FishFace
@FishFace@piefed.social
- Comment on I demand realism in my POVs 1 day ago:
Upvoted for correct use of “POV:”
- Comment on Lemmy Lore 1 day ago:
Where
- Comment on Hands on the Door 3 days ago:
When my partner gets frustrated at other vehicles, she does the only remotely scary things I’ve witnessed - accelerates a bit more sharply, yells “for fucks sake!” and such.
I can’t imagine how is react if it was as bad as what you described.
- Comment on Analysis: EVs are now nine times cheaper than petrol or diesel to drive in UK 5 days ago:
Yes they’re for domestic electricity contracts only. Charging away from home is generally a lot more expensive.
- Comment on secrets of the universe 5 days ago:
babe wake up new bouba/kiki just dropped
- Comment on The government is keeping a list of people who question their policies 1 week ago:
I assume that lost contains basically every single person who has interacted with prevent, because the government’s “do the job of the security services for us” and “dob your students in for looking a bit too brown” program is a pile of shite.
- Comment on We live in a society... 1 week ago:
Making fun of people for pushing back on something you’re never going to do is cringe
- Comment on According to the New York Times, Game of Thrones is the 6th best TV show of the 21st century 1 week ago:
Because there are some unstated criteria for inclusion.
- Comment on Oil derrick camouflaged as Christmas tree, Huntington Beach, 1939. 1 week ago:
How d’you do, fellow trees?
- Comment on Terrorist arrested over video of dinghy slashing 1 week ago:
Rightly so.
And to those who drew a weird comparison to recent unjust charges for left-wing protestors, complaining that this shitstain hadn’t been touched: can you connect what’s happened today to those comments yesterday/the day before? Can you see that they were premature, and that actually this guy has been arrested quite quickly?
The cynicism on this place is unjustified and EXHAUSTING. yeah lots of things are bad, and we should talk about them. But the cynical, baseless “he won’t be touched because he’s right wing” needs to go away.
- Comment on 1 week ago:
It is now!
- Submitted 1 week ago to [deleted] | 3 comments
- Comment on Far-right activist Daniel Thomas slashes dinghy in Channel with blade while rescue worker onboard 1 week ago:
When I hear about this stuff it stinks of gestures - “vice signalling” - rather than any genuine desire to do anything. He wants to look like a big man waving his knife around, so he waits until any risk of conflict is over, then whips out his tool and uses it ineffectually… but oh, by that point someone has got back in the boat, and he demonstrates he’s still willing to endanger them.
I bet his followers don’t see it like that though - bet they see this as brave, masculine and sending a message.
- Comment on Far-right activist Daniel Thomas slashes dinghy in Channel with blade while rescue worker onboard 1 week ago:
Yeah that stood out to me as inappropriately charitable too :/
- Comment on Far-right activist Daniel Thomas slashes dinghy in Channel with blade while rescue worker onboard 1 week ago:
Unfortunately that may very well be what happens. But given this seems to have literally happened yesterday, drawing such pessimistic conclusions now would be wrong.
- Comment on Classic error 1 week ago:
You’re right to push back. You asked me not to whallop the baby with a bottle of champers but that’s exactly what I did. That’s not just a mistake, it’s a load bearing error and I apologize.
- Comment on Lib Dems reject ‘discriminatory and unworkable’ EHRC guidance on transgender people 1 week ago:
“they don’t have any principles” very often means “they don’t have principles I agree with”. People are kinda bad at understanding principles they don’t agree with, which makes it difficult to see when people are working according to them.
This means that the lib Dems, whose main principle is liberalism which people on Lemmy generally don’t agree with, get it in the teeth.
- Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation 1 week ago:
OK?
- Comment on Israel killed three UK citizens. Now their families want answers 1 week ago:
Why? It’s not like any answer from the Israeli regime can be believed. We have to make do with our best guesses.
- Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation 1 week ago:
I think privatisation now is a lot more likely to involve grift than privatisation then. Back then, theoretical arguments about privatisation held more weight, and people had not developed convincing yet acceptable ways to funnel money into private hands. Now we know that privatisation has caused a lot of problems, and a lot of people touting it have much closer links with people who stand to benefit.
- Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation 1 week ago:
Questioning motives is always reasonable, but concluding that their motives are evil is not justified here (i.e. the answer to the question cannot reasonably be a conclusive “it’s evil"), because the claim that you are then making is ridiculous.
Serious economists who stand to gain little-to-nothing from espousing right-wing economic policy have pushed for privatisation for decades - opposed, of course, by many serious economists who espouse left-wing economic policy.
The “evil motivations” conclusion either has to accuse all those economists of being evil (for what gain, we do not know) or it has to claim that a person’s motivations for putting forward right-wing economic views is entirely inexplicably ceases to be “honest but misguided” and becomes “dishonest and self-serving” in perfect correlation with what they stand to gain. That’s not reasonable: if it’s possible for someone to honestly hold an opinion, the mere presence of them having something to gain from that opinion doesn’t turn it dishonest.
This is before we get to actually assessing whether politicians actually stood to gain much from privatisation. John Major, for example, who oversaw rail privatisation, was born to a middle class family that later fell on hard times. He wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth and attending parties with bankers. That brief analysis can’t tell you everything about his motivations, but it should make it more realistic that his sympathies lie more with ordinary people than with the ultra-rich, even though he oversaw policies which we know, or at least believe and can argue for, hurt ordinary people.
- Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation 1 week ago:
They are wholly different in desired outcome and motivation.
In the former, the motivation is a better service by allowing profit. In the latter, profit, and its direction to cronies, is the motivation.
People just often feel uncomfortable imagining their political opponents having good intentions.
- Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation 1 week ago:
No, their ideology was that state-run enterprises are less efficient than equivalent private ones, and that allowing and encouraging ordinary citizens to invest in those newly-private businesses (I’m not sure if this was done for the sale of the railways, but it was for previous privatisations) would enrich those ordinary citizens.
This was the defining economic debate of the late 20th century. Many people in these parts dismiss it out of hand.
I’m very glad that British railways are coming back into public ownership, yet somehow am able to acknowledge that in some respects privatisation was a success. The idea that the only, or the best explanation for privatisation was grift is unsustainable.
- Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation 1 week ago:
OP thinks that the actual goal of privatisation was not ideological, but grift. Nobody ever has any evidence for this kind of assertion - it’s always a combination of:
- The outcome of purposeful corruption would also have been to do whatever it is (in this case, make certain investors a lot of money)
- I find right-wing ideology so unappealing I can’t imagine people (maybe just smart people) honestly holding to it.
It’s so bizarre. Thatcher and her party were ideologues and all the evidence points that way. The whole position that enriching private investors was “the actual goal” is based on a lack of imagination around people holding different viewpoints.
In the case of privatisation in the UK, there was a long precedent with much ink spilled on the subject, but people like the OP discount it because they believe so strongly that anyone in power would be able to foresee the outcome, agree that the outcome was bad, and hence the only explanation was corruption.
- Comment on UK train operator nationalised by government after 30 years of privatisation 1 week ago:
Ah yes, “those expressing ideologies other than mine don’t actually believe them”
- Comment on Jury unanimously acquits Churchill statue spray-painter 1 week ago:
Which is it - “Donning"-Kruger or confirmation bias? And why are you still talking to me if you think I’m incapable of changing my mind? Lmao.
You obviously haven’t observed enough of me to justify this judgement, and hence there’s no evidence I can offer you to convince you you’re wrong. So with you having long abandoned any attempt to argue your case and instead just browbeating me, I certainly don’t find any compelling reason to continue talking to you. Bye.
If we interact again, try to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn’t hold your opinions, and shape your argument to convince that person.
- Comment on Jury unanimously acquits Churchill statue spray-painter 1 week ago:
If I’m saying that people are disappointing then it means they’re less than my expectation and thus not confirming anything.
In contrast, you confirm the expectations I have developed of you in particular with each successive reply.
- Comment on Jury unanimously acquits Churchill statue spray-painter 1 week ago:
Luckily that’s not what I believe. But people in this particular thread have been incredibly disappointing
- Comment on Jury unanimously acquits Churchill statue spray-painter 1 week ago:
No individual really has any way to discern the two, from their own perspective. Except in retrospect, anyway. One can only guess, based on an assessment of one’s own general intelligence and linguistic facility. Which obviously is not something you, an internet stranger, have any access to.
- Comment on Jury unanimously acquits Churchill statue spray-painter 1 week ago:
No. What I expect is that if someone is coming at something from a wildly different perspective than the status quo - for example, “judges shouldn’t be allowed to prevent juries from hearing anything from a defendant,” then they be able to present literally any argument for that. I’ve had dozens of replies in this thread that either could not do that or could not articulate why that was not their perspective.
Instead, they want to take it as read that the status quo is wrong. The status quo could very well be wrong but everyone who has come to that conclusion through actual reason rather than unexamined emotion can say why. Of the dozens of replies I think only one person demonstrated that ability.
