Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Arc of History – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 9 in General
imageThe Arc of History – politicalbetting.com

Those words of Millicent Fawcett are echoed by what we saw on the streets of London yesterday. A pro-Iranian women march met up with a pro-Ukraine one, both chanting “All together we will win.” A large screen in Piccadilly Circus displayed the motto “Woman, Life, Freedom” in solidarity with Iranian protestors. Lovely to see, but no courage is needed to do this in Britain.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,452
    Off Topic - FPT -

    "Blackburn, Lancashire - Home of Four Thousand Holes (Made Famous by The Beatles)"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Decades ago Afghan and Iranian women lived much as we do in the West. Rights once granted can be taken away

    Yep. May seem unlikely, but better to be overcautious than not enough.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Off Topic - FPT -

    "Blackburn, Lancashire - Home of Four Thousand Holes (Made Famous by The Beatles)"

    Always heard it as homes. every day is a school day.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,643


    Westminster Voting Intention (2 Oct):

    Labour 52% (+6)
    Conservative 24% (-5)
    Liberal Democrat 10% (-3)
    Green 5% (+1)
    SNP 5% (+2)
    Reform UK 3% (-1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 28-29 Sept

    redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…

    Whoops

    Just saw in my FB feed:

    image
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    edited October 3
    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    If the polling continues at the 50+ level for Lab then no way is Truss gonna be allowed to face the electorate.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Jessica Elgot
    @jessicaelgot
    ·
    29m
    Labour 25pt lead in new poll from
    @SavantaComRes


    Lab 50 (+7); Con 25 (-4); LD 11 (-1); SNP 3 (-2); Gre 3 (-1); Other 8 (=)

    Largest ever Labour lead, highest ever Labour vote share
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864

    Jessica Elgot
    @jessicaelgot
    ·
    29m
    Labour 25pt lead in new poll from
    @SavantaComRes


    Lab 50 (+7); Con 25 (-4); LD 11 (-1); SNP 3 (-2); Gre 3 (-1); Other 8 (=)

    Largest ever Labour lead, highest ever Labour vote share


    SNP -2 is interesting. But, subsample and MOE
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,452
    On Topic - Another great commentary.

  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    correct some posters are getting carried away. I think crimea is 50% ethnic russian anyway
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    Russia would already be totally humiliated by losing the Donbas. They have, after all, declared those areas to be just as much a part of Russia proper as Crimea or anywhere else.

    So I don't buy it as a 'X would humiliate them too much, but not Y' argument.

    On a practical level, without ever giving up its claims to Crimea, and given where things could have gone (and there is still a long way to go), it is easier to see a potential path though, if they felt the cost was too high.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839
    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    But before that only really added to Russia in relatively modern history too.
    As you say - debatable.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,529
    edited October 3
    An excellent header, thanks; very thought-provoking. What's happening in the USA to women's rights obviously isn't on the same scale as the other examples, but it's certainly regressive rather than progressive for those rights.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    Why should the Crimea be part of Russia...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,226
    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    correct some posters are getting carried away. I think crimea is 50% ethnic russian anyway
    Less than that, after your boss's ethnic cleansing.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,584
    Sir Keir Starmer is too boring to win an election, am I right?

    Truss vs Starmer (2 October):

    Starmer leads Truss on ALL attributes:

    Cares about people like me (47% | 16%)
    Understands problems affecting the UK (46% | 23%)
    Represents change (43% | 26%)
    Can build a strong economy (44% | 22%)
    Is a strong leader (41% | 22%)

    Labour leads by 28%, largest lead for ANY party that we've recorded.

    Westminster Voting Intention (2 Oct):

    Labour 52% (+6)
    Conservative 24% (-5)
    Liberal Democrat 10% (-3)
    Green 5% (+1)
    SNP 5% (+2)
    Reform UK 3% (-1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 28-29 Sept

    Redfield and Wilton.

    Lawyers are awesome, this is just further proof.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,529
    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    What work of fiction? All Quiet on the Western Front? Come and See? Slaughterhouse 5?

    Or you like the idea of people who are not you fighting and dying because you quite enjoyed Les Miserables?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,771
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    Why should the Crimea be part of Russia...
    Perhaps it should be allowed to be an independent state. It probably should be if it hadn't been ethnically cleansed.

    The problem is that small independent states near Russia tend not to stay that way.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    So the redoing of elections - that’s fine as long as the Ukes who have been removed to Russia are allowed back. And then Russia will claim it’s fixed once Ukrainians return.

    Why not give Crimea to the Tartars or Cossacks (Kazakhs) as it was theirs before Russia’s as an independent state? Surely as legitimate?

    If Ukraine must remain “neutral” then they should insist that Crimea is demilitarised including removing the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol.

    Crimea is handed over to Russia if it defaults on trillions of reparations to Ukraine.


  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,529
    edited October 3
    I've just watched Kwarteng's speech. The chutzpah is astonishing. He and Truss are going to right all the wrongs of the last few governments.

    The Tories have been in power for 12 years. They must think we are all stupid - though the recent opinion polls suggest maybe we're not.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203
    Driver said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    correct some posters are getting carried away. I think crimea is 50% ethnic russian anyway
    Less than that, after your boss's ethnic cleansing.
    Also ethnic Russian != in favour of Crimea being part of Russia.

    I know that certain kind of nationalist have a problem with this, but there are plenty of states with multiple ethnic groups in them. And they don’t always want to join the state next door on the grounds that they from the same group.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    edited October 3
    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Just because some whinge doesn't mean it has gone far enough. In fact, the one can be an indication of the other: the very fact some won't accept equality.

    Edit: much better put by El Capitano and Northern Al!
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839
    FPT:
    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    Is Birmingham really as ugly as “any city in the world”?

    Brum is a shocker (like too many British cities) but I suggest there are worse in the ex-USSR, China, Korea, sub Saharan Africa

    eg Almost any town in Armenia is uglier than Birmingham

    That could be Birmingham’s new motto. “Better than many places in Armenia”

    strange place Birmingham. Supposed to be our 2nd city yet i always find the vibe in Manchester much better and to me Manchester always feels like our 2nd city.
    Manchester has a vibe like it thinks it is actually number one which often grates. Some parts of Brum are interesting/pleasant. Near the exhibition centre canal area and near the University are two that spring to mind. I prefer Liverpool, Glasgow and particularly Edinburgh to Manchester.
    All the best cities think they are actually number one. Without that self confidence you are nowhere.
    Many cities think they are rather more brilliant than might objectively be the case. I'd cite Newcastle and Nottingham in this respect. Manchester's certainty of its own brilliance is something else again though. (I say this as a suburban Mancunian with a great deal of affection for the place. But modest we are not in Manchester.)
    England's best major cities in order:

    London
    Manchester
    Liverpool
    Newcastle
    Bristol
    Nottingham
    Sheffield
    Leeds
    Birmingham


    That is not to say Brum is a bad city – it is far better than the rogue's gallery you posted earlier (Leics, Walsall etc).



    Probably not a bad order - would place Leeds above Sheffield and probably even Bristol but a lot of this list will depend on when you last visited those cities....
    Can't disagree too much with that.
    Manchester for me has two things in its favour: 1) it's home, and 2) it just feels big in a way that none of the others bar London do.

    Sheffield's city centre is perfectly pleasant, though small. Considering English cities through a different lens though Sheffield is arguably the 'best' city in the country. Around a third of its area is in a National Park for one thing. Even setting the non-urban bits aside though, it is wonderful; partly because of the hills, its suburbs are the best of any city on the list. Almost anywhere in urban Sheffield you can get a view which is striking and in most cases attractive.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210
    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,529
    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Yep, just as I thought. Tate is a deeply unpleasant misogynist. Sort of proves Cyclefree's point - we can't be complacent.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,584
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
    I remember when you used to praise Putin for being antiwoke.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Not Martin Luther King, he was quoting someone else. He was also almost certainly a serial abuser and rapist of women, so what he is doing here is anyone's guess.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,584
    This has been on the cards for a while.

    Vodafone and Three UK accelerate talks to dial up 'merger'

    A combined Vodafone and Three UK would become the biggest mobile telecoms supplier in Britain, with a deal potentially being struck by the end of the year, Sky News learns.


    https://news.sky.com/story/vodafone-and-three-uk-accelerate-talks-to-dial-up-merger-12711050
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    Carnyx said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Just because some whinge doesn't mean it has gone far enough. In fact, the one can be an indication of the other: the very fact some won't accept equality.
    Indeed but we have to be careful
    Note that Putin in his speeches is playing to the disaffection of certain classes of young western male
    And one persons whinge is anothers injustice....imagine the outcry if we accused women of whinging about things
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire

    I remember when you used to praise Putin for being antiwoke.
    I thought Alistair Meeks was antiwoke? Never realised it was Putin.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366
    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    Let Russia *buy* Crimea. Say $3-400 billion. This will pay for extensive restoration work in Ukraine. America purchased much of its own land so will presumably on board, especially if there is enough left over to pay for American weapons.
  • boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    So the redoing of elections - that’s fine as long as the Ukes who have been removed to Russia are allowed back. And then Russia will claim it’s fixed once Ukrainians return.

    Why not give Crimea to the Tartars or
    Cossacks (Kazakhs) as it was theirs
    before Russia’s as an independent state? Surely as legitimate?

    If Ukraine must remain “neutral” then they should insist that Crimea is demilitarised including removing the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol.

    Crimea is handed over to Russia if it defaults on trillions of reparations to Ukraine.


    TBH, The Crimea is strategically useless post this war to Russia. Sebastopol would be in easy reach of anti-ship / HIMARS batteries and its use as an air base similarly reduced due to likelier much improved AA systems on the Ukrainian side. In effect, any Russian forces in Crimea would be hostage to the whims of the Ukrainians. Similarly, I can't see many Russians thinking Crimea is a safe place to emigrate.

    Russia is fucked

  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    So the redoing of elections - that’s fine as long as the Ukes who have been removed to Russia are allowed back. And then Russia will claim it’s fixed once Ukrainians return.

    Why not give Crimea to the Tartars or
    Cossacks (Kazakhs) as it was theirs
    before Russia’s as an independent state? Surely as legitimate?

    If Ukraine must remain “neutral” then they should insist that Crimea is demilitarised including removing the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol.

    Crimea is handed over to Russia if it defaults on trillions of reparations to Ukraine.


    TBH, The Crimea is strategically useless post this war to Russia. Sebastopol would be in easy reach of anti-ship / HIMARS batteries and its use as an air base similarly reduced due to likelier much improved AA systems on the Ukrainian side. In effect, any Russian forces in Crimea would be hostage to the whims of the Ukrainians. Similarly, I can't see many Russians thinking Crimea is a safe place to emigrate.

    Russia is fucked

    Wasn’t being overly serious - just doing an Elon Musk and chucking out ideas which have no basis in what either side wants and having no real skin in the game.

  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    maybe but not healthy for society to have large numbers of disaffected young men...
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,452

    An excellent header, thanks; very thought-provoking. What's happening in the USA to women's rights obviously isn't on the same scale as the other examples, but it's certainly regressive rather than progressive for those rights.

    Re: USA, while I see your point re: SCOTUS body blow versus women's right to choose re: access to abortion.

    HOWEVER, the repeal of Roe v Wade threatens to create a backlash, which it appears we're already seeing (for example, Kansas abortion referendum flop) in lead-up to US midterms.

    PLUS the ongoing impact of the Me Too movement, which just chalked up another success (more or less) in US civil suit brought by Chinese student against Chinese business tycoon who allegedly got her drunk then raped her several years ago when she was going to school in Minnesota.

    NYT ($) - Settlement Reached in U.S. Court on Chinese #MeToo Case
    The case, involving a billionaire entrepreneur, riveted observers in China, where women alleging sexual wrongdoing by powerful men are often pilloried, silenced or both.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/02/world/asia/richard-liu-liu-jingyao-settlement.html
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Hezza not mincing words

    Liz Truss packed her cabinet with “cronies off the backbenches” rather than competent ministers with a range of views, and appeared to have no coherent plan behind her mini-budget, Michael Heseltine has said.

    The ex-deputy prime minister and former senior Conservative, who sits in the Lords as an unaffiliated peer after being suspended from the party in 2019, also predicted that Truss’s chances of winning the next election were “looking pretty bleak”.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/03/liz-truss-picked-cronies-off-backbenches-for-cabinet-says-michael-heseltine
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    edited October 3
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
    Putin is probably going to be replaced by someone worse regardless. That's just Russia for you. A hopeless land of despotism.

    Anyway, irrespective of whom the Czar happens to be at any given time, the Russians aren't going to initiate a nuclear exchange over a collection of impoverished and ruined provinces that they know full well (whatever they insist in public) were thieved off the Ukrainians. Defeat means sulking, not suicide: you can't seek to emulate Peter the Great, or Stalin, or conquer all your neighbours or terrify them into quivering submission, if you're a charred skeleton and Russia itself is one vast sheet of radioactive glass.

    They lose and they'll brood, sulk, foster grievances, pretend that it's everyone's fault except their own, and plot revenge further down the line (which they won't get because they're too poor, weak and backward.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    So the redoing of elections - that’s fine as long as the Ukes who have been removed to Russia are allowed back. And then Russia will claim it’s fixed once Ukrainians return.

    Why not give Crimea to the Tartars or
    Cossacks (Kazakhs) as it was theirs
    before Russia’s as an independent state? Surely as legitimate?

    If Ukraine must remain “neutral” then they should insist that Crimea is demilitarised including removing the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol.

    Crimea is handed over to Russia if it defaults on trillions of reparations to Ukraine.


    TBH, The Crimea is strategically useless post this war to Russia. Sebastopol would be in easy reach of anti-ship / HIMARS batteries and its use as an air base similarly reduced due to likelier much improved AA systems on the Ukrainian side. In effect, any Russian forces in Crimea would be hostage to the whims of the Ukrainians. Similarly, I can't see many Russians thinking Crimea is a safe place to emigrate.

    Russia is fucked

    Wasn’t being overly serious - just doing an Elon Musk and chucking out ideas which have no basis in what either side wants and having no real skin in the game.

    But in the end there must be a peace (or we are all dead). If it happens it will probably look something like Elon’s vision (tho Ukraine might demand NATO status)

    Neither side will be “happy”. However, Armageddon will be averted
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,300

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    edited October 3

    Driver said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    correct some posters are getting carried away. I think crimea is 50% ethnic russian anyway
    Less than that, after your boss's ethnic cleansing.
    Also ethnic Russian != in favour of Crimea being part of Russia.

    I know that certain kind of nationalist have a problem with this, but there are plenty of states with multiple ethnic groups in them. And they don’t always want to join the state next door on the grounds that they from the same group.
    Indeed all oblasts voted with a high turnout for independence for Ukraine in 1991. Crimea was the lowest at 54% for independence.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    It is on a 'global' scale, not a comment relating to Britain. If you look at Afghanistan and Iraq and the Islamic world as a whole, it seems like patriarchy and conservatism are on the rise. Possibly also in Eastern Europe. This is another way in which the "woke" thing is a bit confusing to me. It condemns western society for its flaws without taking much interest in what is going on outside it. You would have thought some of the rage over MeToo could be directed in support of the protests towards the Iranian regime, or the problems in Afghanistan, for instance. But it only really blows up over domestic grievances.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    IshmaelZ said:

    Not Martin Luther King, he was quoting someone else. He was also almost certainly a serial abuser and rapist of women, so what he is doing here is anyone's guess.

    He was quoting a 19th century preacher whom no-one has heard of. His quote referring to that preacher has then been misquoted (and on some views misunderstood) by Obama, who reportedly had it sewn into a rug at the White House.

    My only interest was in using the "arc of history" reference (not in King).

    You clearly don't like anything I write above or below the line, which is your prerogative. So let's take it as a given and then you don't have to do it every time. Which will save you time for other pursuits.

    I do like to be helpful, if I can.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    i think a lot of young men started to struggle financially after the financial crash....and of course property prices soared at the same time...so of course they became less desirable as mates....
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366
    OT Nobel Prize goes to Svante Paabo for Neanderthal work
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63116304
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    IshmaelZ said:

    Hezza not mincing words

    Liz Truss packed her cabinet with “cronies off the backbenches” rather than competent ministers with a range of views, and appeared to have no coherent plan behind her mini-budget, Michael Heseltine has said.

    The ex-deputy prime minister and former senior Conservative, who sits in the Lords as an unaffiliated peer after being suspended from the party in 2019, also predicted that Truss’s chances of winning the next election were “looking pretty bleak”.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/03/liz-truss-picked-cronies-off-backbenches-for-cabinet-says-michael-heseltine

    Apparently Rees-Mogg's business partner has been recruited into the government and will be given a place in the Lords.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
    Putin is probably going to be replaced by someone worse regardless. That's just Russia for you. A hopeless land of despotism.

    Anyway, regardless of whom the Czar happens to be at any given time, the Russians aren't going to initiate a nuclear exchange over a collection of impoverished and ruined provinces that they know full well (whatever they insist in public) were thieved off the Ukrainians. Defeat means sulking, not suicide: you can't seek to emulate Peter the Great, or Stalin, or conquer all your neighbours or terrify them into quivering submission, if you're a charred skeleton and Russia itself is one vast sheet of radioactive glass.

    They lose and they'll brood, sulk, foster grievances, pretend that it's everyone's fault except their own, and plot revenge further down the line (which they won't get because they're too poor, weak and backward.)
    But state actions do not happen "regardless of who the Czar happens to be at any given time" any more than the actions of Johnson or Truss are constrained by the fundamental this or that of the British Peepul As A Hole. It's not up to the Russians, it's up to Putin.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    On topic:

    This is why I have no time for religious zealots or even organised, evangelical religions. Look at the places in the world where women are the least safe and there is usually some under-educated, parochial air-breather spouting on about the evils of women and how the devil / Satan uses us to corrupt the faithful.

    If you want women to be safer, stamp out the zealots - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever. That would go a long way towards making many women safer.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    edited October 3

    OT Nobel Prize goes to Svante Paabo for Neanderthal work
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63116304

    Ook!

    (Seriously, there's no Nobel for general biology/evolution/geology so this is most unusual. And pleasing.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    There is certainly a lot more room for compromise on Crimea than on other parts of Ukraine.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    WTF should Ukraine remain neutral?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    Dating apps like Tinder

    The ugly guy who used to get laid by being funny or clever no longer gets a look-in. The girl swipes the wrong way and his jokes are unheard

    The top 10% of males, looks-wise, get 80% of the sex. I believe research has proved this
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,224
    Great header. Female emancipation is the most important of all causes imo but the patriarchy, religious or otherwise, is a formidable protagonist. It rarely rolls over and if it sees a chance it will put the boot in and kick things backwards - sometimes quite violently.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    The phenomenon of men not having sex and/or marrying late is not a new one. See rural Irish society for large parts of the 20th century. William Trevor describes this world very well in his short stories.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    WTF should Ukraine remain neutral?
    Yes. That’s the one point I really quibble on. The rest makes sense

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not Martin Luther King, he was quoting someone else. He was also almost certainly a serial abuser and rapist of women, so what he is doing here is anyone's guess.

    He was quoting a 19th century preacher whom no-one has heard of. His quote referring to that preacher has then been misquoted (and on some views misunderstood) by Obama, who reportedly had it sewn into a rug at the White House.

    My only interest was in using the "arc of history" reference (not in King).

    You clearly don't like anything I write above or below the line, which is your prerogative. So let's take it as a given and then you don't have to do it every time. Which will save you time for other pursuits.

    I do like to be helpful, if I can.
    Well good, but this piece like all your other pieces occupies the debatable ground where word salad collides with idea soup, and I shall continue where appropriate to say so. Do you write these things in the expectation that we all gaze on them in awed silence like Chinese tourists in the Sistine Chapel?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,450
    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    maybe but not healthy for society to have large numbers of disaffected young men...
    Isnt there a war on they can go join.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    So the redoing of elections - that’s fine as long as the Ukes who have been removed to Russia are allowed back. And then Russia will claim it’s fixed once Ukrainians return.

    Why not give Crimea to the Tartars or
    Cossacks (Kazakhs) as it was theirs
    before Russia’s as an independent state? Surely as legitimate?

    If Ukraine must remain “neutral” then they should insist that Crimea is demilitarised including removing the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol.

    Crimea is handed over to Russia if it defaults on trillions of reparations to Ukraine.


    TBH, The Crimea is strategically useless post this war to Russia. Sebastopol would be in easy reach of anti-ship / HIMARS batteries and its use as an air base similarly reduced due to likelier much improved AA systems on the Ukrainian side. In effect, any Russian forces in Crimea would be hostage to the whims of the Ukrainians. Similarly, I can't see many Russians thinking Crimea is a safe place to emigrate.

    Russia is fucked

    Wasn’t being overly serious - just doing an Elon Musk and chucking out ideas which have no basis in what either side wants and having no real skin in the game.

    But in the end there must be a peace (or we are all dead). If it happens it will probably look something like Elon’s vision (tho Ukraine might demand NATO status)

    Neither side will be “happy”. However, Armageddon will be averted
    Yeah well. This is the problem with 'beating back Russia'. Can they really be 'beaten back' without leading to nuclear armaggedon? I guess we will soon find out.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
    I don't buy this "There are first and second class countries in the world. The first class countries are allowed to make decisions for themselves, but the second class ones have to ask permission of the nearest first class one."

    Ukraine is allowed to join NATO or the EU or whatever: Russia doesn't get a veto on the basis that they were once a great power.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Hezza not mincing words

    Liz Truss packed her cabinet with “cronies off the backbenches” rather than competent ministers with a range of views, and appeared to have no coherent plan behind her mini-budget, Michael Heseltine has said.

    The ex-deputy prime minister and former senior Conservative, who sits in the Lords as an unaffiliated peer after being suspended from the party in 2019, also predicted that Truss’s chances of winning the next election were “looking pretty bleak”.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/03/liz-truss-picked-cronies-off-backbenches-for-cabinet-says-michael-heseltine

    Apparently Rees-Mogg's business partner has been recruited into the government and will be given a place in the Lords.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/02/jacob-rees-mogg-business-partner-dominic-johnson-given-senior-minister-role

    I have a feeling it might not have had the attention it normally might. For obvious reasons.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,963
    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    I don't know if the dates match exactly, but I'd bet the rise of online dating (which is fairly terrible) and the simultaneous correlated fall in "dating begun any way other than online" explains a lot of it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
    I don't buy this "There are first and second class countries in the world. The first class countries are allowed to make decisions for themselves, but the second class ones have to ask permission of the nearest first class one."

    Ukraine is allowed to join NATO or the EU or whatever: Russia doesn't get a veto on the basis that they were once a great power.
    Yes it does. Because it has nukes - and a sense of itself as massively important. So it has the will to go all the way

    These things matter. It’s realpolitik
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,363

    Sir Keir Starmer is too boring to win an election, am I right?

    Truss vs Starmer (2 October):

    Starmer leads Truss on ALL attributes:

    Cares about people like me (47% | 16%)
    Understands problems affecting the UK (46% | 23%)
    Represents change (43% | 26%)
    Can build a strong economy (44% | 22%)
    Is a strong leader (41% | 22%)

    Labour leads by 28%, largest lead for ANY party that we've recorded.

    Westminster Voting Intention (2 Oct):

    Labour 52% (+6)
    Conservative 24% (-5)
    Liberal Democrat 10% (-3)
    Green 5% (+1)
    SNP 5% (+2)
    Reform UK 3% (-1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 28-29 Sept

    Redfield and Wilton.

    Lawyers are awesome, this is just further proof.

    This is incredible. She hasn't been in office a month yet and two weeks or so of that was spent in the mourning period.

    I used to complain that us mid 70s born Gen Xers never had a shot at the top jobs. We get one, and this happens, FFS...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    What’s this about an expected Russian nuclear test in the Black Sea.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,552
    It will be interesting to see how much of a recovery in the polling happens after the u-turn .

    I’d expect these 20+ leads for Labour won’t last past this week as surely Truss and Kwarteng can’t do anything as bad again as last weeks debacle .

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
    I don't buy this "There are first and second class countries in the world. The first class countries are allowed to make decisions for themselves, but the second class ones have to ask permission of the nearest first class one."

    Ukraine is allowed to join NATO or the EU or whatever: Russia doesn't get a veto on the basis that they were once a great power.
    Except the members of NATO and the EU do get a veto on Ukraine joining, so you haven't really eliminated hierarchy.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
    I remember when you used to praise Putin for being antiwoke.
    The hard rightgwing American conservstive twitter sphere is still desperate to appease Putin.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,584

    What’s this about an expected Russian nuclear test in the Black Sea.

    President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, defence sources have warned.

    The Kremlin has been signalling its readiness for a significant escalation as Russia loses ground on the battlefield. Fears that Putin’s earlier hints that he might resort to such tactics were heightened today by claims that a train operated by the secretive nuclear division was destined for Ukraine.

    Konrad Muzyka, a defence analyst based in Poland, said the train, spotted in central Russia, was linked to the 12th main directorate of the Russian ministry of defence and that it was “responsible for nuclear munitions, their storage, maintenance, transport, and issuance to units”.

    International analysts suggest, however, that a more likely demonstration of Putin’s readiness to use nuclear weapons could come in the Black Sea. A senior defence source said that he faced a significant risk if he chose to deploy a nuclear weapon in the battlefield, as it could go wrong. “They could misfire and accidentally hit a Russian city close to the Ukrainian border such as Belgorod,” the source said. “Then he would have to escalate.”

    Sources said Nato had sent an intelligence report to its members and allies alerting them to the fact that Russia is expected to test its nuclear-capable torpedo drone Poseidon, possibly in the Black Sea, which it controls. As officials in Washington draw up possible scenarios for a response, Nato is thought to have reported that the nuclear submarine K-329 Belgorod is headed to the Arctic, having become operational in July.

    The Poseidon torpedo, dubbed the “weapon of the apocalypse”, can be launched from the submarine. According to La Repubblica newspaper, it is about to be tested in the area of the Kara Sea, north of the Russian mainland. The Poseidon operates autonomously and is about 24m (78ft) long, with a range of at least 10,000km (6,200 miles).


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-orders-nuclear-military-train-to-ukraine-front-line-tswzv2v50
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    You could look at it a different way.
    Incel (involuntarily celibate) is a subset of 'men who are just celibate'.
    If dealing with women becomes too difficult and risky, then they could just decide to stop bothering.
    No one is forcing men to have sex and go in to relationships with women.
    Particularly now that you have pornography, virtual reality etc.
    Perhaps it will get to the point where men adopt children, etc, in the way that single women sometimes give birth by IVF etc. Would this be such a bad thing?
    I am not saying that this is a healthy state of affairs, but it could be where the current phase of the 'sexual revolution' is leading to.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    An articulate and different position

    https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin/

    TLDR: “if Ukraine takes Crimea = nuclear war

    We need a ceasefire soon”

    not only that but a ceasefire would save many ukrainian lives too
    Hahaha, we're already right back at the 'People die while defending themselves, so they should stop' that we got at the start of the invasion.

    Tell it to Jeremy Corbyn, he'd be receptive.

    It's like no one has ever experienced any work of fiction or morality reminding us that, occasionally, things are worth fighting for. As the Header might suggest.
    Jacobin that @Leon quotes is a pretty hard left site, and like much of the hard left doesn't seem aware that Russia is no longer Communist.
    You could engage with the argument rather than pleading guilt by association

    I despise Putin, loathe this war, and I am delighted Ukraine is on the attack

    But we have to be realistic, because Russia is a great power with nukes. That’s just a fact

    Totally humiliating Russia will simply provoke the ultra-Nationalists. Even if Putin falls he’ll be replaced by someone WORSE, who might be happy to hook up with China

    Let them keep Crimea if Crimeans so desire
    I don't buy this "There are first and second class countries in the world. The first class countries are allowed to make decisions for themselves, but the second class ones have to ask permission of the nearest first class one."

    Ukraine is allowed to join NATO or the EU or whatever: Russia doesn't get a veto on the basis that they were once a great power.
    Except the members of NATO and the EU do get a veto on Ukraine joining, so you haven't really eliminated hierarchy.
    And Ukraine cannot continue the war without western arms and money, our money, so we also get a say. And while we want Putin rebuffed and diminished - or gone - we don’t want him replaced by someone even worse and we don’t want to die in a nuclear war. So we have our say
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    Dating apps like Tinder

    The ugly guy who used to get laid by being funny or clever no longer gets a look-in. The girl swipes the wrong way and his jokes are unheard

    The top 10% of males, looks-wise, get 80% of the sex. I believe research has proved this
    There is a short story by Lionel Shriver on Unherd today which offers a slightky different explanation. Though it is a piece of fiction, so don't go inferring more general truth than it merits.
    https://unherd.com/2022/10/metoo-lost-me-the-love-of-my-life/
  • That 30 pointer not looking like an outlier anymore.

    Three and Voda merge would be a powerhouse. They already merged in Australia
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864

    What’s this about an expected Russian nuclear test in the Black Sea.

    President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, defence sources have warned.

    The Kremlin has been signalling its readiness for a significant escalation as Russia loses ground on the battlefield. Fears that Putin’s earlier hints that he might resort to such tactics were heightened today by claims that a train operated by the secretive nuclear division was destined for Ukraine.

    Konrad Muzyka, a defence analyst based in Poland, said the train, spotted in central Russia, was linked to the 12th main directorate of the Russian ministry of defence and that it was “responsible for nuclear munitions, their storage, maintenance, transport, and issuance to units”.

    International analysts suggest, however, that a more likely demonstration of Putin’s readiness to use nuclear weapons could come in the Black Sea. A senior defence source said that he faced a significant risk if he chose to deploy a nuclear weapon in the battlefield, as it could go wrong. “They could misfire and accidentally hit a Russian city close to the Ukrainian border such as Belgorod,” the source said. “Then he would have to escalate.”

    Sources said Nato had sent an intelligence report to its members and allies alerting them to the fact that Russia is expected to test its nuclear-capable torpedo drone Poseidon, possibly in the Black Sea, which it controls. As officials in Washington draw up possible scenarios for a response, Nato is thought to have reported that the nuclear submarine K-329 Belgorod is headed to the Arctic, having become operational in July.

    The Poseidon torpedo, dubbed the “weapon of the apocalypse”, can be launched from the submarine. According to La Repubblica newspaper, it is about to be tested in the area of the Kara Sea, north of the Russian mainland. The Poseidon operates autonomously and is about 24m (78ft) long, with a range of at least 10,000km (6,200 miles).


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-orders-nuclear-military-train-to-ukraine-front-line-tswzv2v50
    Hmmmmmmmm
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    nico679 said:

    It will be interesting to see how much of a recovery in the polling happens after the u-turn .

    I’d expect these 20+ leads for Labour won’t last past this week as surely Truss and Kwarteng can’t do anything as bad again as last weeks debacle .

    Little to none. There will be a 5% recovery about 2 weeks into Sunak's PMship.
  • sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 26
    I was reading about Dominic Johnson in an article about the millions Mogg expects to get from his company, never imagining he'd become a minister.
    I posted the other day about the deplorable ministerial appointments by Truss. Other PMs used to appoint people, perhaps not well-known, presumably on merit. She chooses just to piss people off.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    That Times article is confused.
    It mentions the Black Sea, then suggests geography that implies the White Sea.

    Paper of record?
    My arse.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    Dating apps like Tinder

    The ugly guy who used to get laid by being funny or clever no longer gets a look-in. The girl swipes the wrong way and his jokes are unheard

    The top 10% of males, looks-wise, get 80% of the sex. I believe research has proved this
    Though walk about any town centre and there are loads of couples where the male is dishevelled and/or ugly yet paired up. Twas ever so.

    Incels need to up their game in terms of presentation, drop their misogyny and treat the women they meet with kindness and respect. It really isn't a difficult formula.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    I think he’s gonna do it
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    Dating apps like Tinder

    The ugly guy who used to get laid by being funny or clever no longer gets a look-in. The girl swipes the wrong way and his jokes are unheard

    The top 10% of males, looks-wise, get 80% of the sex. I believe research has proved this
    I have another angle, which is that the bottom 90% (no-one here, obvs) are arse-clenchingly inarticulate with a keyboard in front of them.
    So, possibly, are 90% of women. But perhaps men are less put off by this.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    Dating apps like Tinder

    The ugly guy who used to get laid by being funny or clever no longer gets a look-in. The girl swipes the wrong way and his jokes are unheard

    The top 10% of males, looks-wise, get 80% of the sex. I believe research has proved this
    Though walk about any town centre and there are loads of couples where the male is dishevelled and/or ugly yet paired up. Twas ever so.

    Incels need to up their game in terms of presentation, drop their misogyny and treat the women they meet with kindness and respect. It really isn't a difficult formula.
    Well, statistically it seems to be harder than you think.

    I blame the sweet dopamine hit of mobile phones, video gaming, and weed.

    All are “more fun” than going out and actually meeting someone.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864

    That Times article is confused.
    It mentions the Black Sea, then suggests geography that implies the White Sea.

    Paper of record?
    My arse.

    It is muddled. But they can surely be forgiven a bit of nerves

    This is it. The moment of maximum peril approaches
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,452
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Hah. Elon has just tweeted my exact thoughts


    “Ukraine-Russia Peace:

    - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

    - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

    - Water supply to Crimea assured.

    - Ukraine remains neutral.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?s=46&t=0y-JpaGY64C6jMM6Cl71NQ

    WTF should Ukraine remain neutral?
    So that Elon Musk can suck up to Putin, for fun and profit?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    Leon said:

    That Times article is confused.
    It mentions the Black Sea, then suggests geography that implies the White Sea.

    Paper of record?
    My arse.

    It is muddled. But they can surely be forgiven a bit of nerves

    This is it. The moment of maximum peril approaches
    He’s going do a test, to show he’s mr billy big bollocks.

    This might help defend him against internal critics, but is going to have no impact on the war itself.
  • pingping Posts: 3,201
    This is good news;

    https://www.ft.com/content/ce3becd7-4098-45cc-afd5-ba145eda856a

    “Bank of England buys just £22mn of bonds in latest purchasing operation

    Central bank has bought £3.7bn worth of government debt out of a possible £20bn since scheme launched“
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,607
    edited October 3
    There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

    I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    Foxy said:

    Driver said:

    PeterM said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for @BartholomewRoberts

    “No.

    Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”


    ++++


    This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar

    It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev

    Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all

    correct some posters are getting carried away. I think crimea is 50% ethnic russian anyway
    Less than that, after your boss's ethnic cleansing.
    Also ethnic Russian != in favour of Crimea being part of Russia.

    I know that certain kind of nationalist have a problem with this, but there are plenty of states with multiple ethnic groups in them. And they don’t always want to join the state next door on the grounds that they from the same group.
    Indeed all oblasts voted with a high turnout for independence for Ukraine in 1991. Crimea was the lowest at 54% for independence.

    The writing on the wall for the Soviet Union. Fascinating that the Gorbachev coup was a few days before the vote. I've seen it argued that the whole coup was staged.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,363
    Leon said:

    That Times article is confused.
    It mentions the Black Sea, then suggests geography that implies the White Sea.

    Paper of record?
    My arse.

    It is muddled. But they can surely be forgiven a bit of nerves

    This is it. The moment of maximum peril approaches
    Thanks Leon. Your nervousness is noted.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    PeterM said:

    PeterM said:

    darkage said:

    It is quite good to read an article that is realistic about the 'arc of history'. It doesn't neccessarily advance in a positive way although educated people often have a quasi religious faith that it does. For the last 15 years the arc of history has been going in the wrong direction with conservatism and patriarchy in the ascendancy, at least on a global scale. In this context I think we could be a bit more positive about our own society and what it has achieved.

    patriairchy in the ascendancy the past 15 years....maybe in the minds of extreme feminists but i dont think modern britain could in any way be described as a patriarchy
    Why do I suspect that in your mind feminist = extreme feminist?
    do you think modern britain could be described as a patriarchy....i dont.....many young men actually think feminism has gone too far...look at the popularity of andrew tate for example
    Incels gonna incel.
    If tate's popularity is limited to incels (which it might be), then that means there are a hell of a lot of men out there not having sex at all. Which is worrying.

    It is a societal problem - aside from the fact we need people to form stable relationships and have children so we can all have someone to look after us in our old age, it implies men and women aren't communicating any more, which is a huge problem in the way we relate to one another.

    We also have to question why "incels" are such a uniquely modern phenomenon.

    There is the infamous Pew Research chart from 2018 that shows that the percentage of young men not having sex has risen from 10% in 2008 to 30% in 2018 - and while the number of young men not having sex is clearly out of historic norms, young women continue to have sex at normal rates, albeit less than in 2008.

    https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111607604348805120

    So what is happening in society? Where did all the incels come from, and why did they start appearing so frequently in 2008? What changed?
    Dating apps like Tinder

    The ugly guy who used to get laid by being funny or clever no longer gets a look-in. The girl swipes the wrong way and his jokes are unheard

    The top 10% of males, looks-wise, get 80% of the sex. I believe research has proved this
    Though walk about any town centre and there are loads of couples where the male is dishevelled and/or ugly yet paired up. Twas ever so.

    Incels need to up their game in terms of presentation, drop their misogyny and treat the women they meet with kindness and respect. It really isn't a difficult formula.
    Well, statistically it seems to be harder than you think.

    I blame the sweet dopamine hit of mobile phones, video gaming, and weed.

    All are “more fun” than going out and actually meeting someone.
    Well obviously a stoner gamer is not out on the town, so wouldn't be seen. Does he expect to download a babe? There does need to be a modicum of effort!
This discussion has been closed.