BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[First Aspect]

Lizz Truss.

 

[briantrumpet]

Lizz Truss.

It was the excellent CV that gave it away, wasn't it?

 

[Shortfall]

Wasn't there some kind of weird stuff about an imaginary paedophile ring involving various politicians?

He was one of the people responsible for legitimising stories by the fantasist Carl Beech, along with Mr "How To Be Right" James O'Brien who should really be writing another book called "How To Be Wrong" in light of his championing of Jason Arday.

 

[secretsqirrel]

It was the excellent CV that gave it away, wasn't it?

This bit was genius…
“After 14 years serving Great Britain as Prime Minister……”

 

[briantrumpet]

This bit was genius…
“After 14 years serving Great Britain as Prime Minister……”

I'm wondering if I should rewrite my CV with a similar formulation of starting with "After 25 years serving as..." followed by something I did for a few weeks with catastrophic results and for which the entire population of the UK has been laughing at me (and paying for) ever since.

 

[Ian H]

He was one of the people responsible for legitimising stories by the fantasist Carl Beech, along with Mr "How To Be Right" James O'Brien who should really be writing another book called "How To Be Wrong" in light of his championing of Jason Arday.

Are you referring to the racist pile-on that followed accusations of plagiarism??
[Cofnas] presented what he had discovered as a social media post entitled 'DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge.' The question became not simply whether Arday had plagiarised, but whether Arday was a 'real scholar'. Moreover, the coupling of diversity, equity and inclusion with fraud was already a dog-whistle for Cofnas's underlying prejudice: for him there can be no equality with genetically-determined stupid Black people. The person had begun to replace the offence: and the fact that he was a Black person was material: the quarry was loose—but it was a quarry Cofnas already hunted, a quarry that was already in his sights.
https://willself1.substack.com/p/2089334077635641747

 

[Shortfall]

Are you referring to the racist pile-on that followed accusations of plagiarism??
[Cofnas] presented what he had discovered as a social media post entitled 'DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge.' The question became not simply whether Arday had plagiarised, but whether Arday was a 'real scholar'. Moreover, the coupling of diversity, equity and inclusion with fraud was already a dog-whistle for Cofnas's underlying prejudice: for him there can be no equality with genetically-determined stupid Black people. The person had begun to replace the offence: and the fact that he was a Black person was material: the quarry was loose—but it was a quarry Cofnas already hunted, a quarry that was already in his sights.
https://willself1.substack.com/p/2089334077635641747

No. If some people attacked Jason Arday because they were racists that's for them to explain. There was lots to criticise him for, not just the plagiarism and plenty of people without racist intentions did so. I would also add that the good people of this forum are highly selective about which people it's ok for the mob to go after with pitchforks. For instance Nigel Farage, Matt Goodwin and Graham Linehan seem like they're all fair game for a pile on. Or is that whataboutery?

 

[First Aspect]

It was the excellent CV that gave it away, wasn't it?

I just couldn't think of anyone with worse judgement. Pretty good guess.

 

[Ian H]

No. If some people attacked Jason Arday because they were racists that's for them to explain. There was lots to criticise him for, not just the plagiarism and plenty of people without racist intentions did so. I would also add that the good people of this forum are highly selective about which people it's ok for the mob to go after with pitchforks. For instance Nigel Farage, Matt Goodwin and Graham Linehan seem like they're all fair game for a pile on. Or is that whataboutery?

Did you read the linked article? It's succinct and factual.

 

[briantrumpet]

A thought-provoking piece on immigration:

https://chrisdillow.substack.com/p/on-the-fiscal-costs-of-immigration

The very question of whether migrants contribute to the exchequer therefore misunderstands economics. It treats incomes as the result of individuals’ characteristics rather than as what they actually are - the result of the level of economic development, something that is the emergent product of past decisions.

In this sense, worrying that some migrants won’t pay their way is a displacement activity - an attempt to blame migrants for the failings of British capitalism.

And it’s in bad faith. If it could be shown that migrants did make a net positive contribution to the exchequer, would opposition to immigration disappear?

No. Talk about migrants being a drain on the exchequer is a pseudo-technocratic cover for disliking immigration on other grounds.

Unlike many, I’d concede that some of these grounds are reasonable. It’s reasonable to feel uncomfortable about rapid changes, and the 2.7 million of net immigration we’ve seen in the last five years is indeed a rapid change in society. But it is of course not the only one. There are also, for example, the swathe of pub and shop closures that have worsened many towns. Politicians who were serious about mitigating unsettling changes would give these a priority at least as great as that given to immigration. That they do not points to some less pleasant motives.

And there’s the problem. When we take seriously professed concerns about the exchequer cost of immigration, we are paying too much of a compliment to opponents of immigration.

What’s more, we are conceding defeat in an important battle - that for the agenda. Every good general since Sun Tzu has known that it is important to choose the right terrain on which to fight. The problem for the left (and also for those centrists who are reality-based) is that it is the right that chooses the battleground. It wants to discuss immigration because it doesn’t want to discuss capitalism. We should not let it.

 

[C R]

Did you read the linked article? It's succinct and factual.

Facts have a well known liberal bias and are not to be trusted.

 

[briantrumpet]

Are you referring to the racist pile-on that followed accusations of plagiarism??
[Cofnas] presented what he had discovered as a social media post entitled 'DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge.' The question became not simply whether Arday had plagiarised, but whether Arday was a 'real scholar'. Moreover, the coupling of diversity, equity and inclusion with fraud was already a dog-whistle for Cofnas's underlying prejudice: for him there can be no equality with genetically-determined stupid Black people. The person had begun to replace the offence: and the fact that he was a Black person was material: the quarry was loose—but it was a quarry Cofnas already hunted, a quarry that was already in his sights.
https://willself1.substack.com/p/2089334077635641747

A side question: why does Self insist on using silly words that 99.9% of readers will have no idea what they mean? 'Hebephrenic'? Really?? Why not just say 'lunatic'? It really does put me off reading anything by Self, as it's 'a feature, not a bug' that he deliberately uses silly words.

 

[briantrumpet]

Does anyone know what an 'ament' is without looking it up? I certainly didn't. Maybe I am one.

 

[briantrumpet]

Diploplia.

It's silly, because he makes good points, but then spoils it by saying "Look at what an amazing vocabulary I've got!" In any writing by Self, the only question is how many paragraphs Self can go before dropping one of these silly words into the text.

 

[Shortfall]

Did you read the linked article? It's succinct and factual.

No I didn't but I tried after you prompted me. To be honest I lost the will to live after the first few paragraphs. I think Richard Dawkins covers it more succinctly here.


View: https://x.com/RichardDawkins/status/2090017706086961240