Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 23/08/2026Yup. I just looked this up and was surprised to learn that, yes, house fires can get hot enough to burn diamonds! 150
Reposted by Benhammancheez but spooky @hammancheez.bsky.social · 14/08/2026Yall wanna see some raccoons fuck up a piñata 17609244
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 13/08/2026Quite apart from anything, isn't this literally what regret is? Discovering from later events that your earlier choice was a mistake! 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 09/07/2026A reasonably insightful article, until this weird slip. Why would independents or moderates be more alienated by Platner's misogyny than progressives, who are far more consistent on this topic. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...theguardian.comGraham Platner debacle puts Democrats in grave danger of blowing it in the midtermsThe meltdown in Maine’s Senate race risks the Democrats’ opportunity to turn Trump into a lame duck president. 010
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 08/07/2026Why does the BBC go along with filming Farage downing a pint? Ed Davey must be fuming about the act he has to put on to get them to film the backdrops he wants! 020
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 07/07/2026It truly feels like Count Binface has been setting up the punchline for this joke for decades. #farage #reformuk 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 03/07/2026"People hate me for being Christian!" "Oh, they're against charity, protecting the most vulnerable, and tearing down vested interests?" "No, I mean hating on the queers." 071
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/06/2026Fair! It's a bit more galling hearing it from PLP Starmer loyalists who've cheered on the pledge-abandoning. 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/06/2026Starmer laid out his programme in some detail during the leadership contest. And then to the cheering approval of the media abandoned every pledge right after. Why would a new leadership contest produce anything different? 110
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/06/2026The problem with insisting there needs to be a contest is that Starmer won a contested leadership election and then promptly abandoned the policies he promised during that contest. Why would another leadership contest be any better at defining Burnhamism than the last was for Starmerism? 131
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 05/06/2026Also: the transphobes are ORGANISED and yet they can only manage to gin up 14% responses in, let's face it, a pretty obscure consultation. 0140
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026And this makes no sense. Because the provider CANNOT know or find out if someone is a trans man. So if the example needs to explain what happens when they decide a cis woman doesn't look enough like a woman and throw her out for 'being trans'. 030
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026"You say you cut your hair because you like the style, but we say you're trying to reassign your sex." 010
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026This leads to the wild idea a provider might be able to defend chucking out a cis woman by claiming that she has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (i.e. is a trans man), while she insists she doesn't have it, and therefore that the discrimination is illegal. And NOBODY COULD KNOW! 110
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026What's wild is that the miss the obvious fact that, given providers have no way to ACTUALLY determine whether someone is trans, this example would need to address what happens why they turn away a cis woman who they reckon doesn't look 'enough like a woman' for them. And, of course, they don't. 110
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026...of gender reassignment - i.e. is a trans man - and that therefore they are within the law to discriminate against her. She states that she doesn't have this protected characteristic, and therefore the discrimination is illegal. Is this REALLY how the law is meant to work?!? 2/2 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026Here's a wild thought experiment: a cis woman with short hair, wearing clothes purchased in the "mens" section of a clothes store gets turned away by a provider of a women's service. It ends up in court, and the provider claims the woman in fact has the protected characteristic of 1/2 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026It is absolutely no exaggeration to say there isn't a single other belief involved in being gender-critical but that trans people are pretending and bad. 0331
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026This is exactly why the example doesn't make sense. People have to make decisions based on the information they have, and something's legality surely can't depend on whether that information happens to be accurate or not when they literally cannot know! 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 22/05/2026Possibly the most stupid part of this is that it has things backwards. They're suggesting that it's legal to exclude a trans man, but the whole point is you can't KNOW they're trans. So it must be legal to exclude cis women as well, if you reckon they don't look the part. But they don't say that! 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026Okay. So we have an actual disagreement. I think it's nonsense to say that 62% support Mahmood's reforms if they don't, whereas you think it's functionally equivalent to supporting current policy that isn't much better than what she's proposing (which could be fair). Have I got that right? 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026I'm not advocating for people to support Labour. I'm advocating against the Guardian and Yougov promulgating nonsense that Yougov's own survey doesn't show. 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026Still struggling to understand why you think the Guardian / Yougov making up nonsense is beneficial, but I guess you have an idea of why. 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026Well, I guess then it's even better if 70% of Labour members support the immigration status quo or something more liberal, isn't it? 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026Even if that's so: they're currently in power with a huge majority. I don't like the idea that a bad information environment where their members' position is wildly misrepresented is okay. We need accurate coverage of this to have any hope of the Labour right not going even further off piste. 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026The Greens won't win, but nor will Burnham without a united left vote against Reform. 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026I'm hopeful that a change of leadership will make them much more possible to support. Though noises from Burnham make that seem unlikely. But I don't think anyone benefits from the Guardian implying that even the notional left is anti immigration when IT ISN'T TRUE! 210
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026I mean, fine, but probably better to base this on real things than fabrications. 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026Yes. But the 44% of Labour members who back current immigration policy likely OPPOSE Mahmood's tightening. I.e. 70% of Labour members want the status quo or something more liberal. 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026The poll DOESN'T mention Mahmood or her reforms. A much better reading is that those who support tightening immigration - as is being consulted on - are in the 18% not 44%. 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026I don't think this interpretation of that question is correct (and it's badly worded). (Very) Many Labour members may consider Labour's current immigration policy to be the active, pre-Mahmood policy, not an envisaged, harsher approach. 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026I don't think this interpretation of that question is correct (and it's badly worded). (Very) Many Labour members may consider Labour's current immigration policy to be the active, pre-Mahmood policy, not an envisaged, harsher approach. 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026I don't think this interpretation of that question is correct (and it's badly worded). (Very) Many Labour members may consider Labour's current immigration policy to be the active, pre-Mahmood policy, not an envisaged, harsher approach. 010
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026I don't think this interpretation of that question is correct (and it's badly worded). (Very) Many Labour members may consider Labour's current immigration policy to be the active, pre-Mahmood policy, not an envisaged, harsher approach. 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026I agree. This is what makes it possible for him to win in a seat where Reform is getting more than 50%. But only if he gets everyone on the left, which now seems doubtful. 000
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026But committed, very Brexity voters are locked on for Reform. His only hope is to unite the left and his announcements in the last week are impeding that. 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 21/05/2026Because his only hope in a solidly Reform seat is to unite the left. If voters leak to eg the Greens, he'll lose it. 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 20/05/2026Well, he loses the by-election if he can't unite the left, so... 100
Ben @benzross.bsky.social · 20/05/2026The most comical part is that he needs to lose a by-election in a seat with a huge Reform vote, and the only way to do that is by uniting the left. 010
