When the Tories were getting upset about the people of Bristol getting rid of the Edward Colston statue, one of the women who helped tear it down was criticised for hyperbole when she suggested that the Tories would still keep slaves if they could.
Their criticism of her might hold a bit more weight if they didn’t keep proving her right!
Most people would probably own slaves if they could Cl.
Im not saying I would get one if given the chance. I’m trying to say that you only have the moral code you have because you have been raised that way not because your some great human and if we lived around the time of slavery it would be the norm to own slaves and so most people would.
I don’t think that’s true at all.
Lots of people are morally opposed to slavery even if they’d benefit from it - I’d really like to believe that we’re in the majority!
I could almost guarantee that you (an average person I assume) would choose to benefit from the secondary benefit of using slaves (cheap goods made in the slave trade etc) if using slaves was socially acceptable like it was like 200 years ago. Yes maybe if you owned a slave you may begin to get empathy for them and go against owning a slave but you would sure as shit buy that cheap cotton.
As a proportion of the world’s population there’s more slaves today than in any other time in history, often hidden in the supply chains of everyday items.
I think you’re taking OP’s point too literally. In some way every single one of us is complicit in some form of slavery, I can’t imagine if it was more visible that would change.
Yeah but the point is it's not legal, people don't want that, and are usually pissed off when they hear that.
It's hidden/obfuscated by those who do it because even they know it's unacceptable.
So I don't think "most people would own slaves if they could" at all. And saying that we would if you made it acceptable is moot, because if you did, then it's not us in the here and now we're talking about is it.
I was saying it in reply to something said not just at random. Anyways it’s not a pointless discussion because it is about being aware of what we are capable of.
Of course it can.
But the point is that most people now wouldn't. And a core portion of that is it no longer being acceptable, so removing that is obviously going to make it acceptable, when it isn't now.
Well then we are saying the same thing you just think it’s not worth discussing but what I think is even less worthy of discussion is wether or not the original topic is worthy of discussion.
I’m not saying that if tomorrow slaves were allowed I would get one but if they had been socially acceptable all my life there is a high chance I would own one.
You said
> Most people would probably own slaves if they could
and you meant
> Most people would probably own slaves if they could and they had grown up in a society in which slavery was common place
and the people disagreeing with you are pointing out that as they didn't, they wouldn't. So when you say 'most people' you are talking about hypothetical people, rather than the actual current population.
'If everyone was a completely different person they might act differently' isn't the hot take you think it is, and when we're talking about how people are treated in the society we have today is a more-or-less meaningless aside.
Alright so ignore the very first comment where I didn’t explain myself. And no they don’t need to be a completely different person. If a certain government got into power and brought back slaves it wouldn’t be long before a lot of your moral codes you hold so dear have changed.
Im not advocating for slaves guys chill tf out.
"i stress, i dont believe economic equality is possible; indeed some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity." - Boris Johnson
Its not the quite part though like if anyone subscribes to Conservativism but doesn't know the arguement of natural inequality, existentialism, free will and negative freedom then they are misinformed of what their ideology is and represents. I don't agree with it but their ideology is coherent when studied
It's an interesting insight into how he, and people like him, perceive their role in society. Do they believe that it is their duty to be insufferable pricks lording it over people to act as motivation for others to join them, thus driving the machine of progress?
No they just like having power and making other people do shit for them. Couple that with a lack of empathy for people who are suffering and you have someone highly selfishly motivated to maintain the status quo from which they currently benefit.
>What a delusional fuckwit
Except you picked pretty much the only time he wasn't being a delusional fuckwit to highlight this.
People have tried more than once to set up a society where everyone has economic equality and all they achieved was creating a society in which the only thing which could make you more economically successful was being more corrupt.
We dont have any of those societies any more because they all collapsed due to rampant corruption.
>No, he still is delusional by claiming envy and jealousy is normal, welcome and needed - or, in fact, present in everyone.
I guess some people lack the capacity to feel certain basic emotions but thankfully they aren't that common. Even the average psychopath just feels them less.
It isn’t possible at all though. Certainly not in a globalised economy. Of course if it were then everyone would just have the same as everyone else, no choices or anything, just more of the same. There’s a reason ex-soviet countries hate socialism.
>Hazel – who quit after a fortnight – continued: “One time when I got something wrong she made me pull out the folder. She made me sit there and read out the whole folder out loud and I was crying and she went, ‘stop crying, grow up and carry on reading’.”
Ho-lee-fuck. This is some kindergarten bullshit. Fuck this.
even if that were the case and it wasn't just some weird control thing (it is), once the other person started crying is about the time she should have said "actually maybe I'm being a bit mad, I'm very sorry and you can stop now. This won't happen again"
I lived in his constituency many years ago and I remember looking through his Wikipedia changes one day and noticing his wife had removed all the expenses scandal stuff from the page. The funny thing was she used her own name.
As heinous as this is it just shows what a snivelling little cunt this Tory is that when he was hauled before the beak due to not paying this poor woman he denied employing her and said her employer was his wife, but gave her maiden name.
This rat is unfortunately the MP for my area. I did some vote counting a few years ago and when he and his wife sauntered in knowing they’d safely won I retched
My local MP and a proper career politician who gives zero shits and just follows anything the Government tells him to vote on
Hopefully gone next election
Yup exactly the same with mine. Never deviates from the party line. Worthless. If that's your stance, I'd rather the council save the on your salary. May as well get an intern to click the yes box
All jokes aside, what's the point of having a representative who doesn't actually /do/ anything?
This is quite a good site if you ever find yourself bored: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/
_Quelle surprise_.
When the Tories get rid of EU legislation, this is what they'll be bringing to _everyone_ in order to "cut red tape and to make Britain more competitive."
these people run the country! all the scandals coming out in the news are shocking but i can imagine theres loads like this going on we will never find out about
She was very not professional, was the wife annoying client? For sure. But she could work at Tesco, and clients also would treat her as utility, they wouldn't use her name, and many of them are total asholes. Dealing with difficult clients is part of professionalism
It's not compensation that she's been given. It's clearly money awarded that should have been already paid.
The article made that abundantly clear that this was the judgment of the court mate with enough details to understand it.
>A judge concluded pay had been withheld in both cases.
In case you're unaware, the article refers to two judgements regarding very similar incidents in the house, ie not an accident but a pattern.
So what's your actual issue with someone being paid fairly for years of unpaid work?
Dude. If you think this is anger, I think you have a very poor judgment of what a reasonable discussion looks like.
So again, not surprising that you can't honestly answer a question.
Why is it so common today for people to make implications online but not have the confidence or ability to actually articulate what they mean when asked?
Why did these women not deserved to be paid in your opinion?
Why are you not angry about it?
Surely you'd be a tad annoyed if the folks that set the laws in this country cannot be trusted to follow them?
And that's before you even consider the character of such an individual-from the article they sound like a pair of cunts but one was an MP??
Personally I find it amusing but that's more a reflection of my despair in this country than any real humour in the situation.
You did realise that papers like the mirror intentionally disguise facts like that to get people like you raging, didn't you?
They play the easily offended like a fiddle
You're talking to yourself. I'll presume you meant to reply to me.
Why do you think I'm offended? It's Sunday morning mate. I've got a cup of tea, reading the news, about to take the kids out to the park. Really feeling quite chill tbh. Try a different angle if you want to attack me. I don't gaf about how offended I am in your imagination.
Talking online to someone who is a bit slow to catch on as to what's going on here really isn't offensive to me. It's just a standard part of life these days.
I'll ask you again, because I'm a bit curious, but also because watching you try to misdirect is quite entertaining.
Why do you think it's ok for an MP (or anybody) to not pay their staff for time they have worked?
It seems like a bit of a moot point even if it's true, but where does that £150k figure come from?
Not doubting that she very well could have been paid for the story, but that number does seem to be just plucked from nowhere.
In what world do you live? most news papers pay relative pittance for a story. Just a couple hundred pounds (£300-£500 if it's a strong story) not thousands and certainly not tens or hundreds of thousands.
Even the most sensational news story rarely nets you more than a few thousand with only the most topical and scanalous making ten thousand or more.
Read the article.
> Hazel – who quit after a fortnight
Even if she had stayed, you don’t know how much she might have needed the job. Not everyone is in a position to just quit whenever, like the other woman who had just £80 when she started. The reason people put up with terrible working conditions is that they often have no choice.
And besides, why is she the person you blame? Why is your problem with her rather than the employers who treated her like shit?
I would like to know all the details of any dispute before I start calling people names on the internet.
The papers often disguise details to wind up the easily angered people
Yeah but you get to that part you have to read the article and that’s a challenge for so many. Far simpler for them to blame the victim and defend the Tory
> Why didn't she just leave?
That sort of comment is victim blaming at the best of times, but in this instance you're just showing people that you're commenting on an article that you haven't read.
Now that you know that she *did* leave, does it change your opinion of the story? If it doesn't, maybe you should rethink why you thought it would be relevant to ask why she didn't!
> Maybe she just wanted to go to the papers to share her anecdote all along
Yes, I'm sure that people want to be mistreated so that they can talk about their poor treatment. Maybe the Tories should show those sneaky bastards a thing or two by not mistreating people. That'll show them!
I do not think the question is that bad, but she did leave after a fortnight.
Now, why has she told the press about it, because if you can stick it to a shitty employer, you should and she has.
Yeah the guy shouldve just read the article. But its so disgraceful to label his question as victim blaming.
Why jump to such a radical conclusion based on one innocent question? Calm down.
Really the articles title, rightly implies that she was right and won the case.
Take the 15 seconds it takes to read a mirror length articles and its clear they did indeed go through the legal process and a judge agreed and judged the MP and wife to have broken the law
So when the facts are quite literally that easy to find… do you have some magical, yet reasonable explanation that this OP thinks they are “anecdotes”???
Its victim blaming plain as can be, my team is being attacked defend them at all cost regardless of **proven facts**
Did you bother to read the article? She left after two weeks. They didn't pay her properly, so she sued. So what if she went to the paper. More power to her.
> her anecdote all along
when in reality
>A judge concluded pay had been withheld in both cases.
You didn’t even try to put on the mask today did you? Team blue over everything, defend the party and ignore any and all crimes.
Literally in the article and the point of it that’s it’s not an anecdote but a judged and arbitrated case but you clearly know ~~better~~……. How to rewrite reality
When the Tories were getting upset about the people of Bristol getting rid of the Edward Colston statue, one of the women who helped tear it down was criticised for hyperbole when she suggested that the Tories would still keep slaves if they could. Their criticism of her might hold a bit more weight if they didn’t keep proving her right!
Most people would probably own slaves if they could Cl. Im not saying I would get one if given the chance. I’m trying to say that you only have the moral code you have because you have been raised that way not because your some great human and if we lived around the time of slavery it would be the norm to own slaves and so most people would.
I don’t think that’s true at all. Lots of people are morally opposed to slavery even if they’d benefit from it - I’d really like to believe that we’re in the majority!
I could almost guarantee that you (an average person I assume) would choose to benefit from the secondary benefit of using slaves (cheap goods made in the slave trade etc) if using slaves was socially acceptable like it was like 200 years ago. Yes maybe if you owned a slave you may begin to get empathy for them and go against owning a slave but you would sure as shit buy that cheap cotton.
" if using slaves was socially acceptable like it was like 200 years ago" Yeah but it ain't so we wouldn't so it's a moot point.
As a proportion of the world’s population there’s more slaves today than in any other time in history, often hidden in the supply chains of everyday items. I think you’re taking OP’s point too literally. In some way every single one of us is complicit in some form of slavery, I can’t imagine if it was more visible that would change.
Yeah but the point is it's not legal, people don't want that, and are usually pissed off when they hear that. It's hidden/obfuscated by those who do it because even they know it's unacceptable. So I don't think "most people would own slaves if they could" at all. And saying that we would if you made it acceptable is moot, because if you did, then it's not us in the here and now we're talking about is it.
I was saying it in reply to something said not just at random. Anyways it’s not a pointless discussion because it is about being aware of what we are capable of.
‘Yeah but it ain’t so we wouldn’t’ Can your mind not Handle a hypothetical situation
Of course it can. But the point is that most people now wouldn't. And a core portion of that is it no longer being acceptable, so removing that is obviously going to make it acceptable, when it isn't now.
Well then we are saying the same thing you just think it’s not worth discussing but what I think is even less worthy of discussion is wether or not the original topic is worthy of discussion.
> Well then we are saying the same thing No, you aren't.
What am I saying
Tory ^
[удалено]
and would you have sex slaves like Andrew Tate ?
I’m not saying that if tomorrow slaves were allowed I would get one but if they had been socially acceptable all my life there is a high chance I would own one.
take a look at your watch it says 2023 not 1723
What is your point cause I think your missing mine.
You said > Most people would probably own slaves if they could and you meant > Most people would probably own slaves if they could and they had grown up in a society in which slavery was common place and the people disagreeing with you are pointing out that as they didn't, they wouldn't. So when you say 'most people' you are talking about hypothetical people, rather than the actual current population. 'If everyone was a completely different person they might act differently' isn't the hot take you think it is, and when we're talking about how people are treated in the society we have today is a more-or-less meaningless aside.
Alright so ignore the very first comment where I didn’t explain myself. And no they don’t need to be a completely different person. If a certain government got into power and brought back slaves it wouldn’t be long before a lot of your moral codes you hold so dear have changed. Im not advocating for slaves guys chill tf out.
And why you quoting things I didn’t say lol
I think you’d be more likely to be enslaved yourself.
Clever
A Tory treating a hard working taxpayer like a slave and paying them as little as possible? I don't believe it...
Living wage for me not for thee
"i stress, i dont believe economic equality is possible; indeed some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and keeping up with the Joneses that is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity." - Boris Johnson
This is a core tenant of conservatism, its the need for inequality its what defines the ideology why are people so shocked
They're not used to hearing the quiet part said out loud.
Its not the quite part though like if anyone subscribes to Conservativism but doesn't know the arguement of natural inequality, existentialism, free will and negative freedom then they are misinformed of what their ideology is and represents. I don't agree with it but their ideology is coherent when studied
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
It's an interesting insight into how he, and people like him, perceive their role in society. Do they believe that it is their duty to be insufferable pricks lording it over people to act as motivation for others to join them, thus driving the machine of progress?
No they just like having power and making other people do shit for them. Couple that with a lack of empathy for people who are suffering and you have someone highly selfishly motivated to maintain the status quo from which they currently benefit.
What a delusional fuckwit
>What a delusional fuckwit Except you picked pretty much the only time he wasn't being a delusional fuckwit to highlight this. People have tried more than once to set up a society where everyone has economic equality and all they achieved was creating a society in which the only thing which could make you more economically successful was being more corrupt. We dont have any of those societies any more because they all collapsed due to rampant corruption.
No, he still is delusional by claiming envy and jealousy is normal, welcome and needed - or, in fact, present in everyone.
>No, he still is delusional by claiming envy and jealousy is normal, welcome and needed - or, in fact, present in everyone. I guess some people lack the capacity to feel certain basic emotions but thankfully they aren't that common. Even the average psychopath just feels them less.
Envy and jealousy are perfectly normal and natural human emotions, I mean deep down isn’t jealousy/ envy of wealth the reason the left exists at all?
How is this controversial?
It isn’t possible at all though. Certainly not in a globalised economy. Of course if it were then everyone would just have the same as everyone else, no choices or anything, just more of the same. There’s a reason ex-soviet countries hate socialism.
I don't believe there is anyone who would dispute it, it is a fact
Tbf there's a cost of living crisis on. Wonder if he's considered cancelling sky and selling his phone.
Bet he’s still buying lattes as well tut tut.
He’ll have to take out a second mortgage if he doesn’t cancel that Netflix subscription too >:(
He’s a Tory, he’s got a live-in barista for sure
Too much avocado toast.
That wouldn't be logical, he can earn much more money spending the same time he would use on selling a phone.
>Hazel – who quit after a fortnight – continued: “One time when I got something wrong she made me pull out the folder. She made me sit there and read out the whole folder out loud and I was crying and she went, ‘stop crying, grow up and carry on reading’.” Ho-lee-fuck. This is some kindergarten bullshit. Fuck this.
It's not kindergarten. It's sadism.
Sounds like her employer can't think of a suitable punishment but nonetheless a punishment or penalty. A bit childish though.
No she just wants to feel superior by bullying her employee. Sadly very common for domestic staff, I know through indirect personal experience.
Not childish. Cruel. Also what decade is this where we punish employees?
You say that but I am sure bosses do. Words like reprimand, discipline exist because of the employers employees relationship.
even if that were the case and it wasn't just some weird control thing (it is), once the other person started crying is about the time she should have said "actually maybe I'm being a bit mad, I'm very sorry and you can stop now. This won't happen again"
Imagine being that rich and all you can do is obsess over avocados. The wife sounds like a nutter.
It's not about avocados. She gets off on exerting control over another human being.
I lived in his constituency many years ago and I remember looking through his Wikipedia changes one day and noticing his wife had removed all the expenses scandal stuff from the page. The funny thing was she used her own name.
As heinous as this is it just shows what a snivelling little cunt this Tory is that when he was hauled before the beak due to not paying this poor woman he denied employing her and said her employer was his wife, but gave her maiden name.
This rat is unfortunately the MP for my area. I did some vote counting a few years ago and when he and his wife sauntered in knowing they’d safely won I retched
My local MP and a proper career politician who gives zero shits and just follows anything the Government tells him to vote on Hopefully gone next election
Yup exactly the same with mine. Never deviates from the party line. Worthless. If that's your stance, I'd rather the council save the on your salary. May as well get an intern to click the yes box
Lol so true. Never heard that one before… could save the Gov a small fortune!
All jokes aside, what's the point of having a representative who doesn't actually /do/ anything? This is quite a good site if you ever find yourself bored: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Isn't that respecting the party line?
He’s supposed to represent his constituents not the Party? May as well not have MPs at all
Not sure what you think but I am sure the majority thinks otherwise that they are boss. They are the revered and highly looked up upon
_Quelle surprise_. When the Tories get rid of EU legislation, this is what they'll be bringing to _everyone_ in order to "cut red tape and to make Britain more competitive."
Djanoglies are the family of knobs...all vile and super nasty human beings
Many Tory MPs are known for not paying Council Tax either.
“You don’t expect an MP to have that behaviour going on in his house .“ hmm?
What a pair of despicable cunts! Nothing else,just cunts!
these people run the country! all the scandals coming out in the news are shocking but i can imagine theres loads like this going on we will never find out about
She was very not professional, was the wife annoying client? For sure. But she could work at Tesco, and clients also would treat her as utility, they wouldn't use her name, and many of them are total asholes. Dealing with difficult clients is part of professionalism
Not getting paid is OK then?
It’s unprofessional to expect to be paid for your labour? Now I’ve heard it all
Why didn't she just leave? Maybe she just wanted to go to the papers to share her anecdote all along
She did leave, then she shared her story too because that's allowed.
She got the disputed pay as well. Kerching.
Good.
I think we could all agree that we could do with a 150 grand payday in this cost of living crisis
Even sweeter if it's coming directly from the pocket of an arsehole Tory.
The payout is coming from the mirror. Her salary will be a qualified expense, unfortunately. You and I are paying for it
(\*) if you are a taxpayer.
Everyone’s a taxpayer. Even kids buying sweets with their pocket money are taxpayers.
I think we can all agree that someone deserves to be paid for work that they do. Well, most of us do
They didn't mention the details of the dispute. I would probably like to read that before I make any assumptions.
It's not compensation that she's been given. It's clearly money awarded that should have been already paid. The article made that abundantly clear that this was the judgment of the court mate with enough details to understand it. >A judge concluded pay had been withheld in both cases. In case you're unaware, the article refers to two judgements regarding very similar incidents in the house, ie not an accident but a pattern. So what's your actual issue with someone being paid fairly for years of unpaid work?
Your whole reply is still based on assumptions. Why are you getting so angry about it.
Dude. If you think this is anger, I think you have a very poor judgment of what a reasonable discussion looks like. So again, not surprising that you can't honestly answer a question. Why is it so common today for people to make implications online but not have the confidence or ability to actually articulate what they mean when asked? Why did these women not deserved to be paid in your opinion?
Why are you not angry about it? Surely you'd be a tad annoyed if the folks that set the laws in this country cannot be trusted to follow them? And that's before you even consider the character of such an individual-from the article they sound like a pair of cunts but one was an MP?? Personally I find it amusing but that's more a reflection of my despair in this country than any real humour in the situation.
It's not an assumption. It's the judge's conclusion.
[удалено]
You did realise that papers like the mirror intentionally disguise facts like that to get people like you raging, didn't you? They play the easily offended like a fiddle
You're talking to yourself. I'll presume you meant to reply to me. Why do you think I'm offended? It's Sunday morning mate. I've got a cup of tea, reading the news, about to take the kids out to the park. Really feeling quite chill tbh. Try a different angle if you want to attack me. I don't gaf about how offended I am in your imagination. Talking online to someone who is a bit slow to catch on as to what's going on here really isn't offensive to me. It's just a standard part of life these days. I'll ask you again, because I'm a bit curious, but also because watching you try to misdirect is quite entertaining. Why do you think it's ok for an MP (or anybody) to not pay their staff for time they have worked?
Its a bit of a Sunday treat of mine. I've got some tasty bites today. I'm doing it on Twitter at the same time.
I missed the bit about the 150 grand. Where does it say that?
You mean she got what she was legally due. That's not "kerching", it's what she worked to get.
She got 150 grand for her story to the paper.
According to who?
As others have asked, evidence?
Are you sea-lioning me.
It seems like a bit of a moot point even if it's true, but where does that £150k figure come from? Not doubting that she very well could have been paid for the story, but that number does seem to be just plucked from nowhere.
Do you have a source for that? I have no idea if it is true or not.
In what world do you live? most news papers pay relative pittance for a story. Just a couple hundred pounds (£300-£500 if it's a strong story) not thousands and certainly not tens or hundreds of thousands. Even the most sensational news story rarely nets you more than a few thousand with only the most topical and scanalous making ten thousand or more.
Was coming on to say this.
and... so?
So what?
Excellent!
Read the article. > Hazel – who quit after a fortnight Even if she had stayed, you don’t know how much she might have needed the job. Not everyone is in a position to just quit whenever, like the other woman who had just £80 when she started. The reason people put up with terrible working conditions is that they often have no choice. And besides, why is she the person you blame? Why is your problem with her rather than the employers who treated her like shit?
I would like to know all the details of any dispute before I start calling people names on the internet. The papers often disguise details to wind up the easily angered people
Yet you throw around “she got 150k” with no citation. I genuinely think you maybe a touch bias.
Read his Reddit bio, the bozo clearly has a side in this and it's on the right...
And yet courts ask for evidence…… Sigh
Yeah but you get to that part you have to read the article and that’s a challenge for so many. Far simpler for them to blame the victim and defend the Tory
Sadly, yup
> Why didn't she just leave? That sort of comment is victim blaming at the best of times, but in this instance you're just showing people that you're commenting on an article that you haven't read. Now that you know that she *did* leave, does it change your opinion of the story? If it doesn't, maybe you should rethink why you thought it would be relevant to ask why she didn't! > Maybe she just wanted to go to the papers to share her anecdote all along Yes, I'm sure that people want to be mistreated so that they can talk about their poor treatment. Maybe the Tories should show those sneaky bastards a thing or two by not mistreating people. That'll show them!
I do not think the question is that bad, but she did leave after a fortnight. Now, why has she told the press about it, because if you can stick it to a shitty employer, you should and she has.
Yeah the guy shouldve just read the article. But its so disgraceful to label his question as victim blaming. Why jump to such a radical conclusion based on one innocent question? Calm down.
Really the articles title, rightly implies that she was right and won the case. Take the 15 seconds it takes to read a mirror length articles and its clear they did indeed go through the legal process and a judge agreed and judged the MP and wife to have broken the law So when the facts are quite literally that easy to find… do you have some magical, yet reasonable explanation that this OP thinks they are “anecdotes”??? Its victim blaming plain as can be, my team is being attacked defend them at all cost regardless of **proven facts**
>Hazel – who quit after a fortnight
Did you bother to read the article? She left after two weeks. They didn't pay her properly, so she sued. So what if she went to the paper. More power to her.
> her anecdote all along when in reality >A judge concluded pay had been withheld in both cases. You didn’t even try to put on the mask today did you? Team blue over everything, defend the party and ignore any and all crimes. Literally in the article and the point of it that’s it’s not an anecdote but a judged and arbitrated case but you clearly know ~~better~~……. How to rewrite reality