4 ms·

That comparison is not only highly inaccurate, it’s also harmful in that it distracts from the real problem at hand. Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal di

That comparison is not only highly inaccurate, it’s also harmful in that it distracts from the real problem at hand. Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal dictators. You don’t need to like Starmer, but he’s none of that. He’s a proper democrat. The implication that they’re all somewhat the same delegitimises democracies and legitimises these dictators. That’s how they win. I personally don’t think UK’s age verification thing is a good idea. I like Germany‘s idea of mandating PC and smartphone manufacturers to put simple parental controls in thar parents, not the central government, can enable for their kids. I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Let’s see where that leads. I don’t live there but am very excited for rhe outcome of that experiment. We can’t just sit here and simplify everything to black and white while Russian troll farms polarise our societies. We bear some responsibility here to have a nuanced debate about these things.

wartywhoa23 10mo ago
> I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Talking about ruthless dictators and true democrats in the same post.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Banning children from accessing things proven to be harmful to children does not a dictator make. Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol.
  - wartywhoa23 10mo ago
    > Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol Why? I don't have a threshold at 127 in my luminance channel. Just a reminder - what children are allowed or not is not any government's business, it's parents' one. Which requires tearing their asses off from sofas and their eyes from screens and actually talk to their children and be in the know of their circles and activities.
    - immibis 10mo ago
      I'm glad you agree that if a child happens to be born to parents who aren't very good at parenting, they deserve to suffer. Basically if a child's parents smoke around them and give them lung cancer, all we should do is yell at them and moan on the internet, not actually do anything (via the government) to prevent it. Nothing you've said contradicts that you think the government should not forbid children from buying alcohol. Social media appears to be more harmful to a child than low quantities of alcohol, but less harmful than lung cancer.
      - wartywhoa23 10mo ago
        I recommend you studying some history, especially that of Germany since 1920 till 1945, to help yourself part with the illusion that the government's overreaching care has anything to do with actual care, and to finally grok the essense of the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
        immibis 10mo ago
        Oh yeah. A government did bad things, therefore, everything a government does is bad. Impeccable logic.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
cs02rm0 10mo ago
> He’s a proper democrat. The same Starmer who's cancelled local elections? Who's not looked at the polls and thought maybe it's time to go, because the demos clearly don't want me? The same Starmer who said no rise in NI in the manifesto, only to increase NI? The same Starmer who raised the threshold of votes required for an MP from within the Labour party to challenge his leadership? He's no proper democrat. People are already talking about the rhetoric being used around war with Russia as laying the foundations for removing a 2029 general election.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  > The same Starmer who's cancelled local elections? False: https://fullfact.org/online/council-elections-war-cancelled/ https://fullfact.org/online/council-elections-war-cancelled/ > Who's not looked at the polls and thought maybe it's time to go, because the demos clearly don't want me? You seem to have missed the "did actually win power" and "this is how democracy works in the UK" parts. I agree he should go, but I could say that about all of the UK politicians, they're all negative approval: https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/favourability-ratings https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/favourability-ratings > The same Starmer who raised the threshold of votes required for an MP from within the Labour party to challenge his leadership? From 10% of the MPs to 20% of the MPs. As challengers would have to, you know, get more MPs than him to win, the only thing going from 10% to 20% is to have less pointless drama. > People are already talking about the rhetoric being used around war with Russia as laying the foundations for removing a 2029 general election. First I've heard of that. Would be exceptionally dumb for a UK politician to do on purpose for the same reason that it would be correct to cancel elections in the event of such a war: the UK is not even remotely close to being ready to battle Russia. UK armed forces are just about big enough to keep the nuclear weapons safe, not much more besides that.
  - pclmulqdq 10mo ago
    So per your source, he did cancel local elections at a time where it is politically favorable for him to do so?
    - 10mo ago
JuniperMesos 10mo ago
> Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal dictators. You don’t need to like Starmer, but he’s none of that. He’s a proper democrat. The implication that they’re all somewhat the same delegitimises democracies and legitimises these dictators. That’s how they win. Someone who is a citizen of the UK who has no connection to Iran or Russia is legitimately much more concerned with the ways in which Starmer governs the UK, than in whether Putin or Khamenei "win". I don't even disagree with you that Putin and Khamenei are ruthless dictators, and certainly plenty of people in Russia or Iran or countries in the Russian or Iranians sphere of influence have plenty of good reasons to politically oppose both those dictators. But a democratically-elected official can wield the power of the state against you and harm your interests just as much as a dictator can, and people in the UK who oppose Starmer and his party shouldn't let up in that opposition just because it makes Starmer seem closer to Putin or Khamenei than Starmer's supporters would like.
- kolektiv 10mo ago
  > a democratically-elected official can wield the power of the state against you and harm your interests just as much as a dictator can Really? Can they? Because in a functioning democracy you generally have recourse to courts, tertiary adjudication of various forms, a (relatively) free press that you can try and interest in taking up your story, etc. In a brutal dictatorship you're likely to have none of those, and to go missing in the night if you try and suggest that you should. It's absolutely right to oppose politicians you disagree with - that's what political engagement is all about! But beyond a certain level, hyperbole (and the general sense of "they're all the same") simply does serve to undermine not just democracy, but any rationale for political engagement vs. simple rioting.
RobotToaster 10mo ago
> He’s a proper democrat. Cancelling elections and mass arrests of people protesting against genocide is your idea of a "proper democrat"?

wartywhoa23 10mo ago

> I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Talking about ruthless dictators and true democrats in the same post.

immibis 10mo ago
Banning children from accessing things proven to be harmful to children does not a dictator make. Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol.
- wartywhoa23 10mo ago
  > Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol Why? I don't have a threshold at 127 in my luminance channel. Just a reminder - what children are allowed or not is not any government's business, it's parents' one. Which requires tearing their asses off from sofas and their eyes from screens and actually talk to their children and be in the know of their circles and activities.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    I'm glad you agree that if a child happens to be born to parents who aren't very good at parenting, they deserve to suffer. Basically if a child's parents smoke around them and give them lung cancer, all we should do is yell at them and moan on the internet, not actually do anything (via the government) to prevent it. Nothing you've said contradicts that you think the government should not forbid children from buying alcohol. Social media appears to be more harmful to a child than low quantities of alcohol, but less harmful than lung cancer.
    - wartywhoa23 10mo ago
      I recommend you studying some history, especially that of Germany since 1920 till 1945, to help yourself part with the illusion that the government's overreaching care has anything to do with actual care, and to finally grok the essense of the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
      - immibis 10mo ago
        Oh yeah. A government did bad things, therefore, everything a government does is bad. Impeccable logic.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

cs02rm0 10mo ago

> He’s a proper democrat. The same Starmer who's cancelled local elections? Who's not looked at the polls and thought maybe it's time to go, because the demos clearly don't want me? The same Starmer who said no rise in NI in the manifesto, only to increase NI? The same Starmer who raised the threshold of votes required for an MP from within the Labour party to challenge his leadership? He's no proper democrat. People are already talking about the rhetoric being used around war with Russia as laying the foundations for removing a 2029 general election.

ben_w 10mo ago
> The same Starmer who's cancelled local elections? False: https://fullfact.org/online/council-elections-war-cancelled/ https://fullfact.org/online/council-elections-war-cancelled/ > Who's not looked at the polls and thought maybe it's time to go, because the demos clearly don't want me? You seem to have missed the "did actually win power" and "this is how democracy works in the UK" parts. I agree he should go, but I could say that about all of the UK politicians, they're all negative approval: https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/favourability-ratings https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/favourability-ratings > The same Starmer who raised the threshold of votes required for an MP from within the Labour party to challenge his leadership? From 10% of the MPs to 20% of the MPs. As challengers would have to, you know, get more MPs than him to win, the only thing going from 10% to 20% is to have less pointless drama. > People are already talking about the rhetoric being used around war with Russia as laying the foundations for removing a 2029 general election. First I've heard of that. Would be exceptionally dumb for a UK politician to do on purpose for the same reason that it would be correct to cancel elections in the event of such a war: the UK is not even remotely close to being ready to battle Russia. UK armed forces are just about big enough to keep the nuclear weapons safe, not much more besides that.
- pclmulqdq 10mo ago
  So per your source, he did cancel local elections at a time where it is politically favorable for him to do so?
  - 10mo ago

JuniperMesos 10mo ago

> Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal dictators. You don’t need to like Starmer, but he’s none of that. He’s a proper democrat. The implication that they’re all somewhat the same delegitimises democracies and legitimises these dictators. That’s how they win. Someone who is a citizen of the UK who has no connection to Iran or Russia is legitimately much more concerned with the ways in which Starmer governs the UK, than in whether Putin or Khamenei "win". I don't even disagree with you that Putin and Khamenei are ruthless dictators, and certainly plenty of people in Russia or Iran or countries in the Russian or Iranians sphere of influence have plenty of good reasons to politically oppose both those dictators. But a democratically-elected official can wield the power of the state against you and harm your interests just as much as a dictator can, and people in the UK who oppose Starmer and his party shouldn't let up in that opposition just because it makes Starmer seem closer to Putin or Khamenei than Starmer's supporters would like.

kolektiv 10mo ago
> a democratically-elected official can wield the power of the state against you and harm your interests just as much as a dictator can Really? Can they? Because in a functioning democracy you generally have recourse to courts, tertiary adjudication of various forms, a (relatively) free press that you can try and interest in taking up your story, etc. In a brutal dictatorship you're likely to have none of those, and to go missing in the night if you try and suggest that you should. It's absolutely right to oppose politicians you disagree with - that's what political engagement is all about! But beyond a certain level, hyperbole (and the general sense of "they're all the same") simply does serve to undermine not just democracy, but any rationale for political engagement vs. simple rioting.

RobotToaster 10mo ago

> He’s a proper democrat. Cancelling elections and mass arrests of people protesting against genocide is your idea of a "proper democrat"?