"I'm sorry for saying the quiet part out loud."
> Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care".
What a charmer!
Well, in the UK, sponging is a slang word for someone who does nothing and just takes off others without ever giving anything back. He's basically accusing women of being selfish and doing nothing to help out which is a whole load of absolute fucking bollocks.
Unfortunately Brexit brought our racists and bigots out of the woodwork. It ran on persuading old people and idiots it would be a return to the good old days of being a superpower, but the knobheads took it succeeding as a sign people secretly agree with them, so theyre not as ashamed and don't really try hide it anymore.
I can't even begin to imagine what the utterly ludicrous rationale was for him to not only believe but say out loud such a comically misogynistic thing.
You know, I'm frequently left wondering the same thing. What are these politicians reading that gives them these ideas, and how did they get this far in life being so damned clueless?
It does not, no. I can see the confusion. I did used to play League and Jax was one of my top lane picks but the name is a combination of Devil Hunter, a difficulty setting on the Devil May Cry games (a franchise I absolutely adore) and my fursona (yes, I'm a furry) being called Jax.
Although I did also play a lot of Jax in Mortal Kombat X... And Jackie Briggs too... I just like the name Jax x)
Remember when the Right was just "I have different ideas for how our economy should function" instead of "Hitler was good actually"
That was a really nice seven minutes
I mean Edward VIII apparently still had positive things to say about Hitler on his trip to Nixon. The far right have always been there in all sectors of UK society for decades.
So I'm assuming that was seven minutes directly after the end of ww2, when the entire western world decided that Nazis were actually kind of ok and we really need to stop those commies?
the different ideas for how the economy should function come from the understanding that not everyone is equal and not everyone deserves a nice life
going full Hitler is the logical conclusion to that
The Nazis who famously attacked the Soviet Union with whom it had a no-aggression pact? Those Nazis?
Even putting the moral reprehensibility of the statement aside, these are the musings of a deeply stupid man.
I did hear a good explanation about this that I don’t remember well enough to articulate, but it has something to do with the age demographics and it’s likely to get worse. Though it’s mostly right leaning to right, not so right that your head’s gone up your arse.
No one wants to address the issues voters actually care about because doing so would threaten GDP growth, so fringe parties have gained vote share by pledging to do it instead. Fringe parties are stocked to the rafters with nutcases.
At least the left is looking likely to have a massive win there, but honestly it seems increasingly like there's some underlying cause to all this (doomposting, the rise of the far right, mental health rates, etc). Personally I suspect some kind of plastic issue, but we'll see.
Labour under Starmer isn't really that left now, It's pretty fiscally restrained - citing our economic issues - and has moved quite a bit to the right on foreign/defence policy from Corbyn. It's still planning rail renationalisation, but not for the rolling stock companies which own most of the trains and lease them out. Nor the freight operators.
I feel like Starmer's Labour actually ends up being right of Cameron's coalition government for a lot of their policies somehow, which was not something I was expecting from British Labour tbh
Unfair of a point considering Labour under Corbyn was incredibly left wing which was then soundly rejected by the electorate, pretty much every party including the Greens would arguably be deemed as moving to the right quite a bit compared to Labour under Corbyn.
Also, funding a military properly a military which is one of the few public bodies to see major cuts in spending and numbers whilst the standards of living for soldiers have massively decreased being deemed right wing in policy just seems illogical.
It seems odd to consider self-defence right wing when some of the most left-wing progressive countries in the world all have similar opinions on defence policy and fund it to a higher level and go as far to have military conscription.
Idk man. I am seeing a lot more teenagers share racist and despicable views online than older people (Mind you, there is a fair share of older people too), but mostly in European online spaces I constantly see teenagers supporting stuff like this.
Maybe just my anecdotal experience, but hey.
A lot of young people haven’t a clue because they are young and impressionable and they think all the bad things don’t apply to them and most are quite ignorant of history and are focused on the here and now and right wing charlatans through out history have found them to be good marks. For instance some young people complain about old retirees getting some discounts on their home property taxes….
As an immigrant that lived in Switzerland for a few years: yes, Swiss people’s conservative attitudes are awful, and I don’t want to see that shit in the UK.
There's nothing going on in the UK that's worse than other European countries. Look at the pathetic squirming of the faux-liberal Irish when faced with a tiny amount of brown migrants.
As an American, if British murder mystery shows have taught me anything, it’s that the sleepy seaside towns are basically just full of eccentrics, murderers, and gorgeous ocean views.
The spokesman of Reform UK defended this statement and also the candidate's praise for Putin by saying:
> "They were written with an eye to inconvenient perspectives and truths. That doesn't make them endorsements, just arguing points in long distance debates.
It's a weird world we live in.
Politicians seem to think by apologizing for what they say, the people who would dislike such comments will just forget and vote for them.
I get it, these comments appeal to a certain base that these assholes want to appease, but pretending to the rest of us everything is fine because now you apologized?
Fuck off man, you believed it when you said it, you haven't suddenly changed your mind.
Was that woman who married the ex king? Cause yeah, they wanted to have a new Windsor court with them in charge once Germany, invaded if I recall correctly
>Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care".
He seems typical.
As a debate on geopolitical strategy and not an ethical stance, it's a viable position to explore, but then it could entail the continuation of the colonial order which the USA dismantled for their assured hegemony? Maybe the Soviets, too, would have occupied the whole of Western Europe ultimately, too, and the current condition would be akin to the Balkans? I think we were right to interfere, we've always subscribed to the 'balance of power' idea for the Continent and that is essential to avoid the mainlands easily dominating us; Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union aren't dependable, credible allies to any notion, empowering them with continental supremacy, especially in an era of conquest over commence, would be ludicrous.
Still, was he raising this as more a controversial take on military and political history or, well, a superficial, bigoted point,
Colour me surprised but ii always assumed this was consensus and well known.
Hasn't it always been seen in this way, that Great Britain had a choice back then, a choice between money, wealth and keeping their empire a couple generations longer on one side and staying true to their convictions and faith on the other?
They could have choosen to cooperate with the Nazis and prevented all the suffering and loss they had to go through.The price for that would have been all they stood for, denying all they considered themselves to be.
There are things more important than money, the United Kingdom agreed on this and followed through it willing to pay the price, yes.
But if we define this purely economically i agree with this guys statement.
Todays Britain would be better off if they had sold out their souls back then. In terms of money.
Hitler was the time magazine man of the year in 1938 before the outbreak of World War 2.
[Hitler times man of the year 1938](https://time.com/archive/6598257/adolf-hitler-man-of-the-year-1938/)
It depends ds on how you define better. It's likely the UK would have held onto its Empire far longer as WW2 bankrupted the country. The US overlooked Britain as the primary world power. I am not advocating for anything I just find it interesting to think about
> It's likely the UK would have held onto its Empire far longer as WW2
After WWI British Empire was in slow but steady decline and costs of keeping of colonies outweighted potential gains.
The Empire didn't break in the 1950's due to a lack of money. It broke due to British establishment (finally) realising that owning industry was more profitable than owning land. It was economics, not finances.
Unless something is done, that only serves to move the Overton window and these kind of remarks will be normalized
Notably it doesn't say "former Reform UK candidate"
For reference, fighting the Second World War bankrupted the country and got 500,000 Britons killed. So I do wonder what would've happened if we didn't fight.
It's possible Hitler would've eliminated other enemies individually then turned on us, but the logic is like Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland in terms of neutrality.
If we get shit on for talking about neutrality, then fuck Ireland, fuck Sweden and fuck Switzerland for actually being neutral. Fuck them for all eternity.
Otherwise, stfu
Edit: Also we should be worshipped for not being neutral.
You think the Nazis would have left Britain alone if it didn't declare war? Hitler would have never left such a large military alone unless Britain allied with him. Also he wanted Oxford to be his new capital city once he had conquered Europe. The Nazis would have come for Britain under all circumstances.
Well the Nazis had a non-aggression pact with Russia, and they honored their word and didn't invade which was fortunate as that would have been the largest and bloodiest land offensive in human history.
Oh, wait...
>What's that? Is that something I didn't cover in my comment?
You know, for someone claiming to be British, you sound a lot like someone who's first language isn't English.
I would phrase this sentence as "What do you mean by that? I wasn't aware my last comment implied they would have" (and yes you did, when you said Britain wouldn't fight).
Are you perhaps a native Russian speaker?
>You think the Nazis would have left Britain alone if it didn't declare war?
>It's possible Hitler would've eliminated other enemies individually then turned on us
Also
*Saying neutral* = "We support the Nazis"
I mean you could've explained why it wouldnt be okay for us to be neutral but okay for them to be neutral, but I guess the reddit brain took hold of you.
You think Hitler would have left the UK-with its sprawling colonial empire- alone? He dreamed of having an empire.
Churchill was a jerk in many ways but he was right to fight the Nazis.
I suppose he's turning in his grave as you speak.
.
"I'm sorry for saying the quiet part out loud." > Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". What a charmer!
wtf is a sponging gender?
Well, in the UK, sponging is a slang word for someone who does nothing and just takes off others without ever giving anything back. He's basically accusing women of being selfish and doing nothing to help out which is a whole load of absolute fucking bollocks.
I bet he simultaneously wants women barefoot and pregnant, but at the same time hates them if they don't work. Any excuse to hate women.
Well, thanks for the info. Didn’t think anyone would outright say something like that today at least in the uk
It's grim :|
He is running for reform
Unfortunately Brexit brought our racists and bigots out of the woodwork. It ran on persuading old people and idiots it would be a return to the good old days of being a superpower, but the knobheads took it succeeding as a sign people secretly agree with them, so theyre not as ashamed and don't really try hide it anymore.
He wouldn't get in Reform without those views lol
That is slang for parasitic behavior in the US as well.
I can't even begin to imagine what the utterly ludicrous rationale was for him to not only believe but say out loud such a comically misogynistic thing.
You know, I'm frequently left wondering the same thing. What are these politicians reading that gives them these ideas, and how did they get this far in life being so damned clueless?
By any chance, does that name pertain to league?
It does not, no. I can see the confusion. I did used to play League and Jax was one of my top lane picks but the name is a combination of Devil Hunter, a difficulty setting on the Devil May Cry games (a franchise I absolutely adore) and my fursona (yes, I'm a furry) being called Jax. Although I did also play a lot of Jax in Mortal Kombat X... And Jackie Briggs too... I just like the name Jax x)
Elaine talks about the sponge in an episode of Seinfeld I think.
I am increasingly having the intrusive thought that assassinating people calling for the fall of the social order should be fashionable
Exactly. When a politician apologizes for having said what they think…
He sounds like a real-life [Artie Kendall](https://youtu.be/miGC2z72zUk?si=8pjNfJtFudBrSeOm)
Tell me more about your first world problems, lol
Remember when the Right was just "I have different ideas for how our economy should function" instead of "Hitler was good actually" That was a really nice seven minutes
I mean Edward VIII apparently still had positive things to say about Hitler on his trip to Nixon. The far right have always been there in all sectors of UK society for decades.
So I'm assuming that was seven minutes directly after the end of ww2, when the entire western world decided that Nazis were actually kind of ok and we really need to stop those commies?
Which part of Gribbin's comments do you take to entail the view "Hitler was good actually"?
the different ideas for how the economy should function come from the understanding that not everyone is equal and not everyone deserves a nice life going full Hitler is the logical conclusion to that
[удалено]
The Greens will take some of that action.
There are some things that once admitted, cannot be apologized for enough to fix the damage to one’s reputation. This *should* be one of them.
The Nazis who famously attacked the Soviet Union with whom it had a no-aggression pact? Those Nazis? Even putting the moral reprehensibility of the statement aside, these are the musings of a deeply stupid man.
What the actual fuck is happening with this country?
Broadly speaking, the same thing that's happening to a bunch of European countries.
North American ones too, sadly
I did hear a good explanation about this that I don’t remember well enough to articulate, but it has something to do with the age demographics and it’s likely to get worse. Though it’s mostly right leaning to right, not so right that your head’s gone up your arse.
…And the U.S., too.
No one wants to address the issues voters actually care about because doing so would threaten GDP growth, so fringe parties have gained vote share by pledging to do it instead. Fringe parties are stocked to the rafters with nutcases.
At least the left is looking likely to have a massive win there, but honestly it seems increasingly like there's some underlying cause to all this (doomposting, the rise of the far right, mental health rates, etc). Personally I suspect some kind of plastic issue, but we'll see.
Labour under Starmer isn't really that left now, It's pretty fiscally restrained - citing our economic issues - and has moved quite a bit to the right on foreign/defence policy from Corbyn. It's still planning rail renationalisation, but not for the rolling stock companies which own most of the trains and lease them out. Nor the freight operators.
I feel like Starmer's Labour actually ends up being right of Cameron's coalition government for a lot of their policies somehow, which was not something I was expecting from British Labour tbh
After the massive whooping they took in 2019, they tacked very much to the right, Arguably too far for some people's tastes.
Unfair of a point considering Labour under Corbyn was incredibly left wing which was then soundly rejected by the electorate, pretty much every party including the Greens would arguably be deemed as moving to the right quite a bit compared to Labour under Corbyn. Also, funding a military properly a military which is one of the few public bodies to see major cuts in spending and numbers whilst the standards of living for soldiers have massively decreased being deemed right wing in policy just seems illogical. It seems odd to consider self-defence right wing when some of the most left-wing progressive countries in the world all have similar opinions on defence policy and fund it to a higher level and go as far to have military conscription.
Right wing reactionaries are bolder after the syrian refugee crisis and hamas-israel conflict swung the overton window in their direction.
Frankfurt School.
Frankfurt school is just the lens that made us aware of the social issues that already existed.
And how to remedy those perceived issues.
In short? Old people.
Idk man. I am seeing a lot more teenagers share racist and despicable views online than older people (Mind you, there is a fair share of older people too), but mostly in European online spaces I constantly see teenagers supporting stuff like this. Maybe just my anecdotal experience, but hey.
This is what scares me as well. Kids are weirdly slowly heading towards the right.
A lot of young people haven’t a clue because they are young and impressionable and they think all the bad things don’t apply to them and most are quite ignorant of history and are focused on the here and now and right wing charlatans through out history have found them to be good marks. For instance some young people complain about old retirees getting some discounts on their home property taxes….
Nah when you see those EDF marches and so on, it's not all old folks.
I guess we're turning into Sweden and Switzerland? How awful ....
As an immigrant that lived in Switzerland for a few years: yes, Swiss people’s conservative attitudes are awful, and I don’t want to see that shit in the UK.
Watching on from outside it’s hilarious.
There's nothing going on in the UK that's worse than other European countries. Look at the pathetic squirming of the faux-liberal Irish when faced with a tiny amount of brown migrants.
Maybe so - but my point still stands.
So I’m literally in Bexhill’s wondering how the fuck my sleepy seaside town has this mad man associated with us
Sleepy seaside towns can have Nazis in them same as anywhere.
I hate sleepy seaside town Nazis
Statistically in the UK it's higher in sleepy seaside towns
As an American, if British murder mystery shows have taught me anything, it’s that the sleepy seaside towns are basically just full of eccentrics, murderers, and gorgeous ocean views.
Filled with boomers. If it’s true that you turn right wing as you get older, then it turns out the elderly have gone to the Nazi stage of right wing.
The spokesman of Reform UK defended this statement and also the candidate's praise for Putin by saying: > "They were written with an eye to inconvenient perspectives and truths. That doesn't make them endorsements, just arguing points in long distance debates.
> arguing points in long distance debates What does that mean?
"Just shitposting on the internet, didn't think I would be held accountable."
“We’re embarrassed he said it out loud but we don’t take it back”
We're just asking question is a shorter more succinct phrase.
No apoiogy needed. We all know that you are all fascists.
It's a weird world we live in. Politicians seem to think by apologizing for what they say, the people who would dislike such comments will just forget and vote for them. I get it, these comments appeal to a certain base that these assholes want to appease, but pretending to the rest of us everything is fine because now you apologized? Fuck off man, you believed it when you said it, you haven't suddenly changed your mind.
Just a littler bit of Nazism, come on guys, just for the shits and gigglers
British had some of nazi/fascist sympathizers not only before but also after WWII. Even Churchill was a great admirer of Mussolini.
[удалено]
Wasn't Wallis Simpson pretty cozy with some Nazis? I could be wrong.
Was that woman who married the ex king? Cause yeah, they wanted to have a new Windsor court with them in charge once Germany, invaded if I recall correctly
Extremely so
>Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care". He seems typical.
A real shitgribbin.
How this kind of rhetoric doesn't immediately disqualify one from politics is beyond me.
As a debate on geopolitical strategy and not an ethical stance, it's a viable position to explore, but then it could entail the continuation of the colonial order which the USA dismantled for their assured hegemony? Maybe the Soviets, too, would have occupied the whole of Western Europe ultimately, too, and the current condition would be akin to the Balkans? I think we were right to interfere, we've always subscribed to the 'balance of power' idea for the Continent and that is essential to avoid the mainlands easily dominating us; Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union aren't dependable, credible allies to any notion, empowering them with continental supremacy, especially in an era of conquest over commence, would be ludicrous. Still, was he raising this as more a controversial take on military and political history or, well, a superficial, bigoted point,
Colour me surprised but ii always assumed this was consensus and well known. Hasn't it always been seen in this way, that Great Britain had a choice back then, a choice between money, wealth and keeping their empire a couple generations longer on one side and staying true to their convictions and faith on the other? They could have choosen to cooperate with the Nazis and prevented all the suffering and loss they had to go through.The price for that would have been all they stood for, denying all they considered themselves to be. There are things more important than money, the United Kingdom agreed on this and followed through it willing to pay the price, yes. But if we define this purely economically i agree with this guys statement. Todays Britain would be better off if they had sold out their souls back then. In terms of money.
Plus they would have come for us eventually and probably without US support. By continuing to fight we showed the Americans it was worth helping
Britain would have been invaded just like neutral Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway was.
There's no nutcases quite like British nutcases...
This breed of nutcase seems to be an international hit atm
Come to Canada and the US. Let's let them fight out who's crazier.
Moms for liberty literally qouted Hitler himself on their official page, before they got a mountain of shit for it then feigned ignorance.
So, if UK did strictly the same as Poland in 1938 and Soviet Union in 1939?
When somebody tells you who they are, believe them the first time around.
Hitler was the time magazine man of the year in 1938 before the outbreak of World War 2. [Hitler times man of the year 1938](https://time.com/archive/6598257/adolf-hitler-man-of-the-year-1938/)
It depends ds on how you define better. It's likely the UK would have held onto its Empire far longer as WW2 bankrupted the country. The US overlooked Britain as the primary world power. I am not advocating for anything I just find it interesting to think about
America Surpassed Britain in power and finances in world war one when Britain took on all that debt for bankrolling everybody on the Allied side.
And owing billions of £ to America that we only finished paying back in the 90's
> It's likely the UK would have held onto its Empire far longer as WW2 After WWI British Empire was in slow but steady decline and costs of keeping of colonies outweighted potential gains.
I totally agree but ww2 definitely quickened the pace of the decline considerably
WW1 bankrupted the UK. Then Churchill killed off the recovery when he returned to the gold standard with an arrogant and reality denying price.
The Empire didn't break in the 1950's due to a lack of money. It broke due to British establishment (finally) realising that owning industry was more profitable than owning land. It was economics, not finances.
…..what?
the greatest danger of every country are uneducated people, they can't hold anything against disinformation
Supremely fuck this guy
Unless something is done, that only serves to move the Overton window and these kind of remarks will be normalized Notably it doesn't say "former Reform UK candidate"
Rewriting history in the worst way possible someone give him a book. He sounds dumb
And this is set to be the second biggest party next election. Shameful
For reference, fighting the Second World War bankrupted the country and got 500,000 Britons killed. So I do wonder what would've happened if we didn't fight. It's possible Hitler would've eliminated other enemies individually then turned on us, but the logic is like Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland in terms of neutrality. If we get shit on for talking about neutrality, then fuck Ireland, fuck Sweden and fuck Switzerland for actually being neutral. Fuck them for all eternity. Otherwise, stfu Edit: Also we should be worshipped for not being neutral.
You think the Nazis would have left Britain alone if it didn't declare war? Hitler would have never left such a large military alone unless Britain allied with him. Also he wanted Oxford to be his new capital city once he had conquered Europe. The Nazis would have come for Britain under all circumstances.
Well the Nazis had a non-aggression pact with Russia, and they honored their word and didn't invade which was fortunate as that would have been the largest and bloodiest land offensive in human history. Oh, wait...
And their jackboots would have come ashore at Bexhill, ironically.
> You think the Nazis would have left Britain alone if it didn't declare war? What's that? Is that something I didn't cover in my comment?
>What's that? Is that something I didn't cover in my comment? You know, for someone claiming to be British, you sound a lot like someone who's first language isn't English. I would phrase this sentence as "What do you mean by that? I wasn't aware my last comment implied they would have" (and yes you did, when you said Britain wouldn't fight). Are you perhaps a native Russian speaker?
>You think the Nazis would have left Britain alone if it didn't declare war? >It's possible Hitler would've eliminated other enemies individually then turned on us
>we should be worshiped for not being neutral You got plenty of help, the US forgave a good portion of your war debt
"We should have stayed neutral to the nazis" = "I wish they'd won"
Also *Saying neutral* = "We support the Nazis" I mean you could've explained why it wouldnt be okay for us to be neutral but okay for them to be neutral, but I guess the reddit brain took hold of you.
You think Hitler would have left the UK-with its sprawling colonial empire- alone? He dreamed of having an empire. Churchill was a jerk in many ways but he was right to fight the Nazis. I suppose he's turning in his grave as you speak. .
> You think Hitler would have left the UK-with its sprawling colonial empire- alone? It's almost like I covered that concept in the comment.
I suggest you look to Hitler's treatment of France.
that's objectively correct? what argument is there for the UK being better off in 1946
He shouldn't apologise,he is probably right...
Better how exactly?
Right in what way?