hypochondriac

What discussion needs to be had and what action is being proposed? The mood music I have seen so far is about age verification for social media and eventually having a digital ID for Internet access which is an appaling idea. A wider conversation about not demonising masculinity, about removing a culture that sees white working class boys in particular as inherently evil or a problem that need to be fixed, removing the idea that men not being able to cry is the biggest problem and that if only men could sit around and discuss their feelings at every opportunity that will lead to the solution. Idw like a discussion about how ridiculous it is that schools are now having to potty train children, teach them to speak and now giving them breakfast, lunch and dinner as well as teaching them how to behave with the role of the parent effectively reduced in almost every circumstance. Those conversations aren't the ones the government wants to have though, they want to shove a well acted drama about 'toxic masculinity' in your faces saying that young white boys are the major problem and then use that drama to further their agenda for Internet censorship, further control of lives, more stories of young boys being evil, more misandy simply for existing, no talk of how schools are setup to penalise boys and how feminised society is now in general which disadvantages young males for all sorts of reasons. That's why I object to this because the government has no interest in the actual conversation that they should have.

My objection is using a fictional drama in order to promote Internet censorship that the government wanted to implement anyway as well as inviting adult pretenders to assist in formulating policy as if they are experts in the subject. I have a similar objection when victims of crime are asked to do the same thing for the same reasons.

When you see shit like this it's hard to not be extremely cynical and think this was the plan all along. The nudge unit in full swing

Agree with the first part. Not sure tax the rich and more politics of envy is going to do anything positive.

Personally I think Dibling would greatly benefit from a season in the championship but he's obviously going to move on in the summer and we will get a load of money for him so you can't complain too much.

Wasn't a huge fan of that show to be honest. Just another way of calling young working class white men bad and dangerous. Parents need to take more responsibility in general for their children, instead the state increasingly does more of the parenting on behalf of the parents. Regarding boys feeling unloved and angry at the world, I think being kinder to these types of people will help. Messaging that portrays them as wrong for being who they are or shoving them into feminised spaces where their natural instincts are suppressed and where they are told that success is to sit still, be compliant and studious is a big part of the problem.

It's OK to be white whelk.

Don't disagree with that but then people weren't so keen on that argument when players were kneeling all over the place for months on end because some black man died in America.

Fuck off keep your mouth shut! I ignored your posts for over a year without ever responding to you and you constantly wrote posts about me and even started threads talking about me. The last thing you've ever done is keep your mouth shut.

I watched Bob Dylan at the guildhall a few years ago and I can honestly say it was the worst gig I've ever been to.

This is likely to be the worst we will ever perform in the premier league. Statistically if we ever get back here we probably won't ever be as bad again. Next year will be loads more fun and we can enjoy being a big club and expect to win most games. Multiple games a week mean that any poor performances are soon forgotten as you have a new game to make amends a few days later.

Personally I think if we'd have had an experienced manager setting us up properly from the start of the season we'd be going down still but we would definitely have made more of a fight of it. Yes we aren't good enough but we are a poor group of players for this level who have been mismanaged terribly.

You buy a ticket to gain access to a seat in a stadium on match day and watch a game for 90 minutes plus stoppage time. You've received that so not sure why you think you'd be entitled to any sort of refund for that. You aren't entitled to good performances or results no matter how much you pay. Regarding being awful, there's still a chance that Leeds fail to get promoted this year. If that happens then I know whose position I'd rather be in next season despite the abject failure.

If you no longer support Hamas due to their terrorism then you're not a current member or supporter of a terrorist organisation are you. Not sure why that's hard.

Since when has committing terrorism been a legitimate political policy espoused by a party? That's ridiculous, akin to saying that ordinary Germans who voted for the Nazis bear no culpability for their acts. You could make a defence at the start that someone voted for Hamas without knowing they were explicitly terrorist but at this point it's indisputable and continuing to be a member of their group makes them undeniably terrorist supporters.

So again, by that definition the bbc would never be able to describe anyone as a terrorist ever because someone somewhere doesn't believe them to be. If members of IS don't consider themselves to be terrorists then they aren't right?

I'm saying that all those who support a terrorist organisation are terrorist supporters. If Labour was frequently committing acts of terror then those voting for them would be supporting terrorism. It's not like you could just wave it away by saying something like "well I like their financial policies." that's like voting for Mussolini's Fascists and then excusing yourself because you only voted for them because the trains ran on time.

That makes zero sense. If you support Hamas you are a terrorist supporter unless you have been forced to support them against your will in which case there's a line of thought that you never supported them in the first place. That is unambiguous and clear and you wouldn't be trying to muddy the waters if it were other proscribed terrorist organisations.

The team is going to be utterly unrecognisable next year. No point throwing kids in, most players who play now won't be here next year and those who are should look half decent with the lower standards.

You wouldn't rely solely on government classifications of course that would be silly but in general it's a fairly reliable guide. I'm very comfortable that Hamas have met a standard to be described as a terrorist organisation and for members to be referred to as either terrorists themselves or terrorist supporters. Quite telling those who seem to have a problem with doing so.

You're a terrorist supporter in that scenario. I'd be satisfied with the BBC referring to Hamas members as terrorist supporters if we want to be pedantic about it.

Untrue. I want to define those who are members of Hamas - a terrorist group - as members of a terrorist group. Supporters of Hamas are terrorist supporters clearly. I'm happy for Hamas members to be referred to as terrorist group members if it's more accurate.

Using that logic can you ever call anyone a terrorist? I'm sure you can find some governments that would never refer to any terrorist organisation as such but that doesn't make it a fact. Not calling a terrorist what they are down plays the seriousness of who they are and in some cases could be viewed as sympathising with them to some degree.

Now you've lost me. If you're a member of a terrorist group then you're a terrorist. There's really no dispute. Hamas are a terrorist group and if you're a member of Hamas then you're a terrorist.

They are terrorists by the definition of the word and are described as such by our government. It's not a matter of opinion.