My perception is that it’s gotten worse in recent years, but there’s always been a weird, socially conservative streak, especially amongst the powerful.

I went to one of the super old, prestigious universities, and one of the most valuable things I learned there is that the British aristocracy is alive and well. We may not formally have a distinct noble class like there used to be, but in a way, we’re in a worse situation because we have so much of these entrenched systems that most people don’t know the half of. I think these kinds of people aren’t what you’re talking about when you mention the rise in the conservative mortality police, but it’s worth mentioning as one of the underlying factors.

The recent wave of stuff is more linked to right wing populism. Nigel Farage is a big figure in that, and the rise of the rhetoric feels like it’s been happening in parallel to Trump’s rise.

My belief about why this has been getting bad is that we had a Tory government for over a decade, starting in 2010, and their cuts had a terrible impact on the country as a whole. People who were living in precarity were increasingly fucked over, and as wealth continued to move upwards, the previously comfortable middle class were increasingly pushed into precarity. In terms of why the Tories were in power for so long, my opinion is that in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, they were able to convince people that a country’s finances were analogous to household finances, and thus deficits are bad, and that you can’t invest in infrastructure unless you’re running a surplus. If anything, this hindered the UK’s economy in recovering from the crisis.

Labour didn’t provide a satisfying alternative to austerity, largely because under Blair, Labour had become increasingly neoliberal and distanced from its roots. In 2010, they campaigned on a platform of “we agree with all of the Conservative’s assumptions about how an economy should work, and that austerity is necessary, but we will do less austerity than they will”. If you believe that austerity is necessary, why on earth would you vote for that? They were Tory lite.

And so large swathes of the UK public were effectively disenfranchised, because no-one they could vote for was actually offering something different to ease their socioeconomic suffering — except, of course, for UKIP (and the Greens, but they have always struggled to appeal to the mainstream). Especially under Farage, UKIP was effective at offering desperate people something different — something to blame for their struggles. Of course, blaming everything on immigration is bullshit and will, if anything, make people’s lives worse because of how much the economy depends on immigration, but it’s a problem of desperate people with insufficient class consciousness, who feel like they have no other choice.

A longstanding cultural facet that underlies a lot of this is the idea of the “deserving poor”— an idea that we can trace right back to the Victorian poorhouse. Even when the UK has been more progressive (such as during a period known as the post-war consensus, which “tolerated or encouraged nationalisation, strong trade unions, heavy regulation, high taxes, and an extensive welfare state”^[1]. I think this is somewhat analogous to the New Deal in American politics, though it happened later), there has still been a lot of moral ickiness tied into how we think about poverty. It’s the idea that people who are poor due to poor choices do not deserve support from the welfare state, and that it is necessary to prove that you deserve help. The fact that this is an idea deeply embedded in British culture has meant that the UK has long lagged behind much of Europe in terms of reducing poverty. ^[2]

In the modern day, this means that if you want to get out-of-work benefits, you are expected to do an absurd amount of performative bullshit to show that you are searching for work. If you miss an appointment at the job centre, even due to circumstances that are not your fault (such as being hit by a car and hospitalised en route to the job centre), you can lose your benefits. You can appeal these things, but even if that’s successful, it takes an obscene amount of work. If you can’t work due to disability, then you will have to do even more work to demonstrate that this is the case, in a situation that can function like a catch-22 — too disabled to have the capacity to prove that you’re too disabled to work, so forced to do all the bullshit job hunting (which you obviously can’t do). They expect you to apply for, and work in jobs that are completely unsuited to your skill set. Like, if you have a specialised degree or skillset and your field is one where there are jobs, but it takes time for you to find openings, then fuck you, apply to be a janitor instead. There’s often been talking of policies that would involve people on out-of-work benefits being forced to do “voluntary” work in order to keep their benefits. I don’t think that’s currently in place, but it has always been disconcertingly popular a concept. The phrase “benefit scrounger” is a phrase that’s big in the British zeitgeist. Even people who rely on benefits of some sort like to think of themselves as being distinct in some way from “the bad kind of people” who get benefits. Even as those people are pushed further into precarity, they still maintain the idea that they are distinct somehow. Benefit fraud is such a tiny percentage of total welfare spending, and yet policies aimed to root out benefit fraud (which often cost more than they ever recoup, and primarily harm people who are not committing fraud of any sort) receive bipartisan support. The honest, struggling people who get caught in the crossfire of such policies are viewed as acceptable casualties.

I mentioned above that I consider 2010 to be the start of a rise in the current trend of right wing populism, but another key “watershed” moment in my opinion was Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. Much like with Reagan, the political order that she was at the head of was ideological as much as it was economic or political. With her conservative government, she popularised the idea of “personal responsibility”, and severely exacerbated this notion of “the deserving poor”. Thatcher’s government is seen as the end of the post war consensus (which means a start to the withering of the welfare state)

You know how earlier, I mentioned that Labour shot themselves in the foot in 2010 by yielding to the Tories and letting them define the parameters of politics wrt austerity? Well that comes on the back of Tony Blair’s Labour starting that whole ball rolling with a heckton of privatisation and deregulation in the 2000s. Margaret Thatcher once said that Tony Blair’s New Labour was her greatest achievement, and I wouldn’t disagree there. It’s honestly funny how often I delve into the history of a particular fucked up thing in the UK and find that a lot of it can be traced back to Thatcher. For example, recently I was learning about the history of fibre internet in the UK, and I learned that this was yet another area in which Thatcher’s government fucked things up. It’s always fucking Reagan and Thatcher.

(Fun fact: when Thatcher died, the song “Ding dong the witch is dead” reached number 2 on the UK music charts)

It’s sad to see it happen. I come from a poor area up North. Many of my ancestors were coal miners who lived and died in the mines. The retail park I used to hang out at as a teenager used to be a colliery — the colliery where the miners first began striking in 1984. This area is now has a high proportion of votes going to Reform (i.e. Nigel Farage’s party, basically post-Brexit UKIP). I used to regard people who voted like that with disdain, because I subconsciously blamed them for their lack of class consciousness. Nowadays, I’m more able to feel compassion for them, and their desperation. I think modern society makes it very hard to build class consciousness and solidarity, and so right wing reactionary politics ends up feeling like the only option they have. After all, the miner’s strike failed. Entire communities fell into destitution and it felt like no-one with any power cared. In a sense, the current political situation feels inevitable.

This is why people like Mamdani, Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn give me hope. Sanders and Corbyn weren’t successful in their respective bids for power to enact their policies, but I remember how hopeful people felt during Corbyn’s rise. People who previously had completely disengaged from politics were suddenly getting involved, and it felt like there was hope. Of course, establishment politicians went and fucked it all up, but it still stands out to me as an example of how desperate people are for an alternative to the current status quo. People are sick of being told that the economy is going great, even as their lives and their communities are falling apart.

[1]: Source for quote: Wikipedia page on the Post-war consensus

[2]: further reading on how the myth of the deserving poor has caused the UK to lag behind Europe

Look I’m just fed up with dealing with the slow burning of everything around me all because about a dozen people want extra zeros on their net worth and are tempting politicians to implement draconian laws with comparitivly miniscule bribes and I am obligated to spend 1/3 of my life and 2/3rds of my income satiating the desires of these bastards.

Fuck em. I’m done. I want peace, permanent peace.

At the very least take them with you.

But is it solid?

BLOCKED!

NSFW, sorta?

Worse is that it likely won’t be able to distinguish between intentionally titilating material and material intended to educate. Only over 18 are allowed to learn about human physiology after submitting identifying information.

Especially with titties, you think your five year old can’t deduce that those bumps on women’s chest have a nipple on it just like theres. Even if they can’t I doubt that revelation will be traumatic or earth shattering.

I’ve been watching porn since I was 10.

That’s all. Porn is great.

There already should be a distinction between what is a child and what is a teen - there is a huge difference and these laws don’t take that into consideration. The only thing these laws do is remain as an ageist weapon that create discrimination.

Honestly, No. I don’t want my phone making decisions for me or my kids. If its site by site, they can just go somewhere else.

As a parent, I’m far more worried about shitty social media algorithms that push narratives and online bullying and misinformation than I am about nudity. People have bodies, sex happens, it’s normal, whatever. I’d rather my kid learned about all that instead of being sheltered away from it until they turned 18.

If anything, normalizing nudity and acceptance of different body types is probably a good thing for kids to learn, especially females where a constant narrative of “skinny, pretty, perfect” is being shoved on them and shaming them for not being a super model is considered the status quo.

Let me make that decision as a parent, don’t try to protect my kids for me.

None of those other things should require any sort of identity or age verification, though. In the case of loot boxes, government should be able to tell companies, “hey, you can’t sell that here”. In the case of age verification and nudity scanning there’s a whole host of issues from the fact that people don’t find loot boxes to be taboo or embarrassing to the fact that people do find nudity and porn embarrassing, to the fact that any scanning systems will false flag, to questions about who has access to the data that is submitted and how long it is stored, to how easy it could be to misuse the systems to go after disadvantaged groups (we all know LGBT content will intentionally be covered by this, whether they’re open about it or not, right?), to whether or not the system will be used for other purposes that either aren’t being said aloud or won’t be realized until after it’s implemented.

I get that, but I don’t even mean it in that sense. A corporation should not have any control over what I do whatsoever unless I’m their employee.

If there was a decent salary, I’d do it

The only time a corporation should care, is when they are in the business of selling sex toys. Then it should only be in so far that you enjoy using their products and want to use them more.

Corporations should be pro sex or absolutely ambivalent. There’s zero reason for them to be against it.

I want them to ban porn so I feel dirty when I watch it.