To be annoyed in laws ruined NY fireworks AGAIN!

[Baulin]

So every New Year’s Eve we go to my in laws and have a small get together. However every time the London fireworks start, since the first commentary in 2021, I have to endure a massive rant and rave about left wing agenda which completely ruins the atmosphere of the night. I was dreading the fireworks display last night because I knew all I’d hear from the family is complaining and talking over the show. As soon as I heard the same sex marriage part I thought “oh god here we go” and then the homophobic whining started. I was fuming because it just ruins it for me. It’s as though they’re unable to dislike something without feeling the need to comment on it.

Does anyone else find this annoying from family and do you say anything or just let it go over your head?

Anyway, back to the OP.

@Baulin You are very very very unreasonable to keep going to your in laws for NYE when you know they have these views and they have already ruined your experience of watching the fireworks by expressing these views during the fireworks on more than one occasion.

If you want to see the new year in watching the fireworks on TV without your enjoyment of them being ruined by your in laws, the answer is not to see the new year in with your in laws. You can stay at home and watch the fireworks in peace, or you can invite like minded people who will not express the wrong opinions during the fireworks to come to your house on new year's eve, or you can find another party to go to.

What you can't do is expect your in laws not to say what they like in their own house just because you want to go to a party and theirs is the only one you are invited to.

Why do you assume so? Saying you would not argue with me suggests you are unable to put forward coherent arguments, but I would not assume you are therefore bigoted from your (un)willingness to argue. My 'try me' has more to do with the ability to argue than any opinion I may hold. My answer got truncated btw. This is the rest of what I said:
I believe people have a right to their opinion and should be able to argue for it - you will never persuade people who don't agree with you, though. I am a Brexiteer on grounds of national sovereignty (agreeing with the late Tony Benn on this and much else), and also a gender-critical feminist who understands that biology is immutable (you will find me on the feminist board). I support Israel over the horrors of Oct 7th (I cannot think why any woman would not, but I also sympathise with the Palestinians, but seeing the residents of Gaza cheering at the sight of dead woman with men's boots on her broken body being paraded through Gaza mitigated my sympathy somewhat). I am happy for anyone to marry, for marriage is a social good. I include same-sex marriage in that happiness.

This answer was not meant for you. Sorry you got attached to it. I don't like zealots either, they are dangerous and break society in ways which are difficult to mend. Not especially rigid, though I am a Bennite socialist. Can't stand Keir Starmer.

You tacitly agree to accept the result of an election/referendum if you live in a liberal democracy such as the UK. That does not mean you cannot express contrary opinions. As to the electorate being uninformed, that is not so. Many outside the professional classes were suffering from the outcome (intended) of free movement, which was to lower wages and affect opportunities to work for many people, and encourage the British habit of avoiding training the indiginous workforce. Opportunities to go to university abroad are nice, but not necessary, and can be followed up without the EU, which is a political institution that does not fit the UK very well. Our Common Law was being damaged by use of the Civil Code and the Common Law is the basis of liberty in the UK (yes, I know Scotland is different) - abrogating it endangers our polity. Giving away the soveriegnty of our parliament without asking the voters if they agreed is undemocratic - the referendum showed what the majority of us thought about that. Calling the people who voted for Brexit 'uninformed' is insulting. People were not uninformed, they knew very well the disadvantages for them and theirs from the EU, from the putting of business rights above workers' rights, to promoting social policies the majority of Europeans disagree with, to disregarding the heritage and culture of Europe e.g. in the Lisbon Treaty, they understood perfectly well. The UK used the right to withdraw. That withdrawing became a punishment makes the EU look like the most unappealing trading bloc in the world.

There's so much wrong with this that I don't really know where to start.

No, you don't "tacitly agree to accept" anything if you live in a democracy. The whole point of a democracy is that you keep fighting for what you want. By your logic the Brexiters should have accepted the result of the 1975 referendum and stopped whingeing.

As for the electorate being uninformed, well, they clearly were. As evidenced by the spike in people from the UK Googling "what is the EU?" in the immediate aftermath of voting to leave it and the astonishing display of ignorance about how literally any of it worked.

The opportunities that have been removed from British people have not been replaced by anything even remotely equivalent - this is particularly true for students, whose opportunities to study abroad are now far more limited and much more expensive than they were before - and working class people are certainly no better off.

Our common law legal system was, is, and remains intact and was not affected by the "civil code" in any way. A civil code is a body of legislation in force in countries which have a civil law system, and has nothing to do with the UK whatsoever.

Parliament has not really gained any sovereignty, given that the only areas where we agreed to share sovereignty in the first place were in relation to international trade, and we have now become rule takers rather than rule makers. Furthermore, what is the point of parliament being sovereign when they are so removed from the people? Does parliament regaining some theoretical sovereignty give you, a voter, any more control over your own life? No, of course not. If you're concerned about democratic legitimacy you would be better off campaigning for electoral reform. As a gender critical feminist you will be well aware that there is currently no party you can vote for which will protect women's rights, and that the Labour Party which will win the next election more or less by default plans to legislate women out of existence by redefining us as a feeling in a man's head.

Finally, there was no "punishment". It is completely obvious that when you leave a club you can no longer enjoy the benefits of membership. If you could, no one would pay to be a member. If you interpret the negative effects of Brexit as a "punishment", you're really just admitting that it was a shit idea all along.

If you think continuing to campaign abrogates tacit agreement you do not understand how a parlaimentary democracy works. We elect a party by electing MPs who then form a government, they choosing a PM who then chooses a cabinet from MPs (both Lords and Commons) and may also co-opt to his cabinet from non-MPs if he/she wishes. We all obey the laws this new parliament passes even if we disagree with them, but we continue to campaign for reform. If you do not vote then you remove your right to complain, IMO, but that's just me.

A lot of people went onto the internet before and after the vote. Had they examined the EU sites they would have understood the centrist and non-democratic nature of the EU, where power is acceded to an unelected bureaucracy (and yes I understand the concept of indirect election which is used, I happen to see clearly that it is undemocratic). Had they watched the two BBC programmes on how the EU works and how it was formed they would have voted to leave, the gerrymandering of Jenkins and Heath revealed, and the undemocratic operation of the Brussels bureaucracy was set out clearly - I doubt the BBC meant to do this, but for once they were unbiased. I have never campaigned for electoral reform since I see the mess that various forms of proportional representation cause, especially of extreme parties being enabled.

To the punishment bit! The EU worked hard to make the UK's position after leaving untenable; there was a concerted effort to make the Good Friday Agreement (nothing to do with the EU) unworkable by imposing restraint on movement of goods within the UK's own territorial boundaries, the intention seemed to be the break-up of the UK. M. Macron publicly declared that the UK should be punished for allowing its people to vote on membership and then following the democratic principle of actually doing what the people wanted. If you missed that you were not paying attention. Your refutations are not bad, but sorry, no cigar, for they do not refute what I said.

Mate, you're strenuously ignoring all the people who literally said, "If I'd known it would be like this I never would have voted for it!" and just about every poll since 2016 which shows that a majority of people now think it was the wrong decision.

Well the ‘messages’ that came with the show were virtue signally/ cringingly awful, I half expected the drones to end up as the Palestinian flag 🙄
The show and music were quite enough, we don’t need preaching at.

@Grammarnut so you dislike zealotry yet continue to push an unrelated discussion in a direction for you to continue soapboxing?

I think you’d probably get on quite well with the OP’s in-laws tbh.

I doubt it. They sound homophobic and racist. My children are mixed-raced so racism would go down badly. So would homophobia. Also talking over fireworks would annoy me. Mind, Sadjit Khan is an arrogant p**t. Praise for the NHS is always welcome, but the current government have run it into the ground and I will not be voting for them. Gay marriage, with which I agree, was, however, passed by a Tory government, as was Brexit (wit which I agree). I suspect in-laws are also sexist, which would go down like a ton of bricks round here. So, no, I would not get on with OP's in-laws - but it occurs to me that her woke and progressive attitudes are just the sort my stepson would pick up on and do a wind-up over. So my answer to the OP is either don't go to this event or say 'not that again! Pointless trying to wind me up, I am not playing' and watch the fireworks.
Not quite sure where I went off piste. I thought this was about counteracting racist attitudes, at least that is all over the thread.

it was all organised by khan said it had taken 6 months planning

Stop going. I wouldn't see them at all, they sound disgusting.

Of course you can say no to seeing racist homophobes!

The in-laws are in their own home. OP and family go there.

I actually do have sympathy for you- my inlaws are the whole range of bigoted/right wing/insufferable that you can imagine. (My wife and I have been legally married for 7 years and they still refuse to acknowledge it as the same as a straight marriage to the point of refusing to use her correct surname. Meanwhile her sister got married last year and they have zero issues with her new surname).
I still have to see them as my wife wishes to maintain some contact with them/her sister for her own, valid reasons.
We do however limit face to face contact to three times a year and we do our best during those times to watch/discuss nothing that could set them off. They thankfully live 300 miles away so aren't going to just turn up at the door 🤣
It isn't always that easy to just "not see them," especially when they aren't your direct family so you don't get the final say.
I would suggest perhaps not watching the fireworks and catching them later, on iplayer for example, if you have to spend NYE with them.

@HarrietPoole Again, RTFT please, I've already addressed this error three times upthread.

Just don’t go…..not hard. Or tell them to shush as you’ve had enough of their rants.

It's his home. He can say what he likes. If you don't like it don't go next year.

😁

I didn't say any such thing. My answer actually disappeared and is later on the thread. I said try arguing with me. If I am willing to argue by your definition, that bigots have no arguments, I am pointing out that I am not a bigot but happen to disagree with some of the ideas expressed. Logic clearly not your strong point.

We were at a lovely NYE gathering and a man I'd never met started with the old 'people have loads of kids just so they can get benefits' routine.

I just looked him straight in the eye and replied 'I have a completely different view on that so probably best we do t go there'. He started again. I interjected 'like I said, I don't agree and stop now as we wouldn't want you to,spoil such a lovely party'. Oh, he responded. Have I upset you. 'No, I'm adult enough to be able to have different opinions and not get all sulky'.

And on we went and had a nice party.

I do think that if people are arrogant enough to spout their opinions so brashly, that they should expect challenge or to be told to button it.

That's what I'd do to your PIL. Tell them to shut it. Politely, but firmly.

Every word after ‘I doubt it’ was completely superfluous. Why does anyone need to know your stance on at least six different topics? It’s just a stream of consciousness.

You also don’t need to censor prat.

We had a disastrous NYE with PiL about 12 years ago, an utterly miserable evening with my MiL's miserables complaining. I've refused to spend NYE with them ever since, life is too short

Are you me?!
Christmas lunch - “Grandma, you’re so empathetic, so I know that you’ll understand it’s so difficult for a trans teenager to deal with it all - they can’t choose any of this”
Silence, first time EVER!

No, I don't need to censor 'prat' but I chose to. As to the rest you accused me of being bigoted. It's entirely reasonable to give reasons why that is not the case. Assertions like 'I doubt it' prove nothing. And lecturing people on what they choose to post and how is unattractive.
Also, you don't know what stream of consciousness means. Try reading Woolf's 'Mrs Dalloway'.