Slashdot Mirror

I'll concede that perhaps some clearer wording might help allay some concerns, and that it could be misinterpreted.

Of course clearer wording would be great. By the way, roughly 30 percent of women ages 18 to 24 consider winking at them as sexual harassment, source https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017...

Its a pretty interesting chart - if a bit weird in layout. So I'm not completely certain that this is a edge case as you might suggest. Is Yougov UK a fringe group? Looks like something to avoid, I think you would agree.

Scotland is 10% of the UK population. It would be fucking retarded for Scotland to leave the UK because of EU membership when Scotland does 4 x the business with the UK than it does with the EU. But that appears to be the SNP position. Of course the SNP doesn't give a shit about EU membership, they're just looking for levers to force Scotland out of the UK. Unfortunately for them the polls on independence aren't budging.

There was an unprecedent 4% swing in the polls from two weeks before the poll to the results on the day.

I'll note that the person claiming "This is utter horseshit" is the same person who thinks you can prove there was an "unprecedent 4% swing" by comparing an opinion poll to the actual result.

I've got news for you; that isn't remotely legitimate. Pre-election polls are notorious for getting things wrong, and frequently do. Even if the answers given were 100% truthful and reflective of how they'd actually have voted on that particular day (#), it's notoriously difficult for pollsters to get a completely representative, unbiased cross-section.

Given that the final on-the-day YouGov poll before the election also predicted a 52/48 outcome in favour of remain, do you think *that* indicated a genuine 4% swing between then and the election itself?

Or, more likely, that the polls got it wrong?

Some of your other points are more reasonable, but while it's clear that age wasn't the *only* factor- and that I never claimed that every older voter was a "Leave" supporter nor every younger one a "Remain"- most surveys indicate that in general and everything else being equal- "Leave" support tended to increase with voter age.

(#) Something I'll note not only requires the person saying it to be truthful, but to know for sure how they'd vote if they were genuinely in the ballot box making that decision rather than answering someone in the street, on the phone or wherever.

"The ones who marked it troll are probably jealous of his wealth, which is stupid because there're plenty of other reasons to dislike the man."

Actually to be honest, I think it was completely unrelated and it's the same reason a number of my posts have been downmodded in the last 24 hours. A bunch of real actual fascists got angry because I confronted them with facts:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

As is usual for fascists, they get a bit upset when confronted with reality and go on their little censorship sprees - I don't think my downmodding in this thread was anything to do with what I said in this thread for what it's worth but the more general down-modding I received for explaining why UKIP fascists are wrong with facts and figures.

The amusing thing is that they think that censoring random people on the internet will actually change the fact they're wrong, they'll keep telling us about how right they are, how important they are, and yet their grand dictator Farage will still keep failing to get elected regardless, though he'll still keep coming back of course because he's the world's sorest loser in the politics game and not a man of his word. Luckily as any UKIP conference will show you these people are nearly all dead, so we wont have to put up with them much longer and no one will give a shit about them and their views when they're 6 foot under. They're also mostly poor underachievers, so maybe they are also jealous of people like Bill Gates too mind you:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013...

Only 23% earn more than combined £40k a year in their household (this threshold is below the national average for a household), 71% are over 50, over half have no qualifications past GCSE level (you finish GCSEs at 16), not even A-Level and a mere 13% have a degree.

Yeah, actually, I think your jealousy theory probably does have some relevance to them after all :)

Let's try looking at this another way. What you're saying is:

• Wage discrimination is based on sex is a problem
• Wage discrimination is based on looks, not qualifications
• Wage discrimination is based on health and social status.

Seems the whole "don't judge a book by its cover" thing just doesn't work, and employers are missing out on many applicants, including those who are more qualified than the ones they eventually hire.

Now to deal with your "piece de resistance", or more appropriately "piece de merdre":

M2F is usually not done well. You can't really take a 6'4 230 guy and make him a cute girl - certainly not without a budget much bigger than most trans have. Everyone is going to see an ugly woman who is trying to "trick" the instincts we are evolved to have as mammals.

According to the CDC, the average height of males is 5'9". A 95 percentile height is 6'1. 97th percentile height is 6'2. Your 6'4" example is under 1% of the male population.

The "ideal heights" for both sexes, according to the opposite sex, women want men at 5''11, and men want women at 5'6. That 5'6 is a couple of inches higher than the average woman. Now throw in the range that men find acceptable in a woman:

a partner becomes too short at 4’11” and too tall at 6’.

The vast majority of male-to-female transsexuals meet those criteria easily when we start transitioning. Now throw in the effects of hormone replacement therapy over a few years, which can result in a loss of height and smaller foot size. For example, I started out as just under 5'9", and I'm now 5'6". My shoe size went from a men's size 9 to a woman's size 8.5 to 9, depending on the shoe, which is equivalent to a men's size 7 to 7-1/2. That's a difference of 4 cm or more.

Heck, after a few years on hormones, I stopped using makeup because I no longer needed it. It's called "passing privilege", so most of us will not be, in your words, " an ugly woman who is trying to "trick" the instincts we are evolved to have as mammals." You've almost certainly run unto us without knowing it.

In other words, the discrimination against trans women is at least partially due to a combination of being a woman and, in many cases, either not being able to use our former job history and qualifications without outing ourselves, or documentation that hasn't had the gender marker updated, because of transphobia among potential employers and co-workers.

How do you think you would do if you couldn't point to your previous work experience and credentials?

but dislikes what the European people have their pan-European coalition doing;

What the EU is doing has nothing to do with the people's will.

Merkel is elected. Hollande is elected. Cameron is elected.

You'll note the most pro-austerity one of the bunch (Merkel) is probably the only one who get to 50% in a national confidence vote. Hollande has followed in the tradition of French Presidents who are loved for three months and then hated forever, and Cameron got his majority by collapse of the LibDems nationally and Labour in Scotland.

Again, a clear 60s parallel. The people are consistently voting against you, and you're arguing that's because they've been brainwashed.

Do you consider yourself a member of the Vanguard Party, Comrade? Thinking deep thoughts about the future of things in your own room, coming to conclusions, and then simply knowing that five years from now everyone will agree because you;re never wrong?

meetings consist of a) 50-somethings and b) artists whose entire ouvre is designed around the principle of pissing the median voter off.

Observation of Corbyn's huge rallies indicates that his supporters are of all ages and types.

We'll see how long that lasts. Corbynmania happened at a time when what most people knew about him was that he opposed austerity, and was as different from the establishment as humanly possible. But the establishment was selected by the people in previous elections, which means quite a few of his anti-establishment opinions aren't very popular.

For example, Nuclear Disarmament polls at under a quarter in the UK.

Before I heard Corbyn was a nuclear disarmament/EU-skeptical dinosaur.

Just because your favoured policies are different from Corbyn's doesn't make Corbyn wrong, let along "a dinosaur". Neither nuclear weapon nor EU arguments belong in the past. They are very important issues of the past, present and future. People who talk of political dinosaurs are simply demonstrating their own political blinkers.

The idea that British nuclear weapons are a "bargaining chip" against Russia is nonsense. Russia only does these trade offs with America, not Britain. We're too insignificant a nuclear power to bother with.

It's not a matter of whether I favor them.

My problem is that these are arguments my parent's generation made, and lost. Rather then do the adult thing, and conclude the people disagree with him and therefore further fighting on the issue is a non-productive waste of time, Corbyn insists on continuing the fight. that's charming in a quirky uncle/Prince Charles sort of way; but it's an absolute fucking disaster in a political leader.

As for who Russia does these trades with, that's the kind of thinking that led Blair into becoming Dubya's poodle.

Do you mean the first link given in the post or the link to the "See the survey details and full results here" link which goes to http://today.yougov.co.uk/pdfarchives/filtering-pornography/?

I get a zero-sized reply from that link which doesn't look like it's been blocked (although you were probably joking).

The problem isn't the politicians' lack of intelligence, but the fact that their motives aren't aligned with what I want

FTFY. Your post is pure wishful thinking, Actually, when asked, the British public are widely supportive of ISP-level filtering to block pornography. The most on-point survey I can dig up[1] is from 2010, but shows that, even though only 16% of people think that a filter would be effective at blocking pornography and 60% think it would be relatively easy for technically-able people to circumvent it, still 60% of people supported a filter and only 22% opposed it.

So, actually, the politicians are doing what they should - implementing the will of the majority of the people. You don't like it personally? Tough.

That same survey, by the way, showed more support for an opt-out (ie default-on) filter than for an opt-in one, though other surveys have shown the other way around.

[1] http://yougov.co.uk/news/2010/12/22/pornography-protection/

A YouGov poll from the end of last year asked:

Q. Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be regulated?

And 79% said that they would like "an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct" (ie what we've got).

Is it "what we've got?" I think this legislation will do almost all of the above. It's the "independent" part that is an open question.

Q. Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be regulated?

And 79% said that they would like "an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct" (ie what we've got).

Albeit this is a poll and not a democratic process, but the democratic process is there (people vote for a Government, the Government enacts runs independent reviews, the recommendations are enacted upon). The only way this process could have been undemocratic is if an unelected body (like The Press) decided that it should be that way (like they did before).