“PC gone mad” isn’t ethnic minorities asking for respect or equality.
It isn’t the LGBTQ community asking for their identities to be recognised and educated about.
It isn’t women asking to not be groped or assaulted.
It isn’t physically disabled people asking for accessibility and independence.
It isn’t people with mental health issues asking for awareness and support.
It isn’t people with learning difficulties asking to not be dehumanised and called “stupid”.
It isn’t different religious and cultural groups asking to not be vilified in the media just because they’re different from the mainstream.
It IS white men throwing a hissy-fit because someone called them “white” and claiming it’s a racial slur, when black people don’t call “black” a racial slur, gay people don’t call “gay” a slur, women don’t call “woman” a slur, Muslims don’t call “Muslim” a slur, and nobody calls their identity a slur, except for white [predominantly] men desperate to play the victim card in order to silence people to retain their privilege and supremacy and also undermine other people’s rightful claim for respect in order to carry on being racist shits.
THAT’S PC gone mad – when we pretend it’s wrong to challenge abusers, and let racists complain about how much it hurts them to be called racist, and let Nazis pretend they should just be allowed to advocate for murder and racial supremacy.
PC gone mad is when we allow people like Boris Johnson to complain about legitimate criticism in order to silence it, whilst demanding they should be allowed to refer to Muslim women as “letter boxes” based on how they dress 🤦♂️🤬
Hard-remain “Brexit-apocalypse” merchants – like all apocalypse merchants and preppers – amuse me.
Oh no! You want me to imagine a world where resources I depend on are scarce, where I may go without heating and electricity, and where I might not have food available for days on end?
Oh my word!
If only there was any experience I’ve had in my life where that was the case, from which I could draw any ability to confront it and survive.
As an ex-homeless person, let me see…. 🤔
Nope. Can’t think of anything 🤣
Yeah, that “3 missed meals” scare tactic you preppers want to employ doesn’t really work on someone who’s missed meals for a week or more.
Please, go ahead and hoard some tinned goods and dried food, pretending it’ll see you through an apocalypse.
The great irony being that in such an apocalypse, it’s truly the homeless who will come out on top 😉
Yeah, Bob, I’m sure your stuffed larder will see you through the end of the world and not make you a target for raids.
It’s not as if those of us who’ve had to be resourceful when finding food and shelter wouldn’t be caught completely off-guard by a total meltdown of society, let alone a minor glitch in resource-distribution dynamics lasting about a week or even a month. And it’s not as if we hadn’t already spent several months or more living as if society had completely broken down – which, let’s face it, for us it did.
I don’t wish an apocalypse on humanity at all. It’s hell living like that.
But, apocalypse merchants and preppers: stop trying to scare me with an environment I’ve survived in for prolonged periods before, without having to resort to your laughable ideas of “being prepared”, as if you know anything about what it’s like to have the societal infrastructure you rely on being suddenly taken away from you.
It’s cute to watch, like a puppy chasing its tail – funny, but ultimately fruitless and ends up with me laughing at a silly naive idiot being confused at how their actions only cause themselves pain.
At the end of the day, most of you apocalypse merchants and preppers will lose everything in any worse case scenario.
You wouldn’t even make up 1% of the survivors.
Those of us who’ve been on the streets know this, because we’ve seen it – we’ve seen how it plays out: selfish pricks who hoard recourses and treat their kin like shit get fucked. They literally don’t survive.
Innovators and those who care and share (those groups not being mutually exclusive), survive. It’s been how our ancestors always survive.
So, go ahead. Scare me. Don’t be surprised when I laugh in your face.
Maybe it’s all the time I spent literally living the apocalypse you portray but never spent a second to ensure nobody who experienced it would have to ever again 😉🤣
To everyone else: the apocalypse will be nowhere near as shit as you think, as long as you’re compassionate and the type of person who has a theory of mind robust enough to recognise homeless people as people ❤️
Here’s the problem with “innocent until proven guilty” when it comes to accusations of rape or sexual assault:
It’s not that it’s wrong, but that people only talk about the accused and don’t accept the fact that the accusers are also innocent of false accusations until proven guilty.
We forget that two parties sit in judgement: the accused and the accuser.
Both deserve the right to due process.
That’s why we can’t watch these cases solely looking at the accused and saying they deserve due process, happy to conjure up any imagined scenarios that would absolve them, whilst never providing the same respect to their accusers.
Whenever you watch a case of a rape or sexual assault allegation unfold, it’s always the same story.
We think of every scenario that could allow the accused to be innocent, including accusing their accusers of lying, and pretend if we can’t rule them out then they are innocent – but we don’t grant the accusers the same due process. We don’t look at them and say “here’s every scenario where they could be innocent of lying, and if we can’t rule them out then they’re innocent.”
We saw it in the Kavanaugh case last month.
His innocence of rape was assumed, but his accuser’s innocence of lying wasn’t.
Why is that the case?
We all know why that’s the case.
We all need to change that.
If you grant an accused presumed innocence, you have to grant their accuser presumed innocence.
Generations to come will not know homelessness.
They will look back and read homeless stories like we read Dickens novels talking about children sweeping chimneys.
This is my dream.
“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.”
Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism.
As I live and shall die, always this.
Actually, I want the transition to a post currency economy to start now.
Money already has lost its meaning – if it can be argued to have ever had one beyond power hierarchies and control, which I’ll concede was possible back in our history.
Automation is reducing employment rate below what is possible for currency to have meaning.
When employment rate reduces whilst scarcity of resources reduces, currency begins to lose all meaning beyond abuse in order to maintain power over others.
Universal income is a quick fix – a band aid for capitalism faced with rising unemployment due to a lack of scarcity and need for human labour.
The most worrying thing is that the more we try to pretend a currency based economy is the only way, the more we force people to either face poverty or become snake-oil salesmen. And beyond those two choices, we force people into jobs that do nothing except prop up an economic system that has no purpose – selling people insurance for things that can be easily replaced, or banking systems that circulate currency that has no value beyond its circulation.
Gene Roddenberry was right about one thing:
The economics of the future will be entirely alien to a currency based culture.
Whether we like it or not, our great-great-grandchildren will live in a world without currency, or at least one where it only exists to promote an artificial division in society.
Beyond that, our great-great-great-great-grandchildren will live in a world where currency literally makes no sense to them at all.
Unless we blow this world back to the Stone Age before then.
We are already at the point where currency is becoming obsolete.
It’s about time we embrace it and work towards a world without it.
If this seems alien or unimaginable to you, think of how your ancestors in the Middle Ages considered serfdom ever becoming a thing of the past.
If I work 40 hours a week and spend my wages buying 4 beers a day (even adding a Weekend’s worth of drinking in between), with a high enough paid job to not go bankrupt, nobody blinks an eye.
If, however, I work 40 hours or more a week and spend my wages buying just 4 beers a day, without a high enough paid job, and I go bankrupt, it’s my fault.
Addiction isn’t just excusable and sustainable if you’re rich. It’s actually celebrated.
If you’re poor, then even lower levels of addiction are enough to condemn you.
Why is that?
(Hint: it’s because we’re conditioned to hate poor people and blame them for their poverty, whilst ignoring the economic system that both makes them poor and happily punished them for the same behaviour we absolve rich people from displaying.)
To those saying the UK should keep the monarchy because they generate tourism:
I don’t think you really want to go down the “tourism dollar” route.
For starters, France beheaded their whole aristocracy and still has a roaring tourist trade – even looking at the old palaces and castles.
Secondly, ok, let’s talk dollar.
We behead the monarchy in Trafalgar Square and put it on pay-per-view live.
I guarantee that billions would pay to watch it – probably enough at the right price to more or less wipe the national debt.
Then we still get tourists flocking to the old palaces, and even re-enact the event in Trafalgar Square every anniversary to crowds of people who will definitely turn up to watch such a historic event being re-enacted, and have tourists flocking to re-enactments of old monarchy-days traditions with cheaper actors instead of expensive royals playing the roles.
We’ll make way more out of them that way.
I’m not saying we should do this at all.
But if the tourist dollar is all you care about, then I’ve just used your argument to demonstrate that executing the royal family is fiscally responsible.
So why not try to come up with something meaningful, rather than an idiotic idiom?
Hey, you’re argument was pure capitalism.
By pure capitalism I’ve come up with a better and more lucrative argument for getting rid of them.
Don’t blame me if your argument was so flawed.
Every true statement regarding how lies are perpetuated and maintained, and how those deceived will react to people who debunk those lies, will be used by those perpetuating and deceived by lies against those who debunk them, and to maintain or justify their lies.
Even this one.
There’s a contentious argument that has existed for centuries over whether it is morally correct to give money to homeless people.
I’m not going to get into that argument here. I will do do elsewhere, but it’s not relevant for me to do so right now.
Many of those who state that they won’t give money to the homeless say that they will give food to them. Again, I’m not going to go into the ethical conundrum that this can entail, I’ll deal with that elsewhere.
The main thing here is that, if you want to help someone in need, and you feel the best way of doing that is by providing them with the things they need right at that moment as you see it, rather than the ability to get those things – because you fear that they may “squander” that money instead of looking after themselves – hats off to you.
I don’t fully agree, but you do care and you are giving directly (and I hope ethically, taking their dietary needs and limitations into account) to someone you see in a desperate situation.
So let’s talk about Nottingham
According to the city of Nottingham’s new “Public Spaces Protection Order” (PSPO), it will not only be an offence to obstruct a doorway (homeless people often need to sleep in doorways to protect themselves from the weather), but even to give food to homeless people.
That’s right. You won’t be able to even give food to homeless people.
So I’m intrigued as to how those who want to just give food feel about this. Because now a city in the uk is seeking to make it an offence – by which you will be punished – for giving to someone in need, even in ways that you feel are morally fine and necessary.
This doesn’t just affect the public individual donating a kebab after being kicked out of a pub. It affects outreach teams, who take it upon themselves to ensure the homeless population are well fed and well clothed throughout even the worst months of the year.
This order will criminalise grass roots networks who do nothing more than provide warm clothing and food to people who are denied the ability to procure those things. At a time when services open to homeless people are in decline (from housing to welfare to mental health).
How does it feel to know that if you try to help someone not die, you will face a criminal sentence?
In reality, this is just what councils have been doing across the country – criminalising homeless people, and attempting to brush them under the carpet in a manner close to genocide by negligence, to “sanitise” the economic heartlands they perceive as being inconvenienced by the existence of poor people.
So even if you only want to give food to homeless people, surely you see this as an attack on both yourself and the homeless?
In reality, it’s just the latest progression in attacks against homeless people, that has continually attempted to de-humanise us. That’s obvious to most ex-homeless people, who are still stigmatised by society for their homelessness, even after the fact.
Since not only is the right of homeless people to ask for or accept food being taken away, but also your right to give food to someone you see as being in desperate need, will you finally agree that we live in a country that hates homeless people and is willing to pass anti-homeless laws that will have a catastrophic impact on our homeless population?
You all realise that you can fuck the homeless over as much as you want, but you’re fighting a people who have no fixed address and can appear out of nowhere, and who have nothing left to lose, right
I mean, I’m no military expert, but that has historically been the shittest idea ever.