Originally Posted by Soldier Boy (Post 11460939)

I'm all for a benevolent meritocracy personally :flutter:. Democracy doesn't really work.

However.

Currently, the money in politics simply isn't good enough to attract real talent. So you only get three types of people

1) People who are actually not top of their field at all
2) People who are independently wealthy and don't need the salary (hello Tories)
3) People who are in it for ideological reasons, could make more money elsewhere but will take a pay cut to try to make a difference.


...and #3 will discover quite quickly that they can't make any meaningful difference whatsoever in our current political system, so will abandon politics for either a more comfortable life or to work in the not-for-profit 3rd sector where they can at least make a SMALL difference to real people's lives.

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy (Post 11460901)

I agree on principle that legal consequences should only be for extreme cases.

What I find hilarious is that certain people now believe that they should have speech free from social consequences as well. This has never existed. You can't have your cake and eat it too - if you want a world where free speech is upheld without the law interfering, you have to accept that groups of individuals also have the freedom to act on what's been said, i.e. boycotting, refusal of entry, social exclusion.

In "primitive times" a wee bit too much free speech would just have got you clubbed across the head :joker:.

Where on earth did the entitled idea that people should be able to run their mouth with ZERO consequences come from? :joker:

tl;dr "Free speech without government control", yes 100%.

But "Talk sh** get hit" -- :shrug: that's nature, bro. If you keep saying things people don't like, it's going to bite you, so you weigh up how much flak you're willing to take and act accordingly. Surely.

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy (Post 11460912)

The only alternative is to have government-protected free speech "for some" as opposed to government denial of free speech "for some" and at the end of the day, what's the difference?

The line obviously should be physical retaliation, and the threat of physical retaliation, but it seems that there are an awful lot of people who don't like vocal retaliation or non-violent activism either and get very huffy/teary about not being able to "say what they want" without anyone getting mad at them and saying nasty mean things :worry:. Which is so gosh darned childish it's genuinely sad, and endlessly ironic :umm2:.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 11461330)

it really shouldn't matter who is the most personable/charismatic leader. I would be happy with one that is half way competent

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 11461330)

it really shouldn't matter who is the most personable/charismatic leader. I would be happy with one that is half way competent

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock (Post 11461337)

I think that it should be about who can get wet.

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 11461353)

you have to accept that groups of individuals also have the freedom to act on what's been said, i.e. boycotting, refusal of entry, social exclusion...



No blacks no Irish...is that what you are willing to accept @Soldier Boy

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy (Post 11461355)

You don't think there's a difference between social exclusion based on someone's immutable characteristics, and social exclusion based on someone's words, actions and behaviours?

Well...thats telling, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Zizu (Post 11461352)

Boris Johnson !!

Helping to clean out a lake !’

You won’t see the charlatans getting wet or filthy !!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d28d42da2e.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro