Jaccident

The two guys responding to the “rip it down” chant are lucky the rigger that mounted that banner took his job seriously. Pulling a rolling projector screen down on your head is going to end you up in A&E.

It’s a pretty common misconception; especially because it makes a certain sense!

I think you may have misunderstood. Rolling stock means just the physical trains themselves. The franchises (one of the two major profit extraction points) will go. The rolling stock firms will still exist but after a time be negotiating with a unified British Rail with a unified plan to negotiate prices.

This is a point I hadn’t considered, and a good one at that.

I also considered that there is decent amounts of rolling stock that need modernisation, and a push to remove diesel locomotives from remaining routes; both might be opportunities for BR to buy their own stock, in place of rentals.

I think that’s part of the joke too. Like the whole comic has been written out of order due to race conditions; rather than just the father represents race conditions.

It’s one degree of humour too far though, if that’s the case, doesn’t really land.

We’re one of the only places in the world with Privatised water, and we’re doing a dramatic reenactment of the case study of why it’s not a good idea.

I don’t defend the decision; but when it was enacted it did work; in exactly and only that specific circumstance, for an exceptionally short period of time. It offloaded a comparatively small bill to the private sector, in exchange for the monopolies; a terrible idea IMHO.

I liken it to a house move. If I must pay removal people, I can either pay them what they ask, or burn everything I own and save on the price of the movers. Burning everything might save me money during moving week, but after that one initial saving, I will be paying ungodly amounts to repurchase everything I burned.

What part of my comments were deceptive? I didn’t comment on the law, or the scientific “conjecture” on both sides. I encouraged a user to be upset that someone told them an obvious lie; I even pointed out that they don’t have to be pro-trans to be angered by that. I’m not a mob, I’m not outraged, I’m irked on principle that obvious claptrap is being used as a tool to bamboozle those with less time to think about things. If the strength of scientific conjecture was so strong surely the debate could rest on actual science, not proposing disingenuous sub-ethical studies. I didn’t comment on any of what you’ve accused me of…until now.

The reason it can’t is stand on its own scientific merits is because, though it would be great for anti-trans campaigners if it did, the science doesn’t really back their view-point of “gender realism”. It’s not a scientific debate, it’s one of social and emotive balance. I think that trans-men are men, and trans-women are women; both as it costs me nothing to recognise this, and because the science of “gendered brains” doesn’t slightly support the notion that gonad sex, and gender, are 1:1 aligned.

Frankly the irony of you coming in and accusing me of being an outraged mob is ridiculous. The only mob antics on display are yours, strawmanning and accusing me of things simply not present in my post.

Rishi wouldn’t put Truss or Boris there after the month they’ve had. May could get one, but I think that would anger a lot of Brexiteers who blame May for some of their woes.

You should do though. Not necessarily on the topic, but a group who definitely know what you were just told when they spouted off about the lack of evidence, effectively tried to gaslight you with “scientific process”.

I think we need to normalise being pissed off at being lied to like this. You don’t need to become a pro-trans advocate but you can still say “fuck’em” to the people demonstrably deceiving you.

Let’s fuck shit up is code for keep Rishi in power*.

(*kidding **)

(**kinda)

In the big old house of fun!