Unintentionally, yes.
There’s a solid qualification for a US Senator.
She’ll probably win. We know the troll factories are going to be working overtime in her favor.
If by “run by elites” you mean “contains people with at least a basic level of critical thinking skills” then sure. I do appreciate the effort you’ve put in in trying to spin the general practice of the Democrats to eject loony candidates as a sign of authoritarianism though.
Mind you, Alvin Greene got through the vetting process. I still want to know what the hell was going on with *that *guy.
I know the PM of Britain is a Conservative, but this is actually the stupidest liberal idea I’ve ever seen:
A Minister of Loneliness.
Is there ANYTHING government people think is strictly an individual’s problem?
Alvin Greene was not the party’s choice. The party didn’t have a choice. When the party decides not to choose for its voters, the voters choose really nutty candidates.
And there are some special ones who the party did back, nevertheless, like Shelia Jackson Lee.
Oh, so now liberals get blamed for conservative ideas? Go stick it in the SRIOTD thread or start a thread of it’s own.
This one’s on your side, asshole.
You might also read the article instead of just the headline. You might learn something.
Even if the idea of a Minister is silly, the underlying problems are not.
The fact that something is a real problem does not imply that government needs to work on it.
Really? Who do you think should handle it? Or is this another one of your knee-jerk thought-free reactions?
Really cowardly and stupid that you have to blame a Conservative’s idea on Liberals.
But we’ve grown accustomed to you never being right about anything.
Well, last I checked people were fit to govern themselves, which means we should at least agree that there are some things the government should leave to individuals.
There’s a reason it’s called your “personal life”.
Ah, another “I want small government that leaves me alone until there’s something that ** want” Republicans.
I can assure you, Republicans will not be asking for a Dept of Sexual Frustration or Dept of People Nobody Likes or a Dept of Kids Who Don’t Do What They are Told.
It’s not like you have to be a small government conservative to believe that some problems are your own. “Haven’t spoken to a friend or relative in a month” is not a government problem. I wonder how much money they’ll spend on “Call your mother!” ad campaigns that could be spent making Britain’s streets safer?
Other than in your fantasy world, neither will liberals.
On the other hand, President Very Stable Genius very much seems to want a Dept of Media that Doesn’t do What it’s Told.
But those are very real problems!
The issue here is that our personal lives can cause us real mental health issues. Which is why most governments fund mental health. Because governments can spend money to help us with things we might not be able to do ourselves, like pay for a lot of mental health expenses. and in turn, if you’re problem is that you keep pushing people away and you’re lonely, or have trouble making friends, or your old and crotchety and even your kids won’t talk to you anymore, maybe they can help. But there is nothing government bureaucrats can do. Or should do.
Of course, this is probably just the government version of virtue signalling. Identity a problem people are concerned about, give it a cabinet level department, and that shows you care. And then you get reelected. Because you care.
Let’s hope so anyway. The idea that the government would get you a friend, or remind you to call your mother, is pretty creepy. Next they’ll be telling couples how to manage their budget, since most marriages end over money issues.
You know, the government runs a National Park Service. I have been to several of those parks and appreciated the scenery, as well as the fact that Interior was keeping these places from being (over-) developed.
But the Department of the Interior did not require, compel or force me to visit them. In fact, they charged me money to go in and see Old Faithful, Crater Lake White Sands (not an actual Park) the Teddy Roosevelt badlands and several others.
My point is that a government service is not mandatory. Just because you qualify for food stamps does not mean you must take them. If the government wants to address the social isolation problem, they would very likely develop a form of assistance, combined with some form of life coaching to help you bond with people or just hang out comfortably with strangers.
This is an area that is truly outside the practical bounds of enterprise. There is generally much better profit in keeping people apart. Getting them together is probably somewhat better for society in general. So this is a field that a government agency might be well suited for (or a religious organization, though we have seen the kind of ugliness that can fertilize).
If you are comfortable in your hermitage, so be it. The Ministry of Loneliness is not going to bust your door down and direct you with a bullhorn to “GET OUT THERE AND MAKE SOME FRIENDS!!” Because we can clearly see that you are happy playing with your straw dolls.
Call me crazy, but drug usage, birth control, sexual orientation and activity, and marriage all seem to be highly personal and individual activities, yet they are issues that “small government conservatives” seem obsessed with trying to legislate against.
Did you even read the article beyond the headline? The government didn’t “give it a cabinet level department”, and there isn’t really an actual “Minister for Loneliness” nor is there a dedicated Ministry. What they did was to give Tracey Crouch, the Undersecretary for Sport and Civil Society in the Culture Ministry, responsibility for putting together a cross-party working group to look into a serious issue that charities like Age UK have been working to address for years. She will not have the title “Minister for Loneliness”; it’s just the soundbite version of the story, used to indicate to the media and public that the government has a relevant workstream and that Crouch is the accountable individual in the government for it. It’s not even the main part of her job.
Which all seems perfectly sensible. An actual societal problem but not a top priority one, being given to a mid-level functionary to coordinate parliamentary discussion on. Not “the government getting you a friend” or whatever your fevered imagination is telling you at the moment.
That said - that anti-loneliness ad campaign you were all worked up about? That’s what Age UKdo.
And this?
Meet the Money Advice Service.
It’s rather telling that you consider programs that help people and address serious societal problems to be 1) liberal and 2) bad ideas. You really are a massive pillock, adaher.
Compounding that he is wrong about everything else, adaher seemed proud to point out the PM of Great Britain is a Conservative, or what we here in the US would call Liberal.
The problem with idiots like adaher is that they think a program like this will lead to laws regulating how one should live one’s life (one must have at least two friends, one must call one’s mother or father (if alive) at least one every other week, one must call ones Grands (if alive) at least once a month, failure to do so will result in fine or imprisonment), because that’s the way the other side would do it. But it’s pretty fucking obvious to anyone with more than a single working brain cell it’s to set up programs to help those who want help and to reach out to those who need help but don’t know it’s available.
It’s not even that at this point - it’s to get a cross-party parliamentary committee set up to meet with experts so that MPs can gain an understanding of how material and widespread the problem is and where (if anywhere) the problem, its consequences and potential solutions intersect with what the government already do (e.g. social services, policing, the NHS). It’s possible that at the end of it the government will set up a program - or it will adjust an existing program to capture the populations affected by this, or it will set up information sharing arrangements with charities and local councils, or any number of fairly minor actions that will facilitate the work of those organisations already trying to address the issue. And there’s nothing inherently stupid about any of that.