I think you're missing the point of the original comment. Describing modern conservatism as a disability at once absolves conservatives of their responsibility not to hold abhorrent views, by classing it as a characteristic they have no control over, and lumps people with disabilities into a group that, in a non-insignificant number of cases, wants them dead or sterilised.

That's why the commenter was upset with you; not because you've criticised eugenics, but because you've been massively insensitive, and when someone pointed out that insensitivity you became defensive and attacked them in return.

Some plants the flowers are very pretty, but the whole plant isn't practical to be kept indoors (e.g. roses), and they don't necessarily flower all year round. If someone has a favourite flower or favourite colour of flower, it makes them feel special when someone thinks to buy them for them (they get a flower they love to look at for the next week, and they know that someone cares about them enough to buy them flowers, and keep the knowledge of which like).

To be clear: your interpretation of it is not being defended. People are arguing instead that you've interpreted it wrong -- i.e. that the 'hirelings and slaves' are the British soldiers, being likened to mercenaries (hirelings) and pointing out that they often served unwillingly after being press-ganged (slaves).

I have no skin in the game, but you seem to be taking others' statements in pretty bad faith.

In fairness he probably wasn't expecting to expose his arse tattoos

Don't forget epilators! (For legs etc.). Also have the pain issue, but it does reduce after a few goes at it

The issue is that the use of force is not proportionate. Tasers can and do prove fatal in many cases, and pitch invaders can be dealt with using far less risky methods e.g..

In UK policing there is (supposed to be) a focus on ensuring proportionate use of force where it is necessary, and officers can face significant prison sentences if judged to have gone beyond that and have caused harm as a result.

It's pretty weird that you hold up the fucking lib Dems as your party of radical revolution.

The fact of the matter is that we are never going to get a radical left government, regardless of the voting system. Unless you're spending time in an ivory tower of academia, you will know that the majority of people in this country are centrists of some flavour. Corbyn got massacred at the polls, and he was Labour leader. Going back you've got Foot.

The best we've ever had it is when Atlee, an ex army major who practically ran the home war effort, couched left wing reforms (foundation of the welfare state, nationalisation of coal and rail) as nationalistic. That's how we get these things through. You're never going to change the minds of British people by bombing.

If you're of an anarchist mindset, then it's far more beneficial to vote for harm reduction one day per four years, and organise in parallel outside that

What? House of Lords has no legislative power -- only the power of delay. If anything in recent years they've worked to frustrate the excesses of this Tory government (not that I necessarily approve of the Lords as an institution).

It's got far more to do with a rabid right wing media and a Tory party that builds their election strategy on 'culture war' identity politics over actual policy.

But anyway, reality is that London and Paris have pretty similar levels of transit -- working in transport, my opinion is that it's internal transport links within other cities that need most investment and work.

I don't really agree that discrimination being a punchline of a joke is a bad thing; if anything I think it's helpful to make bigots a laughing stock. It serves the practical purpose of suggesting that this kind of behaviour deserves ostracism, and can cause introspection in those that exhibit that kind of behaviour.

James Acaster's bit on Ricky Gervais is a classic example. The transphobia is the punchline, and forms an integral part of the routine.

And I think I disagree that the male character isn't criticised. Although it's obviously not explicit (the comic writer doesn't explicitly say it's wrong), it is pretty obvious that the behaviour is not to be approved of. You yourself have said you understand that the intent is for him to be the villain of the piece.

I also want to discuss the suggestion that we shouldn't produce media that can be misinterpreted by bigots for their enjoyment. I think there is some truth to that; art criticising toxic masculinity has often been used as a rallying point for it (see Tyler Durden).

But I also think that abandoning spoof and parody (and even just portrayal of real-life bigotry) removes a massive part of our toolkit as writers.

Matt Baume has a great video on the American sitcom 'All in the Family'. One of the characters starts out as a bigot, and indeed many bigoted Americans initially identify with him. But he is made the butt of jokes, and slowly his character changes opinion and is reformed over the course of the series. Baume thinks this may have had a positive impact on gay acceptance in the US.

Anyway: to me the comic is fine. It makes a joke about the guy from castaway having a thing for a volleyball, and how that warps his future relationships.

share this image

And yet if a fancy restaurant does pea puree, people are all over it.

Mushy peas are made from a specific variety (marrowfat) that were selectively bred to be softer and have a nicer texture when pureed. People are just snobby about it, baked beans, and food like it because it's working class food, without being fetishised 'exotic' working class food.

Not if you're a woman. Or if the boobs/pussy belong to a dude