion on this.
I would hope that any Israeli citizen is against the genocide that their government is doing and would show support to stop people being killed. If they disagree publicly in an open place like this I’d expect them to be called out on it.
So seriously - who's peddling this anti-vaping propaganda and what's their goal?
Vaping is easily the most effective way to stop smoking that's ever existed. Certainly we don't want kids to start doing it, and kids are the basis for much of the propaganda, but it's never just restricted to trying to make it so kids don't start. All of the propaganda efforts are directed toward stamping out vaping entirely, and that means that millions of people whose lives could literally be saved by switching from smoking to vaping will be denied that opportunity.
Why? Whose interests are served by denying adult smokers access to the most effective smoking cessation product ever?
I tried everything under the sun to quit smoking. It wasn't until I got myself a rig and stepped the nicotine down to zero until I was able to stop. I have remained smoke free for going on 8 years.
Nicely done! Similar route for myself. I did get more addicted to my vape at first, just out of sheer convenience/not having to go outside. Realized it though and took steps to be 8 months vape free.
Do you ever crave it anymore? I smelled someone’s cigarette the other day and instantly wanted one… when I was vaping, cigs smelled awful. monkey brains are weird.
fortunately i don't. once in a blue moon after a meal there is a brief flash but it's rare and a blink. i just enjoy being in an airport and not wanting to tear my hair out from cravings. oh and it took 2 years to quit...for those who are trying.
I’ve been vaping for 8 years after smoking for 6 years and the smell of cigarettes are gross to me. But when I see someone in a tv show or movie smoking that tends to make me crave a smoke. Weird how the brain works lol.
Who’s trying to stamp out vaping entirely? All I’m reading into this article is just “Kids shouldn’t start vaping, especially if they have asthma.”
The suggested solutions I’ve seen in the news recently are things like keep the vaping displays away from kids, stop kid-friendly flavours, and make packaging less enticing - all things that they currently do for cigarettes, and all perfectly reasonable IMO.
No-one I’ve seen is proposing taking them away from adults.
“kid friendly flavors” tend to be literally everything except for “chemical tobacco flavor” and menthol. And sometimes they go after the menthol too. They’re trying to kill the whole thing.
Adults also like the “kid friendly” flavors. Restricting people to vape flavors that taste like ass isn’t going to help them stop smoking cigarettes that are more harmful to themselves and those around them
Fuck this stop kid friendly flavor shit. I’m 40. I prefer sour flavors like apple/peach or red bull. I swear to fuck I will start smoking again to spite you paternalistic motherfuckers.
I buy juice not disposables so it’s not really marketed for kids, but congress, the FDA and the tobacco firms that seem to own both won’t really discriminate
Ahh, you’re American - the UK system, which this article is referring to, will be different. There is talk of banning disposables for environmental reasons and ease of kids getting hold of them, but the government over here are currently looking into the best options.
The government certainly won’t want to ban vapes entirely, as they help people quit smoking, so they take pressure off the health service.
Yeah. Sorry. Not sure I noticed I traipsed into the motherland.
For context, our television advertising ban happened because Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds stalemated on market share. Both had to pay for adverts because they’d lose share if they stopped, but if it’s banned they can save millions and nobody else can easily edge into their market.
Flavored cigarette bans were similar. Upstarts started eating into their profits, so it became necessary to ban their products.
Recently our FDA has started clamping down on places that mix juice. You either have to pay for some sort of certification or just buy mass produced juice.
I reckon you’re 100% on the money here. The big tobacco companies push all this drama and concern about the health effects so that everyone thinks the industry needs to be more regulated, that allows them to kill off the smaller competition and push up prices.
When you use regulations to keep or increase your market share? Yeah. Look up the history of advert bans. When big tobacco feels threatened or could save money congress passes laws for them. It’s sick. Our country is sick.
I liked that proposal to raise the minimum age every year that was proposed in the UK. Let people quit or smoke until they die but don’t let people start smoking
Exactly. Banning tobacco outright isn’t going to stop smoking, it’ll just create a black market. And we know how effective that has been for ‘real’ drugs. Smoking has been naturally declining in popularity anyway, so it really just feels like Tory posturing.
In Australia we just put the price up exponentially each year so that eventually noone will be able to afford them except the very richest in the country. I stopped smoking on 1/1/2020 when it was already over $1 per cigarette. It's considerably more expensive now ... I think about $30 for a pack of 20s. That's why my friend never has any dosh and is always borrowing money from ppl.
If you smoke, you should be allowed to vape in an attempt to quit. But if you never smoked, fuck vaping. It’s too new to be thoroughly studied for health effects.
They have been studying it for almost 20 years now and it’s, among experts, considered extremely safer than smoking. Sure they need to keep studying it but people throw this around like no research is done. There’s tons and it shows it’s vastly safer. They aren’t even comparable based off what we know.
That said I don’t smoke or vape but did used to do both, and used vapes to taper off nicotine. 6 years no nicotine.
I'm always curious - what is it that leads you to believe that you should be able to decide what other people may or may not do with their own bodies?
I've never been able to wrap my head around that whole idea. There's just no angle on it that makes sense to me.
If I presume that people do have the right to decide what other people can do with their own bodies, then we end up with self-defeating chaos, since different people have entirely different, conflicting and even contradictory, views on that.
But if I decide that they don't have that right, then... they don't have that right.
I don't see a chain of logic that can possibly lead to the conclusion that anyone does have that right, but it seems I can't turn around without running into yet another person, like you here, who blithely presumes that they do.
So really - how does that work? Inside your own mind, what's the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that you, rather than the actual people who actually inhabit the other bodies around you, should be empowered to decide what they may or may not do with their own bodies?
You see this way of thinking about poor and disabled people too, as if being unfortunate enough to require government assistance means you lose your agency too.
Is this one of those ‘difficult’ choices’ that they go on about? The one’s that almost exclusively fuck over the poorest in our society? Those choices?
We’ve had thirteen years of ‘tough choices’. Maybe it’s time we tried something other than punching the poor?
Mate if the government would have turned against you, it’d be when you were spouting left wing nonsense ten years ago, not now that you’re spouting right wing nonsense that aligns with their beliefs.
He's gone right wing? I didn't know that. I've not listened to anything he said in... well... ever. I was vaguely aware of him shouting lefty stuff a few years back but never paid much attention
He jumped the horseshoe. The fringes of right-wing extremism and left-wing extremism often end up having rather a lot in common - it's easy for people who define themselves against the mainstream first (and only for something second) to find themselves agreeing a lot with people who are notionally at the other end of the spectrum.
In Russell Brand's case, that meant embracing anti-vaxism, Covid denial, climate change denial, 5G conspiracies, etc. George Galloway did it by embracing Farage and trying to get selected as a candidate for the Brexit Party. Claire Fox went from a pro-IRA Revolutionary Communist Party activist and co-publisher of the Living Marxism magazine to a Brexit Party MEP. In the US, you see a lot of notionally right-wing US Republicans now starting to spout anti-capitalist narratives. At the fringes of politics, this sort of horseshoe-jumping happens all the time.
I'm open to your alternative explanation of the observed pattern of horseshoe-jumping: e.g. Russell Brand, George Galloway, Claire Fox, Piers Corbyn, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Wolf, Melenchon voters backing Le Pen in the 2022 2nd round, etc - regardless of what theory explains the observed facts, there are a disturbing number of examples of it.
I listed six politically high-profile individuals out of the set of politically high-profile individuals, which is a much smaller set than every person on the planet. If I knew the political views of every human on the planet then of course I would prefer to give you a more comprehensive picture.
I also listed the 16% of Jean-Luc Melenchon's 7.7 million 1st round voters who indicated they were backing Marine Le Pen in the 2nd round of the French presidential election last year - literally leaping direct from the far-left candidate to the far-right candidate in preference over the moderate candidate.
There's an interesting suggestion by Matthew D'Ancona in TNE that Brand's actions of recent years in embracing far-right personalities, promoting a range of online conspiracy theories and building a weird cult of personality around himself are a direct response to the #MeToo movement emerging six years ago - knowing that eventually his own actions would come to light and so he needed to build a 'digital stockade' of useful idiots who would jump to his defence when the time came.
Totally. We've had a few decades now of successive governments that have taken increasingly centralising attitudes towards privacy and civil liberties - essentially going back to the 1980s.
But the one bright spot in there was the 2010-15 Coalition, who abolished Labour's biometric ID scheme (people forget now, but the Brown government had passed legislation that meant that, if they'd won the 2010 election, then we would all have needed to register for these), deleted innocent people's DNA records from the police DNA database, halved the maximum length of time the police could detain people without charging them with any crime (from 28 to 14 days - after Labour has earlier tried to increase it to 90), etc. The Coalition was the one truly liberalising government of my lifetime and that's entirely a consequence of the Lib Dems' role in driving its agenda.
Lib dem who sold out their vote voters for the illusion of power.
The greens don’t stand here (the Scottish greens are a separate party from the one in eng/wales) the etc tend not to stand here with the possible exception of ukip and fringe people that are some how more insane
Independence issues notwithstanding, the SNP seem to have a pretty authoritarian streak of their own, especially under Yousef. Their attitude to free speech is quite lacking.
No shit it’s almost like I said that in another coment probably over an hour ago responding to someone else making the same comment.
But the reality of the situation is qe at best have a 2.5 party system with lib dem ensuring the tories get in when Labour can’t quite get an outright majority.
Yep. Unfortunately I have no doubt that Labour would also implement something like this too, they didn’t have a good track record for civil liberties when they were in power.
It took place in Britain because it was written by a British author for British audiences. It was written at a time when totalitarianism (both fascist and socialist) was a major threat in the world outside Britain.
IngSoc wasn't meant to suggest that Britain was somehow uniquely vulnerable to totalitarianism. It was meant to be a warning to Britons of how the totalitarianism that we could see dominating continental Europe and Russia at the time could also hypothetically develop here - IngSoc was meant to be a sort of 'totalitarianism with British characteristics'.
Yeah, and Orwell fucking aced it, sad as that is. He’d be rolling in his grave to know the only prediction that hasn’t come true is that creepy vaguely nazi-esque logo from the 1984 movie they actually made IRL that year, which I don’t think he had a had in designing?
Unfortunately, dystopia comes in many, many forms and no one forsaw internet dragnets or that smartphones, unlike “telescreens”, would be too useful to not have and too universal to not use.
Please. I live on one of the busier streets in my town, right by an intersection. The amount of people driving by with cars that sound like someone's farting through a megaphone are insanely obnoxious. Fuck, most the time they're shit boxes that go slower than normal cars. People in my area buy cheap, shitty cars, pay to have a falsified safety, then make them loud and obnoxious while slowing down traffic because their cars can barely accelerate.
I’ve not read the article because I refuse to give the Express any attention. They’re only very slightly better than the Daily Mail, and that’s only because their reach isn’t as great. This article will almost certainly be coming from the perspective of “new things bad, old things good, so we’ll sow a feeling of distrust in our aging readers”, and I have no time for that shit.
But to answer the question; no, of course it isn’t, unless, as /u/Hogger85 has said, the AirBnB owner has specifically banned EV charging. If they haven’t, then it should be considered part of the cost of doing business and accounted for the same way they would any other energy usage.
and if they have banned EV charging they should realise nobody is going to honour that rule anyway and stop being such a dick, suck it up, and get on with running their airbnb like a normal person that doesn’t care about a few of £ of electricity per mo
However, Mr Johnson’s office said his team was still working with government security officials on how best to switch on the old phone
Firstly it seems really funny that a team of government security officials are “figuring out” how to turn on an old phone when my own phone is probably older.
But secondly it would be really trivial for someone with basic technical knowledge to extract the memory storage component and recover the data even if it never turned on again.
But secondly it would be really trivial for someone with basic technical knowledge to extract the memory storage component and recover the data even if it never turned on again.
This would be bread and butter to organisations with experience in data forensics (if you have the device, data is never lost it just becomes increasingly hard to extract) but I’d imagine most phone shop workers could do it for you. Give me an hour and I’d take a run at it for £20. As it’s BoJo, I might even do it for free.
The truth is at the end of the article. Banks are refusing because he has additional costs attached to himself. This is his ego coming back to bite him. Farage said that this could make him leave the UK. He also said that he would leave if BREXIT was a disaster.
Now you have two reasons Farage, are you gone yet?
Ezedi came to the UK hidden in a lorry in 2016 and was turned down twice for asylum before successfully appealing against the Home Office rejection by claiming he had converted to Christianity.
Not from the UK and setting aside everything else about this guy, WTF is this?? You can’t be accepted into the country unless your Christian?? Wut.
It’s been the bit of the coverage that keeps making me go “wait, what?”. Conversion to Christianity isn’t a requirement but it does seem be a factor that can be considered. This is a less sensational overview than some doing the rounds and they point out that some people “convert” because they couldn’t be a Christian in their home country (like Afghanistan, where the Taliban might not look kindly on it). A claim for asylum partly based on escaping religious persecution might be viewed more favourably.
On top of other reasons you've had, I was listening to the radio yesterday and apparently there's Christian groups giving free help to asylum seekers if they convert. Free legal help probably being the most useful.
They need the help obviously but it feels quite predatory to put conditions on it.
You need to understand that Jesus' love is completely conditional on believing in Him (sic). And if you're aware of Jesus and His (sic) Father (sic?) "which art in heaven" (sic, at least in some texts), anything you then do that is not for Them (sic?) is deserving of punishment.
That's not quite what is happening here. His original application for asylum was turned down on the grounds that it was found he would be reasonaby safe from persecution in his origin country. However, being Christian would have substantially added to is risk of return and he was therefore subsequently granted asylum.
The Tories wouldn’t know an honest day of hard work or “doing their duty” if it came and bribed them to their faces. Scumbags.
Every time one of them says or does pretty much anything, it makes me wonder how on Earth anybody votes for these soulless freaks and weirdos. Ah well, at least nobody who’s put their penis in a dead pig’s mouth is in charge of anything, right? That’d be fucking mental.
There's a delusion that happens with people who are doing well, healthwise, moneywise, career wise, that what they have is possible if you just work hard. It's why people will say to cancer sufferers "Have you tried healthy eating?" or other ridiculous things, they think that those bad things happening to other people must be their own fault.
Those people, the ones that look down on the others, who think their circumstances are their fault, they don't want stuff like the NHS, or benefits, that's just rewarding stupid decisions like getting cancer, becoming homeless, or being born in a warzone.
Spot on. They confuse their privilege with merit. They think they’re wealthy because they worked, not because of the advantages they are laden with.
Like Trump with his: “It has not been easy for me, it has not been easy for me. And you know I started off in Brooklyn, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.”
unitedkingdom
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.