|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 20 2017 14:11 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 13:33 m4ini wrote:I feel like we need to clear some things up here, looking at some pictures. This here is great, and has to happen every single time. This is where i would stand. + Show Spoiler +(back to gender discussion) These are what i call "counter protesters". The good guys. Now this here: + Show Spoiler +Is not. I obviously don't need to show pictures of Nazis/KKK/WS, we know what they look like, and we know that they're bad. The last four pictures are not to be thrown in with counter protesters. I certainly would not want to be put in the same category as them in case i go to a rally. The last four pictures are the people most here talk about. In case you haven't noticed: only one category has the "need" to wear facemasks (except the witches, but that's different). Just briefly give that a thought, and you come to the correct conclusion. Facemasks addressed below. Anyway, I already said that Antifa go too far sometimes. The difference between antifa and white supremacists is that antifa who aren't being violent are just normal protestors. KKK and Nazis who aren't being violent are still pushing for white supremacy through violence and intimidation. Which one of these needs broad condemnation of the entire movement, and which needs condemnation of individual incidents. Just brieflygive that a thought, and you come to the correct conclusion.
But that's my entire point. They don't go too far sometimes. The entire motto of the Antifa is to be violent against their perceived enemy (sidenote, doesn't need to be Nazis, there's others too). Antifas who're "not violent" are still not "normal protesters", they're still antifas. I say it again, i doubt very much that you have a grasp on what antifa stands for. Put this way: a non-violent antifa is still advocating an ideology that killed as much, if not more, than national socialism. So why on earth does that get a pass, even gets called "normal protester"? Doesn't that strike you as quite idiotic?
Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 13:46 Lionsguard wrote:Doxxing White Nationalists poses another escalatory threat. Not only have vigilantes already targeted the wrong people by mistake, this sort of action only forces them to cover their faces at rallies in response. Currently only ANTIFA does that to shed themselves of any accountability. When both sides do it, you're left with ZERO accountability, a real nightmare scenario especially if either side brings guns. Oh boo hoo. If they didn't want people to know they were white nationalists, they should have worn hoods. I'm sure most Antifa wear masks because they don't want to deal with the deluge of harassment and death threats that comes from the alt-right every time something pisses them off, like people naming nazi supporters.
Yeah that's bullshit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/antifa/comments/5ppqi6/why_do_you_wear_masks/
You seem to forget that the Antifa is violently anti-police too, and that they wore masks long before doxxing was possible because the internet wasn't invented yet. Or the fact that doxxing really isn't a thing in other countries (because Nazis etc get fought politically), yet they still wear them. If you bend over backwards to try and justify bullshit of an inherently violent group, i think we're done here.
|
On August 20 2017 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I would like to ask people who consider antifas to be the problem (or a big part of it): if you read in a history book that in 1925, in Germany, nazis held a march and clashed with protesters that were potentially violent, and that one of the nazis performed a terror attack leaving a protesters dead, would you look at it thinking "well the nazis were bad but those protesters were wrong too and it's partly their fault"?
Or does it sounds like an absurd, disturbing and twisted reasoning to you? It certainly does to me.
I am still baffled at how mild some of you guys are against supporters of hitlerism.
I'm simplifying, but in the 20s the roles were reversed, fascists were the lesser evil (like antifa is supposed to be today) while commies were the real danger. It was impossible to predict that that one German branch of fascism will get so violent in the 30s.
|
Norway28614 Posts
comparing current day communists to current day nazis doesn't work, even if one accepts that the atrocities committed in the name of either ideology are comparable, or that stalin mao pol pot were worse than hitler. No self-identifying communist thinks stalin was a swell guy, and the incredible numbers of death associated with communism are perceived as part of the horrible implementation, certainly not as part of the goal. Whereas for Hitler, genocide wasn't an unfortunate bi-product or caused by bad implementation of the ideology, it's a pretty central tenet. And actual neo-nazis don't distance themselves from hitler, although 'to be fair', I guess a good number of them think the holocaust is exaggerated.
Note that I certainly don't think that this is true for 'the alt-right' at large, or groups that might be included under some white supremacists umbrella, although I've never really seen a suggestion for how to feasibly implement a peaceful de-multiculturalization of society. But the type of aryan brotherhood nazis where they use 88 as a code and stuff, those guys follow a violent ideology way beyond what current day communists advocate.
|
Though I feel like I plug her works all the time these days. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, particularly with regards to attempts at drawing equivalencies between neo-nazis and antifa.
|
On August 20 2017 21:23 farvacola wrote:
Though I feel like I plug her works all the time these days. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, particularly with regards to attempts at drawing equivalencies between neo-nazis and antifa.
Well, care to give a summary, because obviously no one's gonna go and buy a book now to argue.
No self-identifying communist thinks stalin was a swell guy, and the incredible numbers of death associated with communism are perceived as part of the horrible implementation, certainly not as part of the goal.
Bolded: you sure? Should not be possible to find one then, right?
Italic: yeah, ahm, it doesn't really matter what it's perceived as, what does matter is what happened in reality. There's really not much perception there, communistic regimes deliberately killed millions, too. If you choose to ignore that, okay, but let me ask you this, would you let that argument count for a Nazi, if he says "well holocaust was shit" or even (since we're talking perception) "well holocaust never happened anyway"? We both know you (actually, we) wouldn't. Except i don't give a pass to any side.
|
Norway28614 Posts
|
I don't want to argue, I'm simply recommending material helpful to those interested in understanding more. Her work arguably supports both sides of the equivalence coin depending on where one focuses their inquiry. If I were to take a stab at summarizing a difficult to summarize book, I'd say that, above all else, Arendt would argue that a movement's totalitarian threat is necessarily connected to the imperial history of the nations in which said movement operates.
|
Oh i'm willing to learn, and i have no qualms accepting that i'm wrong if proven so.
But honestly, i really am not gonna read 570 pages to entail in a discussion in an internet forum that in two days time will be arguing over another idiotic trump tweet.
I don't want to argue, I'm simply recommending material helpful to those interested in understanding more. Her work arguably supports both sides of the equivalence coin depending on where one focuses their inquiry. If I were to take a stab at summarizing a difficult to summarize book, I'd say that, above all else, Arendt would argue that a movement's totalitarian threat is necessarily connected to the imperial history of the nations in which said movement operates.
Fair enough, sounds actually reasonable. Then i briefly googled her name, first hit calling her a white supremacist, so i already know where that is leading to. The problem is not really having objective arguments for/against, it's that people simply don't want to be objective and don't see a difference between "a normal counter protester" and antifa (as was said earlier, that a non-violent antifa is just a normal protester).
|
Norway28614 Posts
I really think that if you want to have a productive discussion, you should be able to get past phrases like 'nobody' even if you can actually find say, one per 500 or whatever who disagree. I don't want to have to say 'only 0.2% of self-identifying communists thinks stalin was a swell guy', and there isn't any data on this anyway. But I've known quite a lot of self-identifying communists, and with 0 exceptions they all vocally distance themselves from the soviet union. Some of them can be supportive of Cuba and Castro, some thought Chavez did some things right even though he also did a lot of things wrong, nobody thinks Stalin was a good guy.
Either way you missed the point. The point is that to be a nazi involves wanting jews to die. Other forms of anti-immigration/nationalistic/pro-white groups don't necessarily deserve that branding, but actual nazis do.. To be a communist does not involve wanting to cause mass starvation or mass executions or forced labor camps, even if communist policies of the past included that - it was never part of the ideology that communists support.
|
You should read it because it's good knowledge with unique relevance to current issues, not because it can fill your quiver with internet argument arrows. Some of the best stuff I've found on this site has taken the form of book recommendations.
|
On August 20 2017 21:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I really think that if you want to have a productive discussion, you should be able to get past phrases like 'nobody' even if you can actually find say, one per 500 or whatever who disagree. I don't want to have to say 'only 0.2% of self-identifying communists thinks stalin was a swell guy', and there isn't any data on this anyway. But I've known quite a lot of self-identifying communists, and with 0 exceptions they all vocally distance themselves from the soviet union. Some of them can be supportive of Cuba and Castro, some thought Chavez did some things right even though he also did a lot of things wrong, nobody thinks Stalin was a good guy.
You entirely missed my argument there. Of course there isn't any data, it's not an issue big enough to impact anything. But you "knowing a guy or two" really doesn't mean much more than an anecdote. It's big enough of an issue to have some antifa-pages actively come out and deny that stalinists etc do not belong to their "chapter".
That's not saying that all of them are, i never made that point. Fact of the matter is though, that communism deliberately killed people. You don't get to cherry pick instances where that didn't happen, the same way you (or me) don't let a Nazi argue that under Hitler everyone was employed and he gave us the Autobahn, great guy.
You should read it because it's good knowledge with unique relevance to current issues, not because it can fill your quiver with internet argument arrows. Some of the best stuff I've found on this site has taken the form of book recommendations.
Problem being that i can't read e-books. If my local bookstore carries a copy, maybe, but e-books i just can't. I was a enthusiastic reader from childs age on, maybe that's why i despise e-book readers.
|
On August 20 2017 21:28 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 21:23 farvacola wrote:
Though I feel like I plug her works all the time these days. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, particularly with regards to attempts at drawing equivalencies between neo-nazis and antifa. Well, care to give a summary, because obviously no one's gonna go and buy a book now to argue. Show nested quote +No self-identifying communist thinks stalin was a swell guy, and the incredible numbers of death associated with communism are perceived as part of the horrible implementation, certainly not as part of the goal. Bolded: you sure? Should not be possible to find one then, right? Italic: yeah, ahm, it doesn't really matter what it's perceived as, what does matter is what happened in reality. There's really not much perception there, communistic regimes deliberately killed millions, too. If you choose to ignore that, okay, but let me ask you this, would you let that argument count for a Nazi, if he says "well holocaust was shit" or even (since we're talking perception) "well holocaust never happened anyway"? We both know you (actually, we) wouldn't. Except i don't give a pass to any side.
People who are communists today don't believe that stalinist atrocities didn't happen. They think that stalinist russia was not a communist nation. Their argument is that just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that you are that thing.
This can easily be proven, too. If we take a countries claim of how they work as absolute truth, then you would necessary have to attribute all of the North Korean atrocities to democracy. After all, they are the "Democratic peoples republic of Korea".
The resulting question is thus if something like stalinist russia is the inevitable result of striving for a communist society.
Now, i personally am not a communist, i fit in more within the social democrats. Thus, i think that the best-working economic system that we know of is one of capitalism with a lot of governmental controls and safety nets to protect the weaker members of society from the excesses of the strong. I also see that historically, communist countries have had a tendency to turn out pretty shitty. I don't know if that is attributable to communism, but i also don't really see why communism should get ever more chances. Frankly, communism is based entirely on an outdated 19th century theory of value.
I still dislike bad arguments.
|
Norway28614 Posts
You thinking I mean a guy or two when I say quite a lot is on you. You not understanding my argument is also on you. Nazis support hitler. They own everything he did. Communists don't support Stalin. They don't own what he did.
|
North Korea warned Sunday that the upcoming US-South Korea military exercises are "reckless behavior driving the situation into the uncontrollable phase of a nuclear war."
Pyongyang also declared that its army can target the United States anytime, and neither Guam, Hawaii nor the US mainland can "dodge the merciless strike."
The messages in Rodong Sinmun, the official government newspaper, come a day before the US starts the Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercises with South Korea.
Tensions between the US and North Korea have grown in recent weeks.
Just last week, Pyongyang said it had finalized a plan to fire four missiles toward the US territory of Guam. State media reported that leader Kim Jong Un would assess the US' next move before giving launch orders.
Kim would "watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees," a North Korean statement said last week.
Source
They keep it coming. Retort from trump due soon I hope.
|
On August 20 2017 21:49 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 21:28 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 21:23 farvacola wrote:
Though I feel like I plug her works all the time these days. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, particularly with regards to attempts at drawing equivalencies between neo-nazis and antifa. Well, care to give a summary, because obviously no one's gonna go and buy a book now to argue. No self-identifying communist thinks stalin was a swell guy, and the incredible numbers of death associated with communism are perceived as part of the horrible implementation, certainly not as part of the goal. Bolded: you sure? Should not be possible to find one then, right? Italic: yeah, ahm, it doesn't really matter what it's perceived as, what does matter is what happened in reality. There's really not much perception there, communistic regimes deliberately killed millions, too. If you choose to ignore that, okay, but let me ask you this, would you let that argument count for a Nazi, if he says "well holocaust was shit" or even (since we're talking perception) "well holocaust never happened anyway"? We both know you (actually, we) wouldn't. Except i don't give a pass to any side. People who are communists today don't believe that stalinist atrocities didn't happen. They think that stalinist russia was not a communist nation. Their argument is that just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that you are that thing. This can easily be proven, too. If we take a countries claim of how they work as absolute truth, then you would necessary have to attribute all of the North Korean atrocities to democracy. After all, they are the "Democratic peoples republic of Korea". The resulting question is thus if something like stalinist russia is the inevitable result of striving for a communist society. Now, i personally am not a communist, i fit in more within the social democrats. Thus, i think that the best-working economic system that we know of is one of capitalism with a lot of governmental controls and safety nets to protect the weaker members of society from the excesses of the strong. I also see that historically, communist countries have had a tendency to turn out pretty shitty. I don't know if that is attributable to communism, but i also don't really see why communism should get ever more chances. Frankly, communism is based entirely on an outdated 19th century theory of value. I still dislike bad arguments.
Except stalinist russia was indeed communist (with communist policies), where as you'll get no argument whatsoever anywhere by saying that north korea might not be that democratic (yeah..). If you look at the "endgoal" in terms of communism, and only go by that, sure. But that A: never happened, so the argument really doesn't count, and B: really doesn't get a pass in any discussion. It just wasn't the utopia people generally think off if they think "communism".
I'm in line with your political ideology, as a sidenote.
You thinking I mean a guy or two when I say quite a lot is on you. You not understanding my argument is also on you. Nazis support hitler. They own everything he did. Communists don't support Stalin. They don't own what he did.
You really don't get to just split off the bad shit that happened under communistic regimes by calling them "stalinist" and "maoist". They're still communists, just shitty ones.
I find it baffling that so many people view communism, an ideology rather close to fascism, completely fine. Communism and Facism are almost exactly the same thing on different political spectrums.
By your measure it's actually entirely fine to be a fascist, as long as you make clear that you're "a mussolinist", not a "hitlerist".
|
On August 20 2017 21:49 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 21:28 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 21:23 farvacola wrote:
Though I feel like I plug her works all the time these days. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, particularly with regards to attempts at drawing equivalencies between neo-nazis and antifa. Well, care to give a summary, because obviously no one's gonna go and buy a book now to argue. No self-identifying communist thinks stalin was a swell guy, and the incredible numbers of death associated with communism are perceived as part of the horrible implementation, certainly not as part of the goal. Bolded: you sure? Should not be possible to find one then, right? Italic: yeah, ahm, it doesn't really matter what it's perceived as, what does matter is what happened in reality. There's really not much perception there, communistic regimes deliberately killed millions, too. If you choose to ignore that, okay, but let me ask you this, would you let that argument count for a Nazi, if he says "well holocaust was shit" or even (since we're talking perception) "well holocaust never happened anyway"? We both know you (actually, we) wouldn't. Except i don't give a pass to any side. People who are communists today don't believe that stalinist atrocities didn't happen. They think that stalinist russia was not a communist nation. Their argument is that just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that you are that thing. This can easily be proven, too. If we take a countries claim of how they work as absolute truth, then you would necessary have to attribute all of the North Korean atrocities to democracy. After all, they are the "Democratic peoples republic of Korea". The resulting question is thus if something like stalinist russia is the inevitable result of striving for a communist society. Now, i personally am not a communist, i fit in more within the social democrats. Thus, i think that the best-working economic system that we know of is one of capitalism with a lot of governmental controls and safety nets to protect the weaker members of society from the excesses of the strong. I also see that historically, communist countries have had a tendency to turn out pretty shitty. I don't know if that is attributable to communism, but i also don't really see why communism should get ever more chances. Frankly, communism is based entirely on an outdated 19th century theory of value. I still dislike bad arguments.
Stalinist Russia was ideologically communist, they enacted communism pretty strictly.
I think the problem the modern day far left has with this is that they are unable to grasp the idea that their utopia could have extremely negative unintended consequences.
The consequences of nazism were completely intended.
I don't know if this makes one worse than the other, though, or which one would be worse.
Being smart and thoughtful can be as important as being well intentioned.
|
Communism has an end goal where literally every form of resource is decentralized and equally spread and everyone has equal opportunity. It's a utopian concept because I think humans tend to form hierarchical societies. Whether this is due to generation of generation (dating back to the prehistorical era, perhaps even from before we could be considered humans) and we're so used to it by now or that it is the most efficient way to organize is up for debate (one which I'm very open to and also not against per se).
I can't say that I think our unhinged capitalist society is very stable or has resulted in a society where the weaker members are protected. It's produced neo-slavery in Africa and China and has made the contrast between resources acquisition extremely noticeable. The USA is the poster child of this where you have things like New York and Detroit existing in the same country. In Belgium we have some hallucinatory pseudo urban areas as well, but I'd like to think it's less of an issue when we only have 30,5 km² to deal with.
If anything, the more globalized the world is, the more incentive you have to implement communism.
Also: I'm not a communist, but I have some tendencies towards it (I describe myself as a technocratic anarcho-collectivist and in the work of sorting out my arguments for it).
I think most of the things wrong in our modern society like the poor-rich rift, (political) corruption, human rights demeaning means to a production imperative end, the absurd entrepreneurial battle (IP, court cases, espionage, ...) is a consequence of capitalism. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be internal strife in other systems, because you'll always have disruptive players, but they'd be of a different order and it's impossible to predict what they'd be before systems like that are implemented.
Edit: @Jockmcplop: How can Stalinist Russia have been ideological when millions died due to starvation? He literally created work camps which basically equated to slavery. I don't call that communism, I call that authoritarianism veiled by communism.
|
Any ideology adopted by a state has to be enforced. Not everyone in a state wants to live under that ideology. Problems and violence follows. This, garnered with the usual greed und stupidity, makes a bulk of the casualties of communist regimes. They all tend to habe very violent side effects. For that, I can't take them for a benevolent ideology.
I don't know who said it, but paraphrased it goes like this, Communism is great, but not for humans, only for ants.
|
On August 20 2017 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 21:49 Simberto wrote:On August 20 2017 21:28 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 21:23 farvacola wrote:
Though I feel like I plug her works all the time these days. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, particularly with regards to attempts at drawing equivalencies between neo-nazis and antifa. Well, care to give a summary, because obviously no one's gonna go and buy a book now to argue. No self-identifying communist thinks stalin was a swell guy, and the incredible numbers of death associated with communism are perceived as part of the horrible implementation, certainly not as part of the goal. Bolded: you sure? Should not be possible to find one then, right? Italic: yeah, ahm, it doesn't really matter what it's perceived as, what does matter is what happened in reality. There's really not much perception there, communistic regimes deliberately killed millions, too. If you choose to ignore that, okay, but let me ask you this, would you let that argument count for a Nazi, if he says "well holocaust was shit" or even (since we're talking perception) "well holocaust never happened anyway"? We both know you (actually, we) wouldn't. Except i don't give a pass to any side. People who are communists today don't believe that stalinist atrocities didn't happen. They think that stalinist russia was not a communist nation. Their argument is that just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that you are that thing. This can easily be proven, too. If we take a countries claim of how they work as absolute truth, then you would necessary have to attribute all of the North Korean atrocities to democracy. After all, they are the "Democratic peoples republic of Korea". The resulting question is thus if something like stalinist russia is the inevitable result of striving for a communist society. Now, i personally am not a communist, i fit in more within the social democrats. Thus, i think that the best-working economic system that we know of is one of capitalism with a lot of governmental controls and safety nets to protect the weaker members of society from the excesses of the strong. I also see that historically, communist countries have had a tendency to turn out pretty shitty. I don't know if that is attributable to communism, but i also don't really see why communism should get ever more chances. Frankly, communism is based entirely on an outdated 19th century theory of value. I still dislike bad arguments. Stalinist Russia was ideologically communist, they enacted communism pretty strictly. I think the problem the modern day far left has with this is that they are unable to grasp the idea that their utopia could have extremely negative unintended consequences. The consequences of nazism were completely intended. I don't know if this makes one worse than the other, though, or which one would be worse. Being smart and thoughtful can be as important as being well intentioned.
It's sort of like asking what's worse - carpet bombing or laser guided missles? I have my own view on this subject, but I imagine it's pretty subjective (for me, I tend to view indiscriminate killing worse than discriminate not the least of which contributes to this are the body counts of each heinous ideology).
|
On August 20 2017 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 21:49 Simberto wrote:On August 20 2017 21:28 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 21:23 farvacola wrote:
Though I feel like I plug her works all the time these days. I highly recommend Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, particularly with regards to attempts at drawing equivalencies between neo-nazis and antifa. Well, care to give a summary, because obviously no one's gonna go and buy a book now to argue. No self-identifying communist thinks stalin was a swell guy, and the incredible numbers of death associated with communism are perceived as part of the horrible implementation, certainly not as part of the goal. Bolded: you sure? Should not be possible to find one then, right? Italic: yeah, ahm, it doesn't really matter what it's perceived as, what does matter is what happened in reality. There's really not much perception there, communistic regimes deliberately killed millions, too. If you choose to ignore that, okay, but let me ask you this, would you let that argument count for a Nazi, if he says "well holocaust was shit" or even (since we're talking perception) "well holocaust never happened anyway"? We both know you (actually, we) wouldn't. Except i don't give a pass to any side. People who are communists today don't believe that stalinist atrocities didn't happen. They think that stalinist russia was not a communist nation. Their argument is that just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that you are that thing. This can easily be proven, too. If we take a countries claim of how they work as absolute truth, then you would necessary have to attribute all of the North Korean atrocities to democracy. After all, they are the "Democratic peoples republic of Korea". The resulting question is thus if something like stalinist russia is the inevitable result of striving for a communist society. Now, i personally am not a communist, i fit in more within the social democrats. Thus, i think that the best-working economic system that we know of is one of capitalism with a lot of governmental controls and safety nets to protect the weaker members of society from the excesses of the strong. I also see that historically, communist countries have had a tendency to turn out pretty shitty. I don't know if that is attributable to communism, but i also don't really see why communism should get ever more chances. Frankly, communism is based entirely on an outdated 19th century theory of value. I still dislike bad arguments. Stalinist Russia was ideologically communist, they enacted communism pretty strictly. I think the problem the modern day far left has with this is that they are unable to grasp the idea that their utopia could have extremely negative unintended consequences. The consequences of nazism were completely intended. I don't know if this makes one worse than the other, though, or which one would be worse. Being smart and thoughtful can be as important as being well intentioned.
I think they heighten current societal problems so the "extremely negative unintended consequences" don't look to be much worse than issues now. It's gross negligence for societal health together with a misplaced belief that they can stop the slide if people take it too far. They didn't learn from 1960s radicals that are now professors and being attacked by their more regressive students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/739f8bea9caa05b89a68a729904e9a81566df53c/0_0_5184_3456/master/5184.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=f9c683a4768a587c297ea8c8fd169702)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6ece29436e857784b4b7cb0841958e9852811119/87_129_2040_1213/master/2040.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=68a631b9220b6772f0e9aa113d96bc81)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bfc5f547ffaed4663013fed90599979695f0e630/289_280_4339_3087/master/4339.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=9121ef841da583eba1972d771ba8ad75)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/01e392cdbc89e0610fd4c41ff1079865d9194767/0_0_3500_2333/master/3500.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=c52c72b5fa0713a002795ecb938def4b)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/699ae9f10e38f3e89db2c0bce7c55427115fa32f/0_0_3200_2136/master/3200.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=6fea9239b9240441340b9c3934c564ab)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/48400d9caf5c5d4a7b2a4c9f009e5104628cd3ec/190_125_2810_1863/master/2810.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=a607902053bcd062d2fb44194502a202)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d55a0dfec65c600618510ca4d56b230e7fe44a34/0_153_3111_1983/master/3111.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=4f809fc537dfd03261c964e1f35f641c)
