hypochondriac

Jess Phillips has laughed at male suicide, routinely used disgusting language online towards people she dislikes, is quite clearly a misandrist who favours one sex over the other, claims to support women yet seemingly doesn't know what one is and she's turned down a national grooming inquiry at least in part because she doesn't want to rile up her constituents. I don't think the things I care about align with Starmer at all but I wouldn't describe him as vile.

It would be just like saints to finally get Sulemana to a place where he can contribute positively only to sell him at the end of this window.

Of course the economy wasn't in good shape but let's not pretend that the political choices Labour have made haven't contributed to what we are seeing now. To suggest that what we have now was unavoidable is a fantasy.

TBF I listen to that podcast all the time and rort Stewart has some really odd takes. He totally embarrassed himself over the US election.

We've gone from modest and pretty uninpressive growth at the tail end of the tories to some of the worst economic performance in years with perhaps only Truss' short tenure rivaling it. Let's not pretend that this situation would have happened whoever was in charge or whatever decisions anyone took. This wasn't inevitable.

The last time I saw her she was making a decent contribution to trying to prevent assisted suicide so she's gone up in my estimation-albeit the only way was up.

You are completely correct but potentially interesting if he has a bit of sustained success. We may then have to ask the question how much of his crap performances were down to Russ ball.

If this comes to pass, would be interested in your thoughts @whelk. Not exactly a sign of a government doing well. In my opinion very unlikely she makes it till June.

What's the point in focusing on a negative when we've actually won a game for once and performed reasonably well? We're getting relegate regardless, might as well enjoy a win whoever it's against.

A decent performance and a win. Cool.

Good to see that Labour councils have their priorities in order. As I said though, Streeting used the more correct term Pakistani rape gangs earlier in the week so hopefully this an anomaly.

Has he played this season do we know?

Pathetic non answer that doesn't answer the qiestion. You've seemingly accepted that now it is a reasonable thing to discuss because we've had what you describe as legitimate reports in 2023. Presumably before 2023 it is not a reasonable thing to discuss by your logic. People were being banned and censored for merely discussing the possibility of a lab leak prior to 2023. In your view this is legitimate yes?

So in your mind it's now reasonable to discuss the possibility of a lab leak because the FBI have said it is the most likely scenario? So anyone expressing that view prior to 2023 should have been censored or banned from social media? Yes?

Could do this all day really but the fact remains it is a viable and plausible possibility whether you believe it definitely was or that we aren't certain either way. I don't think that discussing that should have been censored.

The fact remains it's a completely plausible theory supported by the FBI and people were censored from discussing it at the time. They should not have been. It doesn't invalidate the wider point.

Reports have concluded that it is the most likely outcome (and clearly it is). Of course there's no direct evidence because it's not In the CCP's interest for there to be any. They were most likely doing gain of function research and it accidentally got released. That's not the same as Smallpox leaking because Smallpox is an existing virus. This clip from that well known far right conspiracy theorist Jon Stewart is decent: https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8

You're focusing on one example and it really is about the wider point as I said about censorship and who decides what truth is but clearly at the time people were being censored and prevented from even discussing the possibility of the theory (people were getting banned from social media platforms and YouTube in particular for simply mentioning the lab leak theory or the fact that there's a novel coronavirus lab in the same place where a novel coronavirus showed up). It was dismissed as a conspiracy theory and is now widely viewed as the most likely occurance. There's still no hard evidence though so by your logic we should be censored from discussing it. The wider point stands, there are of course other occurances where people have been censored or prevented from speaking because someone has decided they don't like their speech or because they have decided that they are the arbitors of what is true and untrue and I don't think it's right to give politicians or those in authority that power.

I'm not sure I mentioned anything about the vaccine. I've already said I support vaccines and disagree with the narrative that they are harmful.

Are you claiming that Covid did not originate from a Wuhan lab leak?

That was partly my point but like I said, that one example isn't relevant to the broader point about censorship.

I don't think the individual case is particularly relevant to the broader point anyway. Who is providing the fact checking in your scenario? Who decides what is evidence based? Is speculation never allowed prior to something becoming fact checked and evidence based?

There was a level of evidence yes but less than desirable because the Chinese didn't want to release any for obvious reasons.

I didn't say a complete block on censorship, I said I prefer a state of affairs where there is less censorship than more. If we are looking at censorship then I certainly don't want the government deciding what the truth is and what is bullshit. At the time it was a disgrace that legitimate narratives about China developing Covid were suppressed as one example under the mistaken belief that it was fake news. Look at the lengths that people have had to go to before the government would refer to Pakistani rape gangs and acknowledge a problem. Those are just two relatively minor recent examples.

I think it's a combination of his own epiphany that he's been having for a few years now and the fact that Trump would probsbly forced him to do much of this stuff anyway and he doesn't want a fight about it. Either way it's great news, dei initiatives are cancerous and need removing and I'd far rather we had less censorship online than more so it's a good direction of travel.