United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
The sooner JK Rowling is charged with hate speech, the better. How the fuck has she been allowed to get away with it for so long I don’t know.
Those in power agree with her, and are probably glad she's so willing to do their dirty work for them
I think this is a good place to add context for those outside the UK that don't pay attention to politics, especially foreign politics:
The UK is having elections on July 4th. The House of commons has... 650 seats, of which the Conservatives (Tories, equivalent UK version of US Rupublicans) have ~350 seats.
They are expected to literally lose hundreds of seats in this elections and fall out of power. Labour (UK equivalent of US Democrats) has not been as progressive as people expected/wanted, but they are expected to be the big winners. Hopefully the UKs situation improves from the past 14-15 years of the Tories rule... seems like they've gone scorched earth, and the UK is a shadow of what it was even a decade ago.
Those same whiners in power, are about to experience a near political power extinction event.
Lmmfao, ok, if we're going for context, you've managed to conveniently leave out a massive bit of it - that Sir Starmer, the current Labour leader and as much a part of the establishment as any Tori politician is, has not only publicly declared transphobic shit like men = penis woman = vagina, but is now also taking advice from Joanne herself, after she called him out for not being a big enough terf, and he in turn and without even blinking, willingly obliged to prove her wrong (and that he aspires to be just as prolific a transphobe as she is).
The idea that only Tories are responsible for the institutionalised transphobia in this country, and that blue Labour is going to do anything but continue toeing exactly the same line, is not only laughable, but glaringly and wilfully ignorant.
So yeah..
My reply said nothing about only Tories being solely responsible, only that they have been primarily in charge/in power for the last 14 years and are about to take a major fall from power in the upcoming election this week.
I didn't praise Labour, merely said they will be the primary benefactor of the change in power, and that they are the UK equivalent of Democrats in the US (a simplified comparison for a non-UK audience, that happens across this thread); which isn't untrue in general, even with your above complaints.
This is indeed a UK thread, but JK and Tennant are world renowned, and having them both in the title will draw in a larger audience.
This is all the confirmation it takes. You're close, but if you still think Starmer's Labour is going to change anything fundamental about how things are run, you've not been paying attention.
Sounds like they were just hoping things would at least improve, which means not get actively worse nor remain strictly the same, but does not mean things become absolutely good and fixed. You're the one putting "fundamental changes to how things are run" as their claim.
I found their comment quite helpful, and the content of the addition that labour may not do much better was also useful and fit in the framework they gave.
I don't think the aggression was warranted or helpful, and only served to stagnate the discussion.
Lmfao, whatever makes you feel better and not have to confront realities that make you uncomfortable.. 🙄
(E: realities that you actively contribute to by tone policing, and framing and dismissing people whose rights, and lives, are being abused and put at risk as "aggressive", which is a classic and well documented silencing tactic, whether you knew you were doing it or not. You also literally contributed nothing to the conversation. So basically your entire reply is one big projection, almost impressive)
Huh?
I mean... you are literally instead of discussing the politics of the UK, actively choosing to be antagonistic.
And antagonistic in a way that I have literally no idea what you're even trying to say, beyond wildly thrashing into the void.
Re: edit - you should actually read the article on what tone policing is in their conception and what is harmful about it, not all being called out for dickish replyguy behavior is tone policing. Frustration and aggression can be warranted, and is fine to express, but when all you're doing is arguing with no cogent point (see: yelling into the void) and misinterpreting what someone is saying to the point of absurdity, aggression is being actively harmful to the discussion. That's just being an ass for catharsis.
And again, the point was to point out that the person you're responding to did not say what you claimed they did, and that the addition about labour was helpful. You can be as frustrated and aggressive as you want about that, but this whole discussion could've been in agreement, you both appear to agree with each other on the meat of the politics.
From my point of view it was, but if someone just wants to fight about something and be right, even if you're agreeing, best just to move on with life and not waste time on it.
Either way, predictions are not guaranteed, but looking optimistically forward to the election tomorrow.
Cheers and enjoy your night/day.
I think it's simpler. Those who are in power are gar too full whitted to really do not care and do not really consider this to be an issue. It's not so much that they agree or disagree with her, it's more that they just don't care
I'm not sure that's actually better really but isn't any important distinction.
If you think those in power in the UK, widely known as TERF island, aren't deliberately and actively trying to harm trans people (among others), you've not been paying attention,.
Curious who you're referring to and what they've done?
Alexa, order a proof reader.
The government is entirely on her side
£,000,000,000
Thats how.
That's not much.
It's literally nothing.
You don't think people should have the right to speak free from government interference? I very much disagree with her, but I don't want to live under a fascist state that bans opposing opinions.
Free speech isn't the same as freedom from consequences for that speech. Hate speech is regulated for a reason. Likening hate speech to an "opposing opinion" is outing your actual agenda here.
I'm curious whether she has actually come out with any hate speech. Can you point to anything she's said which is hate speech? By which I mean real hate speech and not just speech whose underlying motive you believe to be hate?
For example, this is hate speech:
"Illegal immigrants are lazy good-for-nothings and should all be deported."
This is not hate speech:
"Illegal immigration is terrible and I wish the government would do something about it."