I think it means + more than zero but less than one
So like, +(between 0.01 and 0.99)
I think it means + more than zero but less than one
So like, +(between 0.01 and 0.99)
They’re using it as (+0<1), there’s no - here bc that would be + (the other candidate)
‘There’s no point voting against Hitler right now because the opposition is right leaning and may one day grow into Hitler’
In the UK, you can’t decide whether to ‘press charges’ or not, the decision is the CPS’s.
But in practice, saying you aren’t interested in pursuing a conviction often ends it, because:
1 - the prosecution must be ‘in the public good’ which is undermined if the victim isn’t interested
2 - a lot of the time the testimony and cooperation of the victim is key to the prosecution case
3 - the system is horribly underfunded so if they can justify dropping it they will
I read in the paper today that a bankruptcy court is going to take 40% of Katie Price’s OnlyFans income
When i saw this headline my brain skipped to Rudy Giuliani’s OnlyFans income
Has Rudy Giuliani considered OnlyFans?
“Yes, I lost this election, but I’m young, beautiful, and rich as f**k,” she concluded. She lost her job at Purina dog food over her extreme rhetoric and her campaign was unable to purchase ads.
She came 6th. Its funny, but I think she was never a real candidate and hasn’t learned anything
I’d argue that TERF-ism, especially JKR’s brand of it, has both classist and racist elements ingrained within it
The whole ideology is based around gatekeeping ‘womanhood’ to a single shared demographic experience, denying feminism to those outside of it
There are ways in which trans women have had differing experiences of femininity from cis women. But the same is true of black women of white women, etc
It might be explicitly anti-trans; but it’s implicitly anti-in-group
They definitely didnt help, nor did the right wing media or the Labour Party centrists undermining him
But ultimately he lost because of Brexit.
In his first election, despite the pressure against him, he took the Tories to a hung parliament and forced them to make a deal with the DUP. Cos people were sick of Austerity and liked his domestic platform
But when managing Brexit became the main issue in 2019(?), Johnson had a really strong message of ‘oven-ready brexit’, ‘get it done’, and Labour didn’t have a coherent strategy. They didnt want to go full ‘reverse it’, cos lots of votes for Brexit came from Labour seats. They also didnt want to go full ‘get out deal or no deal’ because generally the left and progressive voters were anti-brexit.
Corbyn was elected to the leadership on the strength of his domestic and anti-austerity policies, and when the focus shifted to Brexit he was out of his comfort zone.
That’s my analysis anyway. I liked Corbyn’s foreign policy, but it wasn’t what built his popularity
I think Occupy was really interesting, and part of the reason was the lack of a clear and actionable message
I fully agree that the best and most effective protest movements are those with clear goals and demands, and Occupy wasn’t that
What it managed to do really effectively was bring all kinds of people and ideologies together - there were the active leftists and anarchists, but also liberals and the middle class and all sorts. I’ve read articles and accounts that talk of just every kind of person spending time in that main/original camp, and it spawned a lot of similar events here in the UK
Ultimately it had the same kind of energy as the ‘If you want it, war is over’ billboards of the late 60s. And absolutely thats frustrating from an activist p.o.v
But on the other hand, it did in a lot of ways shift public perspective. I’d stop short of saying it changed the paradigm, but it definitely contributed to an anti-neoliberal, anti-free-market normalization
So yeah, idk. It didn’t really achieve anything; the issues it tried to tackle are still omni-present. But maybe it did do something in some hard to quantify, nebulous ways. Its interesting at least 🤷♀️
But yeah really not a blueprint of an effective protest in a majority of ways
The last time I was in Berlin, the year before Covid, they had set ups in some of the parks which were like painted lines and ‘boxes’ on the floor
Weed dealers were allowed to sell within these lines (probably not actually legally, but with an understanding that the police would leave them be? Not sure of the specific rules) but not outside of them
This meant that people who weren’t interested wouldnt have their park time marred by shady people coming up and trying to sell them drugs, and people who were interested could just go to one of the dealers in the lines
It was just a better, safer way of doing things. Everybody won.
Actual legalisation is the next step of course. Criminalisation of something as minor of weed just creates crime and danger, it doesnt reduce it. So this is good news
I mean, unless there was a hoax that led to widespread belief that they were gonna launch a bomb
Its suspicious if its out of nowhere, but less so if its in response to an existing rumour
If they’d rather die then they’d better do it, and decrease the surplus population!
I don’t know why you’re being down voted, he is literally a billionaire
‘No ethical billionaires’ apart from this guy apparently