Turn on thread page Beta

Jacob Rees Mogg watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    How very current year.

    Sticking date labels on things = cogent argument.

    Right.

    :rolleyes:
    (Original post by the bear)
    there has been a lot of change from the 1900s. not sure about progress...

    GO J-MOGG :jive::rave:
    I'm not getting involved with inexperienced idiots who lacks the knowledge of the world.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    apart from his odd "Brexit" views, Mr Mogg is a fine politician and a morally upstanding gentleman.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bitofaledge)
    Social construct is a heap of regressive BS. There are only biological differences between races. As the yesteryear scientific research proves before the PG brigade got up in arms over factual data. We should celebrate our differences.
    Oh so you're a white supremacist as well? Good to know that the 'Student Forum' is allowing rampant xenophobic rhetoric to masquerade as free speech and healthy debate. You need to acknowledge your Whiteness.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Divide and Conquer at work....
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bitofaledge)
    Social construct is a heap of regressive BS. There are only biological differences between races. As the yesteryear scientific research proves before the PG brigade got up in arms over factual data. We should celebrate our differences.
    His head is stuck in the clouds and yeah, they're ignorant about this topic, relying on caricatures of caricatures from the early 1900s to push their position. It's mainly overpaid cultural marxoids who push this social construct garbage, growing fat off the white taxpayer dime.

    Again - he's free to piss of somewhere where there is no "social construct" of "whiteness", but no doubt some other "social construct" will bother him, at which point said host society will simply extend a hearty "f off".
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haviland-Tuf)
    Oh so you're a white supremacist as well? Good to know that the 'Student Forum' is allowing rampant xenophobic rhetoric to masquerade as free speech and healthy debate. You need to acknowledge your Whiteness.
    Typical left wing tactic. Throw names at people I.E. "racist" or "white supremacist" under their holy bible of totalitarian political correctness. The only thing these words try to achieve is shut down debate.

    Any chance you can debate the points/arguments rather than throwing nonsense words back that achieve nothing but destruction of freedom of speech and an attempt at character assassination/ moral shaming.

    Scientific data and facts should be freely available, not hidden cause the PC brigade will try to shame them. How about everyone grow a thicker pair of skin and we all talk openly, perhaps you can supplement with some maca root to boost your testosterone levels in order to become less sensitive?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bitofaledge)
    Er, no? Just someone that speaks common sense? Personally I find your opinion quite "intolerant" of the big boss man JRM.

    *edit. Although I will concede that his abortion views could be amended. But even on that point, woman should get their mans to wrap it up or stop putting it about so much.
    Fine. But, however appealing his philosophy is to a niche of unpleasant or misguided people, I don't think he'll gain much traction. Even the Tories in their current shambles are unlikely to be stupid enough to put him in the top job.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bitofaledge)
    Typical left wing tactic. Throw names at people I.E. "racist" or "white supremacist" under their holy bible of totalitarian political correctness. The only thing these words try to achieve is shut down debate.

    Any chance you can debate the points/arguments rather than throwing nonsense words back that achieve nothing but destruction of freedom of a speech and an attempt st character assassination/ moral shaming.
    I did not need to assassinate your character or shame your morals because you've done both on your own by spewing lies about disenfranchised people and claiming that we "Need to embrace the differences" and you quoted social studies about how white people are superior to other races straight from the nazi playbook. You might as well put a swastika to match your intolerant rhetoric.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bitofaledge)
    What's wrong with inherited wealth? If your dad worked hard, ran a successful business worth millions or owned property to the same value; why is it a bad thing to pass down to his sons/daughters what he and/or his forefathers have earned through hard work?
    I actually don't agree with inheritance in general (I think all parents should just give their kids a platform and let them work for themselves, rather than relying on constant handouts (look at the people buying plastic surgery with daddy's money) but yes, it is their choice.

    Because that inheritance generally stretches back decades, centuries, and existed on the back of other peoples work. Millionaires exist because of the work of their employees. I don't agree with "if you're dad worked hard and earned millions" because most inherited wealth didnt come from "daddy working hard" - look at all the financiers and bankers passing on their hard earned wealth.

    I think this is why we hold up Bill Gates so high - someone who acknowledged where he came from and also doesn't support simply handing people money - Peter Jones made a very good point about this.

    In a nutshell, I dont think millionaires became millionaires because of "hard work" - there are so many people who work harder who arent millionaires.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    'look at all the financiers and bankers passing on their hard earned wealth'

    Is that meant to be ironic? Banks like Goldman Sachs and the majority of them would not exist without relying on public funding.

    [The first banking system was set up by christian zealots, the knights templar, but, genuinely without wanting to sound anti-semitic, I have wondered if there are so many rich jewish financiers and bankers, because they do not have the same Dante inspired christian notions of hell. The jewish version of hell is more like a washing machine, where you are cleansed of sin and sent on to heaven.]

    To rectify the intolerable abuse of the monetary system by banks, [operating a zero sum, or negative reserve system, instead of the fictional fractional reserve system] would need approval from every nation. Which is not going to happen any time soon. As we all know now, they simply create debt, at interest out of thin air. You ring up a bank, ask for a loan, and its simply typed into existence.
    [One very possible end result of this system is that the banks own everything. Do you think they will put all that money back into public services, or buy themselves a carbon fibre superyacht?] And they are always bailed out, or subsidised through complex mechanisms from the public purse.

    Because banks float from one country to another leaving massive destruction in their wake and are never held accountable, people better educated than I, argue that Boom and Bust IS the banking model. Look at Argentina in 1999. More people died in the orchestrated banking crisis, than the falklands war and military dictatorship combined. [There was a 'run' on the banks and they simply pulled all the money out. Can you imagine queueing around the block for a day, getting to the teller and being told, nope all youre savings have vanished!]

    The owners of central banks unfairly, and very sneakily, rule the world. It's evil. Why is there a remembrancer in parliament? He sits behind the speaker. How is that democratic? He has a team of six barristers, and they get to fiddle with every banking bill before its put before the house to be voted upon. You could go on and on and on.

    That would be an example of a root problem I referred to earlier. In need of major systemic change.

    But it wont happen. Why? The top tier of society has created systems which mean they have 'nothing in the game'..... And it doesnt just apply to Mogg but across our entire political system. The creation of policy, without any personal risk. He can say, right lets do this or that, but will not suffer for it himself, if it fails. Theres no responsibility or accountability. He will still exist in a system at the top tier, regardless of failure or success. Yet those of us on a lower tier would suffer. [Possibly really badly, as many did under Brown. But hows he doing? Hes stinking rich, and a total failure.]
    Only the people at the top have the chance to do this.
    There's no personal risk in it for him/them. If you were to say, ok, we will let you become PM, but unless you succeed at doing xyz you will end up homeless and in the gutter. He wouldnt take the risk. Hence 'Wet'
    But thats the risk the rest of us have to take right? We dont get payouts. Were not constantly subsidised.
    The left always fails, the right doesnt care, or falsely believes itself superior, and the liberals believe themselves to be generous. The only times we see real change are post horrendous events. Wars, Famines, Revolutions etc. The banks cash in, whatever happens. But the lower tiers always bear the brunt.

    Julius Caeser, rose to the top, for instance, he put his own life on the line endless times, he was captured by pirates etc....and in the end he was murdered. Now all we have are 'professional politicians'
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haviland-Tuf)
    I did not need to assassinate your character or shame your morals because you've done both on your own by spewing lies about disenfranchised people and claiming that we "Need to embrace the differences" and you quoted social studies about how white people are superior to other races straight from the nazi playbook. You might as well put a swastika to match your intolerant rhetoric.
    Why are whites highest up in the hierarchy? Why do blacks need positive discrimination to compete? Why are Asians marked harsher in some parts than whites and blacks in USA? Are USA racist against whites and blacks? I'll give you a clue, not everyone's a racist out to prevent black people from progressing (if anything it's the opposite: positive discrimination). Not even me would you believe, but blame it on my biological make up/testosterone etc, but I'm a facts over feelings type of guy. Doesn't mean I don't like blacks or Asians or whites for that matter; I just recognise arithmetic mean differences in the cohorts.

    Edit: again, you've continued with the moral shaming words in your contradictory post, in order to try control a speech you don't like seeing. Sorry pal but you can't police my speech. This is why brexit won. Because you and your mob always try to police speech and morally shame people they don't agree with rather than debating the points. People don't want to get Nannied/controlled. One minute you said you didn't try to control my speech through moral shaming, the next you equate me to a nazi. Bun it. Two can play that game: you're brainwashed by cultural Marxism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coolforcatz)
    Corbyn wasn't born upper class though. Neither was May. Most prominent politicians haven't been over the past few decades, with Blair, Brown, Cameron, and maybe Miliband as exceptions. Thatcher and Major were not upper class either.
    Corbyn was from a very privileged background. Brown was not, nor were Thatcher nor Major (although Thatcher, like May, married a rich man which helped). My guess is that since Thatchers cabinet a huge proportion of minsters have come from wealthy backgrounds.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Working "hard" means little and it should not be cited nearly as much as it is. Working smart is what matters. But as a matter of fact, many owner-entrepreneurs do work very hard. There's plenty of people in the City as well working 60-80 hour weeks, in roles e.g. in banking.

    It is easy to squander an inheritance and amount to nothing with it, but equally if you are able to take that inheritance and grow it, that is impressive.

    Millionaires exist because of the work of their employees.
    It is a mutually beneficial process. Many jobs only exist as a result of business owners making the investment for the capital required for them to come into being as well as all the other infrastructure (including intangible, e.g. processes, intellectual assets etc.) required to provide goods to consumers, at the risk that they may well reject what the business is offering. Simply having employees - even good ones - is nothing like a guarantee that you'll be a millionaire, as the litany of failed businesses will prove. And certainly simply inheriting money will not guarantee maintaining that fortune. Hence the "rags to riches" trope.

    I only agree with you on inheritance in the sense that parents simply handing money to their children might do them more long term harm than good, as opposed to e.g. loaning it to them to create a business, which will teach them how to create value. Am I against it in principle, though? Absolutely not.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bitofaledge)
    Typical left wing tactic. Throw names at people I.E. "racist" or "white supremacist" under their holy bible of totalitarian political correctness. The only thing these words try to achieve is shut down debate.

    Any chance you can debate the points/arguments rather than throwing nonsense words back that achieve nothing but destruction of freedom of speech and an attempt at character assassination/ moral shaming.

    Scientific data and facts should be freely available, not hidden cause the PC brigade will try to shame them. How about everyone grow a thicker pair of skin and we all talk openly, perhaps you can supplement with some maca root to boost your testosterone levels in order to become less sensitive?
    The soy is strong in Haviland.

    Even acknowledging biological differences between population groups, or believing that Europeans should be entitled - like every other group on the planet - to their own majority homelands, is now enough to get you branded a "white supremacist". Lmao at these morons.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    The soy is strong in Haviland.

    Even acknowledging biological differences between population groups, or believing that Europeans should be entitled - like every other group on the planet - to their own majority homelands, is now enough to get you branded a "white supremacist". Lmao at these morons.
    Facts. The cringe when lefties try to control my speech through moral shaming. They continue to try shame and equate anyone who they don't agree with to Hitler. But they're not learning from their mistakes. People don't want their factual based opinions controlled because a soyboy with hypogonadism got offended. Bun your feelings, grow a thicker skin and let's all discuss idea openly and freely!

    Central-right governments will keep winning/growing because the left aren't learning. Don't mind it 😉🤣
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    Not everyone is, sorry if I gave that impression, but most are. I'm from a very working class area also, and one of the biggest concerns is immigration. But Labour has to pander to its Remain membership and not offer anything.
    🙂

    I'd agree there's definitely a problem with some middle-class people "playing" poor. I came across it a lot at university, as most people there were middle-class but seemed to think being poor is 'cool' or something. 🙄 Anyway, that's a whole new discussion...
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    I'm talking about the people who don't, like those student protesters yelling 'facist', 'scum' while he was asking them what they want to discuss or disagreed with.


    And why would you assume I'm right-wing (whatever that means in the modern world).
    If his background was the sole the issue here, why didn't Tony Benn get the same hate? What about David Attenborough? There's any number of rich, posh people who command the respect of the left. It's a question of principles, not background. Your OP is ridiculous because it assumes wealthy people are unable to advocate for the working classes. All you've really said is "look, left wingers like rich politicians who they agree with but they don't like rich politicians who they disagree with". Tell me, how long did it take for you to arrive at this shocking conclusion?

    I'd say my assumption that you are on the right is about as safe as your assumption that those JRM protesters were on the left.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    His head is stuck in the clouds and yeah, they're ignorant about this topic, relying on caricatures of caricatures from the early 1900s to push their position. It's mainly overpaid cultural marxoids who push this social construct garbage, growing fat off the white taxpayer dime.

    Again - he's free to piss of somewhere where there is no "social construct" of "whiteness", but no doubt some other "social construct" will bother him, at which point said host society will simply extend a hearty "f off".
    It isn't garbage. You can literally trace the concept of race through the historical record up to the present day and see how it has changed and developed along social and cultural lines. Whatever genetic basis, if any, there may be for our racial groupings, it has never been the dominant factor in our common understanding of race - unless you choose to count the pseudo-scientific racism of the 19th century. Denying the social component of race is completely crazy.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    It isn't garbage. You can literally trace the concept of race through the historical record up to the present day and see how it has changed and developed along social and cultural lines. Whatever genetic basis, if any, there may be for our racial groupings, it has never been the dominant factor in our common understanding of race - unless you choose to count the pseudo-scientific racism of the 19th century. Denying the social component of race is completely crazy.
    If you mean the caricatures of caricatures, i.e. the supposed view that the Irish weren't white, that's contradicted by historical fact.

    Frankly, it simply takes a pair of two functioning eyes to identify disparate racial groupings (not by "skin colour" alone), and this is what is found when people are asked to categorise themselves, it maps pretty well to how a computer with no prior assumptions on how groups should be split, would split them based on a given array of traits. Yeah, there's a "social dimension" to everything, but when some nimrod proclaims that "whiteness" is some problem in majority white countries, they're not stating anything meaningful, it's just a sloppy attempt at attacking whites indirectly. Why even bring it up in this context?

    AFAIC, if you don't like actual whites or the "social construct" of "whiteness", well GTFO and go somewhere where neither exist, and stop the eternal kvetching about it. As if Britain should be forced to cater to the whims and feelz of SJWs and "minorities" and the perennially neurotic.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    If you mean the caricatures of caricatures, i.e. the supposed view that the Irish weren't white, that's contradicted by historical fact.

    Frankly, it simply takes a pair of two functioning eyes to identify disparate racial groupings (not by "skin colour" alone), and this is what is found when people are asked to categorise themselves, it maps pretty well to how a computer with no prior assumptions on how groups should be split, would split them based on a given array of traits. Yeah, there's a "social dimension" to everything, but when some nimrod proclaims that "whiteness" is some problem in majority white countries, they're not stating anything meaningful, it's just a sloppy attempt at attacking whites indirectly. Why even bring it up in this context?

    AFAIC, if you don't like actual whites or the "social construct" of "whiteness", well GTFO and go somewhere where neither exist, and stop the eternal kvetching about it. As if Britain should be forced to cater to the whims and feelz of SJWs and "minorities" and the perennially neurotic.
    Wait, you were arguing that races were genetically distinct, but now you seem to be arguing for a conception of race based on superficial differences between populations. But this is exactly what people mean when they talk of race as a social construct. We assign importance to superficial differences, not genetic ones. We do this only because we choose to, not because there's any rational or scientific basis for doing so. This hypothetical computer program of yours may well be able to sort people into groups based on these superficial traits - but only if you instruct it to do so. You could also instruct it to group people by height or hair colour, or any other given trait. But that doesn't mean the resulting groups are distinct 'races' in a real, genetic sense. It just means you've told the computer, 'these things have significance to me, so sort according to these things'. Historically, those same superficial differences had nowhere near the same importance as they do now. That's an entirely modern development.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.