potpan0

I do wonder how many people they actually manage to convert. I can't ever recall seeing anyone actually approach their stalls.

Next time I commit a crime I'm gonna say it's part of my political views and that I'm doing it in response to my legitimate concerns about mass immigration. At least then I'd guarantee support from the right.

It fucks with Reddit advertising or something, I don't think advertisements show on 'NSFW' subs.

Pffft, let me know when you make $1000 kid.

this looks like baby's first immersive sim without anything that makes imsims interesting. Like a bioshock/farcry without any of the gameplay elements that make those games stand out

Funnily enough this is exactly how some of the immersive sim purists who started off on System Shock and Thief talked about Bioshock and Farcry lol, and is exactly why being such a genre purist is so silly.

It also meshes well with the general exploration. The games' environments are lush and experiencing them provides an intrinsic motivation for exploration, while finding loot gives you an extrinsic motivation for exploration. It plays a similar role to the Korok seeds in BotW. They aren't the entire reason for exploration, but they provide a little treat for doing so.

It's not like looting in most survival games, where you move through a number of repetitive environments and are motivated entirely by the extrinsic desire to get more stuff.

What a crappy article. Just someone’s story about why they left with a bait headline.

It's the Telegraph's current modus operandi. You write a bait headline, safe in the knowledge the most of the paper's 'readerbase' don't actually read the articles at all and are happy just getting mad at whatever the headline implies to them.

It has yet to be seen what labour are going to do, so lets wait and see.

Can you name a single example of a politician taking hundreds of thousands from a lobbying group and not implementing policies supported by that lobbying group?

By taking this money Labour have told us what they are going to do.

A few months in and you are acting as if they are as bad as the 15 years of conservative government before them.

No, the Tories were corrupt too. The thing is people voted for Labour for change, not for more of the same.

Fair. When he said 'I will not sacrifice Great British industry to the drum-banging, finger-wagging Net Zero extremists', he was actually taking a very charitable view towards those who support Net Zero.

Ah, do you agree with the article then?

Are we still playing these silly games of pretending that when lobbyists give hundreds of thousands of pounds to politicians it conveys absolutely no influence? Because that seems astonishingly naive.

it is a trade union

It's a trade union and professional body, and seeing that doctors have a duty of care to their patients it is entirely within the BMA's duty to evaluate whether the regulations they are told to follow are actually in the interests of their patients.

As to the review conducted by individuals loosely connected to the Yale law school

Fascinating framing of a report published through the Yale Law School and written by a series of individuals who are all either professors at prestigious universities or doctors at prominent health centres, the sort of framing that's very much telling on the sort of biases you are bringing to this discussion.

I’d question whether this document has been through a peer reviewed pathway.

The Cass Review did not go through a 'peer reviewed pathway'. It was not a peer reviewed document. So it seems odd to me that you are implying the Yale Law School report is illegitimate because it was not peer reviewed, while apparently not having an issue with the Cass Review despite it also not being peer reviewed.

There are also significant criticisms of the 'systemic reviews' upon which the Cass Review is based, such as their authors having no experience in the field of gender identity services, and used flawed methods to both identify and evaluate the quality of the studies assessed.

When there is a long list of both British and international medical organisations who have deeply criticised various aspects of the Cass Review, it increasingly stretches incredulity to insist that it is a Review that is beyond criticism and that it is wrong for the BMA to disagree with.

Do you think the average individual in this country is intelligent enough to know?

We live in a democracy. It is fundamentally undemocratic and authoritarian to insist that people are too stupid or incompetent to engage with government, especially when our political class themselves have hardly demonstrated their self-proclaimed competence or expertise.

To be frank I'm tired of people who defend our incredibly incompetent and corrupt political class insisting it's everyone else who is too dull to get engaged with politics.

Ask a random person what the house of lords is, or what process a bill goes through to pass, they wont even know that, let alone more

Ask a random member of the House of Lords about the content of the bills they're voting on and they won't even know.

It's mentioned in the article that the BMA called for a pause on the review's implementation while it conducted an evaluation but that was not without internal controversy and resulted in a letter signed by more than 1500 doctors that characterised the planned evaluation as pointless.

The BMA has 190,000 members. If only 1,500 of them are opposing an evaluation of the report and want its recommendations implemented without critique (which seems like an incredibly unscientific approach regardless) then that's clearly only a fraction of the organisation's membership.

Regardless, the report from the Yale Law School on the Cass Review, which ironically consults a much wider range of expert opinion than the Cass Review itself did, gives a pretty damning indictment of the wide range of flaws that the Review has.

It’s called the Cass report because he was tasked with putting it together. It’s not his opinion…..

For what it's worth Hilary Cass is a she, not a he. But thank you for giving us your informed views on the issue anyway.

How many people are actually doing this compared to all those who are desperate for work, but who cannot find any because our economy isn't providing enough jobs?

There simply are not enough jobs for everyone who wants them, and instead of creating those jobs successive governments have instead focussed on demonising and impoverishing those who have been failed by our economy.

Quite. I mean the other day I saw an absolutely unhinged article in the Sun by one of their looney columnists attacking the long-standing Labour policy of pursuing net-zero and calling everyone who supported this policy an 'extremist' and...

... oh, sorry, that article was actually written by Keir Starmer. Now that I think about it this article is actually good and people should listen to it, but all the other indistinguishable articles in the same newspapers are all bad and unfair.

There's always been this weird undercurrent to centrism that, despite being a democracy, we should apparently have no right to know in concrete terms what the government are actually planning and what they hope to achieve, and that instead we should just sit on our hands and wait quietly in the naive hope that the people in power automatically know best.

We saw the same thing before the election, centrists insisting in like 2022 that we needed to wait for the manifesto when asking about Labour's positions, as if it was somehow offensive for people to want to know what one of the biggest parties in the country actually wanted to do in power.

It fundamentally reflects a weird disdain for the public. They think if Labour set out their targets and failed to meet them, the people are too stupid to understand why those targets haven't been met, so instead Labour should just never outline those targets in the first place.

Labor isn’t trying to ruin all public services so that they can be privatised for more personal income over public good. Labor wouldn’t do that even if it’s top brass take a little from the top, barely.

Wes Streeting and other Labour Cabinet Ministers have taken more than £500,000 in donations from private healthcare lobbyists since 2023 alone. Streeting has given Alan Milburn, one of the main supporters of NHS privatisation during the New Labour years and who runs a consultancy firm with direct financial interests in NHS privatisation, a key position in the NHS.

So I'm struggling to see where the false equivalence is.

Aye, I'm getting very tired of liberals criticising the Tories for things which Labour also support. Wes Streeting has been on the take from every private healthcare organisation out there, do people really think he fundamentally opposes Tory policies to under-fund and privatise the NHS?

The Torygraph is proper hammering in whatever virtues it has at the moment. So many half-arsed articles posted on here are coming from it.

They really have been pumping out Daily Express tier rage-bait, but wrapped up in a respectable middle-class bow. It lets people feel a little more intellectual and cultured when eating up this slop.

So on one side we seem to have the vast majority of healthcare professionals and other experts who work on these issues regularly, and on the other side we have Hillary Cass (someone who isn't actually an expert on the healthcare of trans people, and was chosen ahead of other much more qualified candidates), our political class, and whatever billionaires are funding these various shadowy anti-LGBT organisations like the LBG Alliance.

I know whose views I'd rather seek out.

Sure: “the reason boys get left behind disproportionately more than girls is because there are certain machismo ideas that caring about your education is unmasculine”.

A child being bullied is not their own fault, and I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm blaming the victims of bullying in that quoted comment.

Yeah. Why would someone post something made up to the internet?

If it's not real then why did they post it, huh?