Modern societies are extremely good at broadcasting identity conflicts, but much worse at resolving them. The result is a constant feedback loop where debate itself becomes part of the stressor. Media (in UK anyway) suppresses trans concerns meaning the whole information ecosystem is hostile.
@indepthpsbpod.bsky.social
approach #PetShopBoys the way people analyse great films or literature. Songs you thought you knew open up because 2 blokes from Hudders take the time to examine how they were made & why they work.
That kind of deep-dive is perfect.
New episodes out on 13 March!
#PSB
Tension comes from two competing instincts:
1. welfare: pensioners should be protected from tax & hardship.
2. fiscal: UK pop is ageing & pension spending is growing fast.
So real Q is “do you raise personal allowance alongside pensions, or accept fiscal drag as a quiet way of raising revenue?"
State Pension has been rising because of triple lock. If State Pension keeps rising but personal allowance stays frozen then pension itself creeps toward tax threshold.Pensioners pay tax if they have private pensions or savings income now & tax system has no rule that pension income must be tax-free
UK has repeatedly said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal under international law so govts clearly do comment on legality when it suits. This is more diplomatic caution than a constitutional principle.
Greens don't have to deal with any diplomatic fallout & comment from a sedentary position.
That's just a token defence fallacy. For starters the presence of Jewish members doesn’t prove or disprove antisemitism within a party; we can all look to Labour for that!
My point here was about whether a specific statement constitutes Islamophobia. That’s a textual issue, not a party-wide one.
The dual-loyalty trope is real and harmful.
My question is whether Shelbrooke’s actual words invoked religion as causal, or criticised attendance at a specific protest. Those aren’t the same thing.
We all remember consequences of Iraq but Iran situation isn’t directly analogous. UK govt has been clear it did not join offensive strikes on Iran & only authorised limited defensive use of UK RAF bases after Iranian retaliation & threats to UK personnel & allies. Legal differences are important.
The intellectually consistent position is to ban second jobs, and simultaneously push for stricter asset rules, cooling-off periods, lobbying bans, and blind trusts.
It’s a visual thesis about the life cycle. We start dependent, we end dependent. The strong adult in the middle is a temporary phase, not a permanent state. The island makes it sharper: we’re all standing on a sliver of time between what we were and what we’ll become.
You're treating a critique of logical escalation as if it were a substantive accusation. My point has consistently been about evidential standards and logical inference. Nothing more.
That's mathematically ironic.
I haven’t made any claim that Ali is antisemitic. I’ve said if someone alleges antisemitism, they should cite evidence. That’s not a leap, it’s a standard.
The post you cited explicitly argues against generalising and against evidence-free accusations.
I’m not calling criticism of Israel antisemitic. I’m saying accusations in any direction need evidence.
I haven’t said criticism of Israel is antisemitic. It plainly isn’t.
My point has been about evidential standards and logical leaps, not about shutting down criticism.
I haven’t made any claim that the march was antisemitic.
My point was about the inference being made; moving from a general statement about antisemitism to an accusation of Islamophobia. Those are different steps.
I’m not offended: I said it wasn't objectively a classy reply and that moreover "F off" isn't an argument.
If you think it’s sophistry, then explain why.
If the claim lacks evidence, challenge the evidence.
But mentioning a Muslim politician is categorically not the same as implying all Muslims are antisemitic.
Most people are quite happy to accept that more than one idea can exist in the world.
Alleging foreign control without evidence isn’t critique, it’s conspiracy. If there’s proof, show it. If not, this is just rhetoric.
Classy
It’s all just politics.
Polanski is deliberately collapsing ambiguity into certainty.
Proximity isn’t proof. Moving from a specific criticism to a general principle isn’t automatically an accusation.
Just politics. Relax.
Girls, boys, art, pleasure
Girls, boys, art, pleasure
Paninaro, Paninaro oh oh oh
if UK bases are used by the US under existing defence agreements, that does not automatically equal UK co-belligerence. It depends on the level of operational control, intelligence sharing, and direct military participation.
Repeat to specify 😆
Bet they support Manchester United as well…..!
Interpreting stance as “Starmer flip-flopped and now joined offensive attacks” is overstated; UK government’s line is defence of British lives and allies, not offensive participation.
Anyone else care to explain the logic behind the US claiming that apparently they did "not" start this war??
God...Chris dancing behind a keyboard, there.......!!
Who's back? Liza Minnelli's long awaited second Pet Shop Boys album???
