Another side point to the discussion about kids not being ready for school: kids are not the same ae when they start school. A kid that is born in July or August will be the youngest in class, and nearly a year younger than the oldest. That's a large portion of their lives so far, so developmentally you might expect there to be a considerable gulf in some areas, on average.
Starmer seems to have fixated on simply getting Labour into government. Big tick, job done. But what is the point of power if you don't know what to do with it?
Starmer has performed pretty much to my low expectations. There is not a fantastic amount of policy difference between his administration and the tories that preceded it. A WFA there, an IHT here. Who gives a fuck? It's not exactly Father Lenin's "State and Revolution".
However, one thing he undeniably is, is a grinder. Since the "Peak Boris" of the Hartlepool by-election (I can't remember who called it as Peak Boris on here, but chapeau) he relentlessly dragged the Labour, who are not always the most biddable congregation, into power with a handsome majority. Maybe he'll apply the same industrious obduracy to the business of government.
I can see that, but I can also see a counter argument: he did not relentlessly drag Labour into power. Instead, he just sat around whilst the Conservatives imploded.
A question is how much the remarkably low Labour share got at the GE could have been increased. What should worry Labour is the idea that Starmer and his team did work relentlessly, and that 34% is pretty much their max potential vote.
The counter counter argument is that 34% is not that bad in modern European legislative elections, exceeding the vote share any other party in Western Europe apart from the stubbornly duopolistic Maltese government and opposition.
(As you go east, there are sloghtly more examples, for example in Poland and Greece).
But, by that score, I'd note 24% is not as apocalyptic for the Tories as it would have been 25 years ago.
It's not just a quarter of a century ago though. In the week before the 2024 election was called, Labour polled 43-48% (and the Tories 20-27%). Pre-partygate, both main parties were trading in the high-thirties. A year earlier, they were tied at around 40.
Now, we can say that some of that was an unusually large two-party share (as was the 2019 election), and that ever since 2012 the old three-party (plus nationalists in Wales / Scotland) had broken down and vote share become more dispersed, and that's true. 2019, despite the very concentrated results, saw volatility across the year as a whole that was unprecedented since at least 1981/2 and probably since 1931 or even 1918-24.
Anyway, 24% is borderline apocalyptic for both main parties. The Tories ending on their lowest ever number of MPs, in more than 200 years as a party, tells its own story - but it was perilously close to being an awful lot worse still.
It’s a shame it wasn’t, really - including for them.
The public wanted to teach the Tories a lesson, yet they don’t seem to have learned anything.
It's something that is one of the banes of education. Just because a teacher plans a lesson to teach X, it's awfully hard to stop a class learning Y, which may have nothing to do with the intial intention and may not even be correct.
So the Conservatives do seem to have learned a lesson from July 4- namely that their actions need to be more right-wing. Some voters undoubtedly wanted to teach that lesson. How many remains to be seen.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
What's a "massive discount", as in "Manufacturers gave "massive" discounts worth around £4bn on electric vehicles (EVs), the SMMT said."?
(Looking on CarWow for electrics, I'm seeing discounts from around 5% to 16-17% with a small number of more generous outliers such as MGs at 20%+.
On the benchmark of wanting the discount to cover 12-18 months depreciation, that's sort of OK for some if there is extra range or similar, but nice second hand vehicles may be a better option).
Almost no-one has yet realised that the market for second-hand EVs is about as big as the market for second-hand mobile phones, and this will quickly feed into the lease prices for new EVs.
If there is a glut of cheap second-hand EV cars in ~5 years that would be perfect timing for me.
I'd want one before then. However, the thing with EVs is that new ones are improving fast, second hand ones will probably fall faster than ICE cars where improvements year by year are minor.
The big change comes in a couple of years when many shedloads of new battery manufacturing capacity come fully on stream. Battery prices continue to fall, but there isn't yet enough capacity for that to make a big difference.
Once capacity is there, it becomes commercially sensible for manufacturers to make cheap mass market EVs. (China is, of course, already doing so, to an extent, but most of their cheaper offerings aren't available for the western market - and/or won't meet our product regulations.)
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
What I don't understand is why it's simultaneously at R.A F Lakenheath and Mildenhall, and in New Jersey.
It's either an adversary, or something beyond the normal parameters. As mentioned in that X thread, this weekend's winds should be a good a good test of how advanced whatever it is is, if they keep turning out day, up until now.
Next step I assume is to ban Georgescu from running.
Ahahaha here we are:
from G4Media: it appears the elections will be held from scratch, with candidates having to register again and having to go through the validation process at the Central Electoral Bureau.
Next step I assume is to ban Georgescu from running.
Ahahaha here we are:
from G4Media: it appears the elections will be held from scratch, with candidates having to register again and having to go through the validation process at the Central Electoral Bureau.
Well, to be fair, I suspect the reports that the Russians have been involved via a deluge of tiktok manipulation may have something in them.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
But if it is humans - and I think that is by far the most likely explanation - that is still pretty interesting, no?
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Next step I assume is to ban Georgescu from running.
Ahahaha here we are:
from G4Media: it appears the elections will be held from scratch, with candidates having to register again and having to go through the validation process at the Central Electoral Bureau.
Well, to be fair, I suspect the reports that the Russians have been involved via a deluge of tiktok manipulation may have something in them.
Cancelling elections over a candidates' social media strategy. Yikes !
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
So you don’t think it’s both interesting (and worrying!) that entire military/security agencies have been apparently fooled - and troops sent out, and special forces activated, and jets and copters scrambled (which has all happened) - and they’ve been fooled because this is really just some ongoing mass hallucination in the UK and USA based on maybe one drone or maybe no drone at all
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
Next step I assume is to ban Georgescu from running.
Ahahaha here we are:
from G4Media: it appears the elections will be held from scratch, with candidates having to register again and having to go through the validation process at the Central Electoral Bureau.
Well, to be fair, I suspect the reports that the Russians have been involved via a deluge of tiktok manipulation may have something in them.
Cancelling elections over a candidates' social media strategy. Yikes !
The reports I've read is more that the Russian intelligence agencies raised his profile from absolute obscurity to fame in a month or two, using thousands of bot accounts on tiktok and elsewhere.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
So you don’t think it’s both interesting (and worrying!) that entire military/security agencies have been apparently fooled - and troops sent out, and special forces activated, and jets and copters scrambled (which has all happened) - and they’ve been fooled because this is really just some ongoing mass hallucination in the UK and USA based on maybe one drone or maybe no drone at all
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
“Yeah, whatever, people have kids all the time”
There's definitely something afoot there. It may not be aliens, but I very, very much doubt it's hobbyists or pranksters. Ergo it should be news.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
If people are so easily manipulated then we should just abandon universal suffrage and be more discerning about who gets to vote.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such latter person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who left school at sixteen and has spent his life since in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
If people are so easily manipulated then we should just abandon universal suffrage and be more discerning about who gets to vote.
No need to abandon elections, but we might need to dismantle social media.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such latter person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who left school at sixteen and has spent his life since in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
I do adore PB shrewdies realising their cherished brand of social democracy is becoming about as popular as a dose of the clap and hoping the courts can help.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who has spent his entire life in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
TBF natural selection makes no value judgements. It can [edit] be positively detrimental to have a dog in the family under certain circumstances.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
But if it is humans - and I think that is by far the most likely explanation - that is still pretty interesting, no?
Quite
My honest guess is Russians using locals, because something is almost certainly happening. This isn’t like Gatwick (but if it was that would arguably be even more interesting, a form of mass hysteria across two countries in multiple places involving several organisations)
With the initial trigger - the Russians freaking everyone out with clever drones, then maybe some psychological contagion??
Rabbitholing this I have discovered that the USA really does - probably - possess some quite weird hi-tech aircraft.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
The trouble with that is you then end up in a situation where a person could spend a moderate amount ramping a candidate they didn’t want to win and then leak that they’d done it so as to exclude that candidate from a future rerun.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
If people are so easily manipulated then we should just abandon universal suffrage and be more discerning about who gets to vote.
No need to abandon elections, but we might need to dismantle social media.
I didn't say abandon elections, just restrict the franchise. The problem you are trying to solve is that you don't trust a lot of people to vote the right way or based on the right premises, so don't let them vote.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
But if it is humans - and I think that is by far the most likely explanation - that is still pretty interesting, no?
Not if its local idiots, or more likely just people getting spooked and seeing lights in the sky and interpresting as drones.
Back in the Warminster flap there is a report of glowing orange balls in the sky that would suddenly jump in space, without passing through the intermediate area. Its Salisbury Plain. This was military flares. As one extinguished a new one would be fired. And yet these people convinced themselves it was something more significant. In their defence they were not from the area, but still.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
If people are so easily manipulated then we should just abandon universal suffrage and be more discerning about who gets to vote.
Unfortunately, many people are indeed easily manipulated, and social media gives those wishing to manipulate the perfect means to do so. I don't think abandoning universal suffrage is a good idea, but there is an issue for democracy here, and it should be acknowledged. Hopefully, though, it will all sort itself out once people become more media-savvy and have had their fingers burned a couple of times by populists.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
So you don’t think it’s both interesting (and worrying!) that entire military/security agencies have been apparently fooled - and troops sent out, and special forces activated, and jets and copters scrambled (which has all happened) - and they’ve been fooled because this is really just some ongoing mass hallucination in the UK and USA based on maybe one drone or maybe no drone at all
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
“Yeah, whatever, people have kids all the time”
What happened at Gatwick? The airport completely shut down.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
What I don't understand is why it's simultaneously at R.A F Lakenheath and Mildenhall, and in New Jersey.
It's either an adversary, or something beyond the normal parameters. As mentioned in that X thread, this weekend's winds should be a good a good test of how advanced whatever it is is, if they keep turning out day, up until now.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
It's OK. That could never happen in the West.
Yep, it’s not like we had an entire political class in the UK trying to cancel the result of the biggest referendum in our history, with the biggest mandate, simply because they didn’t like what the voters said
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
So you don’t think it’s both interesting (and worrying!) that entire military/security agencies have been apparently fooled - and troops sent out, and special forces activated, and jets and copters scrambled (which has all happened) - and they’ve been fooled because this is really just some ongoing mass hallucination in the UK and USA based on maybe one drone or maybe no drone at all
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
“Yeah, whatever, people have kids all the time”
There's definitely something afoot there. It may not be aliens, but I very, very much doubt it's hobbyists or pranksters. Ergo it should be news.
Was there definitely something afoot at Gatwick too?
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
It's OK. That could never happen in the West.
Yep, it’s not like we had en entire political class in the UK trying to cancel the result of the biggest referendum in our history, with the biggest mandate, simply because they didn’t like what the voters said
Thank God we’d never stoop so low. We are British
It was objectively a terrible move to leave the EU trading block economically, even with their disgraceful internal politics. As you say thank goodness the referendum result wasn't cancelled though or we'd be in a democratically terrible place.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
If people are so easily manipulated then we should just abandon universal suffrage and be more discerning about who gets to vote.
No need to abandon elections, but we might need to dismantle social media.
I didn't say abandon elections, just restrict the franchise. The problem you are trying to solve is that you don't trust a lot of people to vote the right way or based on the right premises, so don't let them vote.
There is an essentially unregulated tidal wave of propaganda on social media which would be illegal to print or broadcast. How can you have a free and fair election when much of what people are viewing is being manipulated by foreign actors? That's the problem. If you don't want to tackle that you can expect to end up with a Russian aligned government.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who has spent his entire life in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
TBF natural selection makes no value judgements. It can [edit] be positively detrimental to have a dog in the family under certain circumstances.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
Early man domesticated dogs for companionship and for the myriad of useful things they can do which we can’t. And cats for…whatever it is that cats are useful for.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
But if it is humans - and I think that is by far the most likely explanation - that is still pretty interesting, no?
Not if its local idiots, or more likely just people getting spooked and seeing lights in the sky and interpresting as drones.
At least the Three Wise Men didn’t make that mistake?
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
So you don’t think it’s both interesting (and worrying!) that entire military/security agencies have been apparently fooled - and troops sent out, and special forces activated, and jets and copters scrambled (which has all happened) - and they’ve been fooled because this is really just some ongoing mass hallucination in the UK and USA based on maybe one drone or maybe no drone at all
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
“Yeah, whatever, people have kids all the time”
There's definitely something afoot there. It may not be aliens, but I very, very much doubt it's hobbyists or pranksters. Ergo it should be news.
Was there definitely something afoot at Gatwick too?
Maybe not the 'something afoot' some of us have in mind. But plod was sure afoot, or rather put a foot through the door of some poor sod of a nearby drone enthusiast, and arrested him and his wife so that they were [edit] crucified in the tabloids for disrupting gazillions of holidays. Despite him being totally innocent. PLod now down about £200K in costs and compo.
NB the possibility that some of the sightings were of Plod Air.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who has spent his entire life in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
TBF natural selection makes no value judgements. It can [edit] be positively detrimental to have a dog in the family under certain circumstances.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
Early man domesticated dogs for companionship and for the myriad of useful things they can do which we can’t. And cats for, whatever cats are useful for.
There's a Dangerous Dogs Act, but no Dangerous Cats Act?
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who has spent his entire life in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
TBF natural selection makes no value judgements. It can [edit] be positively detrimental to have a dog in the family under certain circumstances.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
Early man domesticated dogs for companionship and for the myriad of useful things they can do which we can’t. And cats for…whatever it is that cats are useful for.
Wrong way round, the odd mouse excepted. Cats domesticated humans for whatever they are useful for.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
If people are so easily manipulated then we should just abandon universal suffrage and be more discerning about who gets to vote.
No need to abandon elections, but we might need to dismantle social media.
I didn't say abandon elections, just restrict the franchise. The problem you are trying to solve is that you don't trust a lot of people to vote the right way or based on the right premises, so don't let them vote.
There is an essentially unregulated tidal wave of propaganda on social media which would be illegal to print or broadcast. How can you have a free and fair election when much of what people are viewing is being manipulated by foreign actors? That's the problem. If you don't want to tackle that you can expect to end up with a Russian aligned government.
It's unsolveable by the means you are suggesting. You can never be sure that people haven't been exposed to the 'wrong' information, even if you implement a Stasi-style society. The problem is universal suffrage, not social media.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
So you don’t think it’s both interesting (and worrying!) that entire military/security agencies have been apparently fooled - and troops sent out, and special forces activated, and jets and copters scrambled (which has all happened) - and they’ve been fooled because this is really just some ongoing mass hallucination in the UK and USA based on maybe one drone or maybe no drone at all
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
“Yeah, whatever, people have kids all the time”
There's definitely something afoot there. It may not be aliens, but I very, very much doubt it's hobbyists or pranksters. Ergo it should be news.
Was there definitely something afoot at Gatwick too?
Wasn't that on one day only, though ? This has been consistent daily reports, in two specific areas of the U.K. and U.S.A , for almost a month, now.
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
So you don’t think it’s both interesting (and worrying!) that entire military/security agencies have been apparently fooled - and troops sent out, and special forces activated, and jets and copters scrambled (which has all happened) - and they’ve been fooled because this is really just some ongoing mass hallucination in the UK and USA based on maybe one drone or maybe no drone at all
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
“Yeah, whatever, people have kids all the time”
What happened at Gatwick? The airport completely shut down.
You’re really quite dim. I get that. But do try, just a bit?
Gatwick is ALSO really interesting because it shows the power of psychological contagion/mass delusion - something which should compel all of us in a post truth age of easily faked images and videos. Indeed this stuff should fascinate anyone interested in almost anything - but especially society and politics - as it is going to get worse not better
However I don’t think we have a Gatwick situation here. Too many videos, too many locations, too many witnesses, too many extreme reactions from the ,military/security authorities, and it has gone on too long
No one knows what is happening. But if forced to guess I would - as I say - point at the Russians. It is an easy way to cause nerves and anxiety in the west, send up some unusual drones, at a time of great geopolitical volatility, roil us further, rely on our own psychological stress to do the rest
Wow. Romania. This shows what's possible if you put your mind to it. America needs to move quickly though. Jan 20th is not far off now.
Boy are the masks slipping today.
Let’s hope the Romanian polis don’t get the blue tent out and then leave an accusation of corruption hanging over a politician and their party for (checks notes) over three years. That would be appalling.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who has spent his entire life in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
TBF natural selection makes no value judgements. It can [edit] be positively detrimental to have a dog in the family under certain circumstances.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
Early man domesticated dogs for companionship and for the myriad of useful things they can do which we can’t. And cats for, whatever cats are useful for.
There's a Dangerous Dogs Act, but no Dangerous Cats Act?
Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 is what you are thinking of (but IANAL).
Russian-backed troops fleeing and leaving a lot of equipment behind.
And reports that there is rebellion in ?Daraa? in the very south, near the Jordanian border. (allegedly the rebels there previously did a deal with Assad whereby they would lay down their weapons).
I see that @HYUFD ’s usual dismissive assertions that Assad and the Russians would crush the rebels within days was utter crap
I didn't say within days but certainly they must be contained by Assad's forces supported by Russian airstrikes and soon Russian mercenaries and elite Hezbollah forces are also starting to cross the border, otherwise the Al Qaeda linked rebels will threaten even Damascus and make Syria a base for global jihadism.
The Turkish backed rebels are also advancing on Kurdish positions in the NE of Syria and we must hope the Kurds hold them off too
Starmer seems to have fixated on simply getting Labour into government. Big tick, job done. But what is the point of power if you don't know what to do with it?
Starmer has performed pretty much to my low expectations. There is not a fantastic amount of policy difference between his administration and the tories that preceded it. A WFA there, an IHT here. Who gives a fuck? It's not exactly Father Lenin's "State and Revolution".
However, one thing he undeniably is, is a grinder. Since the "Peak Boris" of the Hartlepool by-election (I can't remember who called it as Peak Boris on here, but chapeau) he relentlessly dragged the Labour, who are not always the most biddable congregation, into power with a handsome majority. Maybe he'll apply the same industrious obduracy to the business of government.
I can see that, but I can also see a counter argument: he did not relentlessly drag Labour into power. Instead, he just sat around whilst the Conservatives imploded.
A question is how much the remarkably low Labour share got at the GE could have been increased. What should worry Labour is the idea that Starmer and his team did work relentlessly, and that 34% is pretty much their max potential vote.
The counter counter argument is that 34% is not that bad in modern European legislative elections, exceeding the vote share any other party in Western Europe apart from the stubbornly duopolistic Maltese government and opposition.
(As you go east, there are sloghtly more examples, for example in Poland and Greece).
But, by that score, I'd note 24% is not as apocalyptic for the Tories as it would have been 25 years ago.
It's not just a quarter of a century ago though. In the week before the 2024 election was called, Labour polled 43-48% (and the Tories 20-27%). Pre-partygate, both main parties were trading in the high-thirties. A year earlier, they were tied at around 40.
Now, we can say that some of that was an unusually large two-party share (as was the 2019 election), and that ever since 2012 the old three-party (plus nationalists in Wales / Scotland) had broken down and vote share become more dispersed, and that's true. 2019, despite the very concentrated results, saw volatility across the year as a whole that was unprecedented since at least 1981/2 and probably since 1931 or even 1918-24.
Anyway, 24% is borderline apocalyptic for both main parties. The Tories ending on their lowest ever number of MPs, in more than 200 years as a party, tells its own story - but it was perilously close to being an awful lot worse still.
It’s a shame it wasn’t, really - including for them.
The public wanted to teach the Tories a lesson, yet they don’t seem to have learned anything.
It's something that is one of the banes of education. Just because a teacher plans a lesson to teach X, it's awfully hard to stop a class learning Y, which may have nothing to do with the intial intention and may not even be correct.
So the Conservatives do seem to have learned a lesson from July 4- namely that their actions need to be more right-wing. Some voters undoubtedly wanted to teach that lesson. How many remains to be seen.
This site is missing a good Reform voter to balance the traditional mainstream views. I am not a Reform voter but have been trying to understand their viewpoint.
One of the biggest mistakes that the Tories are making is that they are assuming that the Reform voters will come back to them if Labour are useless and they say some stuff about ECHR etc. The hatred of the Tory party from many Reform voters is visceral and unlikely to shift anytime soon. The Tories let in the millions, raised taxes like crazy, put in the laws for NCHIs and jailed Tommy.
There is a thought that Farage fully controls Reform this is clearly not the case. The right wing have a multitude of powerful figures and the USA influence as well as the European influence cannot be underestimated. It is ironic that while the Tory party has almost no links to Europe the Reform party has many followers in countries such as France, Holland and Germany. The Tory party is essentially a domestic rural party. The Reform party is much more international.
I disagree that you can effectively run a country when only 25% of the population support you. I stay in Scotland where Labour has much less ability to influence events. But even in England it is hard to push through changes in the legal system when say the police report to a local commissioner who is politically opposed to you. Non crime hate incidents are very concentrated on regions with strong local Labour control. In Scotland they dont exist. It will be the same in other milestones such as the NHS and house building.
Next year will be relatively quiet on elections with a couple of key mayor battles in England but 2026 will be a massive election year. If Labour gets wiped out in 2026 then Starmer is probably gone. He has 18 months to get the economy growing.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Saving democracy by cancelling elections?
Saving democracy by cancelling manipulated/fraudulent elections. Which sounds like exactly the sort of thing courts may need to do in extremis.
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
If people are so easily manipulated then we should just abandon universal suffrage and be more discerning about who gets to vote.
No need to abandon elections, but we might need to dismantle social media.
I didn't say abandon elections, just restrict the franchise. The problem you are trying to solve is that you don't trust a lot of people to vote the right way or based on the right premises, so don't let them vote.
There is an essentially unregulated tidal wave of propaganda on social media which would be illegal to print or broadcast. How can you have a free and fair election when much of what people are viewing is being manipulated by foreign actors? That's the problem. If you don't want to tackle that you can expect to end up with a Russian aligned government.
It's unsolveable by the means you are suggesting. You can never be sure that people haven't been exposed to the 'wrong' information, even if you implement a Stasi-style society. The problem is universal suffrage, not social media.
One just can’t trust the lower orders to vote correctly.
Starmer seems to have fixated on simply getting Labour into government. Big tick, job done. But what is the point of power if you don't know what to do with it?
Starmer has performed pretty much to my low expectations. There is not a fantastic amount of policy difference between his administration and the tories that preceded it. A WFA there, an IHT here. Who gives a fuck? It's not exactly Father Lenin's "State and Revolution".
However, one thing he undeniably is, is a grinder. Since the "Peak Boris" of the Hartlepool by-election (I can't remember who called it as Peak Boris on here, but chapeau) he relentlessly dragged the Labour, who are not always the most biddable congregation, into power with a handsome majority. Maybe he'll apply the same industrious obduracy to the business of government.
I can see that, but I can also see a counter argument: he did not relentlessly drag Labour into power. Instead, he just sat around whilst the Conservatives imploded.
A question is how much the remarkably low Labour share got at the GE could have been increased. What should worry Labour is the idea that Starmer and his team did work relentlessly, and that 34% is pretty much their max potential vote.
The counter counter argument is that 34% is not that bad in modern European legislative elections, exceeding the vote share any other party in Western Europe apart from the stubbornly duopolistic Maltese government and opposition.
(As you go east, there are sloghtly more examples, for example in Poland and Greece).
But, by that score, I'd note 24% is not as apocalyptic for the Tories as it would have been 25 years ago.
It's not just a quarter of a century ago though. In the week before the 2024 election was called, Labour polled 43-48% (and the Tories 20-27%). Pre-partygate, both main parties were trading in the high-thirties. A year earlier, they were tied at around 40.
Now, we can say that some of that was an unusually large two-party share (as was the 2019 election), and that ever since 2012 the old three-party (plus nationalists in Wales / Scotland) had broken down and vote share become more dispersed, and that's true. 2019, despite the very concentrated results, saw volatility across the year as a whole that was unprecedented since at least 1981/2 and probably since 1931 or even 1918-24.
Anyway, 24% is borderline apocalyptic for both main parties. The Tories ending on their lowest ever number of MPs, in more than 200 years as a party, tells its own story - but it was perilously close to being an awful lot worse still.
It’s a shame it wasn’t, really - including for them.
The public wanted to teach the Tories a lesson, yet they don’t seem to have learned anything.
It's something that is one of the banes of education. Just because a teacher plans a lesson to teach X, it's awfully hard to stop a class learning Y, which may have nothing to do with the intial intention and may not even be correct.
So the Conservatives do seem to have learned a lesson from July 4- namely that their actions need to be more right-wing. Some voters undoubtedly wanted to teach that lesson. How many remains to be seen.
This site is missing a good Reform voter to balance the traditional mainstream views. I am not a Reform voter but have been trying to understand their viewpoint.
One of the biggest mistakes that the Tories are making is that they are assuming that the Reform voters will come back to them if Labour are useless and they say some stuff about ECHR etc. The hatred of the Tory party from many Reform voters is visceral and unlikely to shift anytime soon. The Tories let in the millions, raised taxes like crazy, put in the laws for NCHIs and jailed Tommy.
There is a thought that Farage fully controls Reform this is clearly not the case. The right wing have a multitude of powerful figures and the USA influence as well as the European influence cannot be underestimated. It is ironic that while the Tory party has almost no links to Europe the Reform party has many followers in countries such as France, Holland and Germany. The Tory party is essentially a domestic rural party. The Reform party is much more international.
I disagree that you can effectively run a country when only 25% of the population support you. I stay in Scotland where Labour has much less ability to influence events. But even in England it is hard to push through changes in the legal system when say the police report to a local commissioner who is politically opposed to you. Non crime hate incidents are very concentrated on regions with strong local Labour control. In Scotland they dont exist. It will be the same in other milestones such as the NHS and house building.
Next year will be relatively quiet on elections with a couple of key mayor battles in England but 2026 will be a massive election year. If Labour gets wiped out in 2026 then Starmer is probably gone. He has 18 months to get the economy growing.
Russian-backed troops fleeing and leaving a lot of equipment behind.
And reports that there is rebellion in ?Daraa? in the very south, near the Jordanian border. (allegedly the rebels there previously did a deal with Assad whereby they would lay down their weapons).
I see that @HYUFD ’s usual dismissive assertions that Assad and the Russians would crush the rebels within days was utter crap
I didn't say within days but certainly they must be contained by Assad's forces supported by Russian airstrikes and soon Russian mercenaries and elite Hezbollah forces are also starting to cross the border, otherwise the Al Qaeda linked rebels will threaten even Damascus and make Syria a base for global jihadism.
The Turkish backed rebels are also advancing on Kurdish positions in the NE of Syria and we must hope the Kurds hold them off too
I've wondered about Turkey's role in all this. They turned a blind eye to islamists earlier on in for the conflict for years, and trained some too.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who has spent his entire life in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
TBF natural selection makes no value judgements. It can [edit] be positively detrimental to have a dog in the family under certain circumstances.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
Early man domesticated dogs for companionship and for the myriad of useful things they can do which we can’t. And cats for…whatever it is that cats are useful for.
On the header, I think they are all too short - though perhaps trading value in Streeting and Rayner. I think Hybrid Air vehicles on the previous thread may be a better investment.
Are there any potential alternatives to Rayner from the 'working class' (?) side of the party. I cannot find a better word.
I think Rayner would be the best choice for Labour.
She has the political wiles that Starmer has not, managing the transition from Corbynism to Starmerism. She has the advantage of being Deputy Leader over other contenders.
She is an increasingly confident performer at the despatch box. She has the wit and also the left wing passion that Starmer lacks. She isn't afraid of speaking out against the Wokefinder generals.
Labour can win the next election from the left but not from the dour austerity of Starmer/Reeves.
She had sex out of wedlock. She fails the PB feminine purity test.
F1: for what it's worth, backed Piastri each way at 7.5 to win. McLaren looked quite good on long runs and Leclerc has the 10 place grid penalty. Verstappen struggling on setup currently.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
External actors interfere in our politics all the time. As we do theirs
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
External actors interfere in our politics all the time. As we do theirs
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
It is looking like he may not be permitted to run.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
External actors interfere in our politics all the time. As we do theirs
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
If he wins fair and square, that's that.
I can't work out why you PB right wingers are so soft on Putin electoral fraud.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
External actors interfere in our politics all the time. As we do theirs
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
If they say Fuck you then they've made a clear decision - currently that isn't the case....
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
External actors interfere in our politics all the time. As we do theirs
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
It is looking like he may not be permitted to run.
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who has spent his entire life in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
TBF natural selection makes no value judgements. It can [edit] be positively detrimental to have a dog in the family under certain circumstances.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
Early man domesticated dogs for companionship and for the myriad of useful things they can do which we can’t. And cats for…whatever it is that cats are useful for.
Investigating Georgescu would be a good idea, in a country next door to Ukraine that's suddenly seen a mass bot campaign to a pro-Russian, from nowhere.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fell because it required unanimity, so foreign powers had only to buy themselves a single politician in order to veto anything they disliked.
Openly accepting those who are agents of not merely foreign but malign powers is not necessary in keeping with sensible behaviour.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
External actors interfere in our politics all the time. As we do theirs
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
It is looking like he may not be permitted to run.
That sounds quite calamitous
And also plays into Putin. Unwise abd a but idiotic.
The weather warnings in place for this afternoon appear significantly apocalyptic, yet right now there's a hazy-blue sky, just gentle waves out at sea and not a gust of wind. Yet forty minutes to go before the warnings start to kick in....
Starmer seems to have fixated on simply getting Labour into government. Big tick, job done. But what is the point of power if you don't know what to do with it?
Starmer has performed pretty much to my low expectations. There is not a fantastic amount of policy difference between his administration and the tories that preceded it. A WFA there, an IHT here. Who gives a fuck? It's not exactly Father Lenin's "State and Revolution".
However, one thing he undeniably is, is a grinder. Since the "Peak Boris" of the Hartlepool by-election (I can't remember who called it as Peak Boris on here, but chapeau) he relentlessly dragged the Labour, who are not always the most biddable congregation, into power with a handsome majority. Maybe he'll apply the same industrious obduracy to the business of government.
I can see that, but I can also see a counter argument: he did not relentlessly drag Labour into power. Instead, he just sat around whilst the Conservatives imploded.
A question is how much the remarkably low Labour share got at the GE could have been increased. What should worry Labour is the idea that Starmer and his team did work relentlessly, and that 34% is pretty much their max potential vote.
The counter counter argument is that 34% is not that bad in modern European legislative elections, exceeding the vote share any other party in Western Europe apart from the stubbornly duopolistic Maltese government and opposition.
(As you go east, there are sloghtly more examples, for example in Poland and Greece).
But, by that score, I'd note 24% is not as apocalyptic for the Tories as it would have been 25 years ago.
It's not just a quarter of a century ago though. In the week before the 2024 election was called, Labour polled 43-48% (and the Tories 20-27%). Pre-partygate, both main parties were trading in the high-thirties. A year earlier, they were tied at around 40.
Now, we can say that some of that was an unusually large two-party share (as was the 2019 election), and that ever since 2012 the old three-party (plus nationalists in Wales / Scotland) had broken down and vote share become more dispersed, and that's true. 2019, despite the very concentrated results, saw volatility across the year as a whole that was unprecedented since at least 1981/2 and probably since 1931 or even 1918-24.
Anyway, 24% is borderline apocalyptic for both main parties. The Tories ending on their lowest ever number of MPs, in more than 200 years as a party, tells its own story - but it was perilously close to being an awful lot worse still.
It’s a shame it wasn’t, really - including for them.
The public wanted to teach the Tories a lesson, yet they don’t seem to have learned anything.
It's something that is one of the banes of education. Just because a teacher plans a lesson to teach X, it's awfully hard to stop a class learning Y, which may have nothing to do with the intial intention and may not even be correct.
So the Conservatives do seem to have learned a lesson from July 4- namely that their actions need to be more right-wing. Some voters undoubtedly wanted to teach that lesson. How many remains to be seen.
This site is missing a good Reform voter to balance the traditional mainstream views. I am not a Reform voter but have been trying to understand their viewpoint.
One of the biggest mistakes that the Tories are making is that they are assuming that the Reform voters will come back to them if Labour are useless and they say some stuff about ECHR etc. The hatred of the Tory party from many Reform voters is visceral and unlikely to shift anytime soon. The Tories let in the millions, raised taxes like crazy, put in the laws for NCHIs and jailed Tommy.
There is a thought that Farage fully controls Reform this is clearly not the case. The right wing have a multitude of powerful figures and the USA influence as well as the European influence cannot be underestimated. It is ironic that while the Tory party has almost no links to Europe the Reform party has many followers in countries such as France, Holland and Germany. The Tory party is essentially a domestic rural party. The Reform party is much more international.
I disagree that you can effectively run a country when only 25% of the population support you. I stay in Scotland where Labour has much less ability to influence events. But even in England it is hard to push through changes in the legal system when say the police report to a local commissioner who is politically opposed to you. Non crime hate incidents are very concentrated on regions with strong local Labour control. In Scotland they dont exist. It will be the same in other milestones such as the NHS and house building.
Next year will be relatively quiet on elections with a couple of key mayor battles in England but 2026 will be a massive election year. If Labour gets wiped out in 2026 then Starmer is probably gone. He has 18 months to get the economy growing.
'One of the biggest mistakes that the Tories are making is that they are assuming that the Reform voters will come back to them if Labour are useless and they say some stuff about ECHR etc. The hatred of the Tory party from many Reform voters is visceral and unlikely to shift anytime soon. '
Even if you are right the Tories don't necessarily need them too. On the latest FindOutNow poll Reform are starting to eat into Labour white working class voters having already eaten into Tory white working class voters and with the Tories holding and slightly increasing their more middle class 2024 vote (while Labour also leaks some progressive middle class votes to the Greens) they are now ahead on 26% to 24% for Reform and 23% for Labour.
So under FPTP that would still give Kemi most seats, followed by Labour albeit with Farage close to holding the balance of power.
On your other points the Online Safety Act applies in Scotland too and the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act has similar terms to the Malicious Communications Act. The Tories are also linked to other centre right parties across the world via the IDU
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
External actors interfere in our politics all the time. As we do theirs
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
If they say Fuck you then they've made a clear decision - currently that isn't the case....
He's clearly going to be barred from the ballot paper.
There's a global revolution against institutionally-captured 'liberal democracy'. Romania obviously wants to do it in the most dramatic way possible and have another Ceausescu moment.
Next step I assume is to ban Georgescu from running.
Ahahaha here we are:
from G4Media: it appears the elections will be held from scratch, with candidates having to register again and having to go through the validation process at the Central Electoral Bureau.
Well, to be fair, I suspect the reports that the Russians have been involved via a deluge of tiktok manipulation may have something in them.
Cancelling elections over a candidates' social media strategy. Yikes !
It’s not his strategy they’re concerned about, it’s who’s paying for it.
Romanian court annuls first round of election results
Oh feck, that’s worrying.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
It seems utterly appalling to me.
If Russia has interfered and it can be proven, why not? We can't have Putin appointing heads of state.to countries he has no legitimate interest in.
External actors interfere in our politics all the time. As we do theirs
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
It is looking like he may not be permitted to run.
That sounds quite calamitous
And also plays into Putin. Unwise abd a but idiotic.
Or even unwise, and a bit idiotic ! Time to lay off the mobile postings, for a while again.
Starmer seems to have fixated on simply getting Labour into government. Big tick, job done. But what is the point of power if you don't know what to do with it?
Starmer has performed pretty much to my low expectations. There is not a fantastic amount of policy difference between his administration and the tories that preceded it. A WFA there, an IHT here. Who gives a fuck? It's not exactly Father Lenin's "State and Revolution".
However, one thing he undeniably is, is a grinder. Since the "Peak Boris" of the Hartlepool by-election (I can't remember who called it as Peak Boris on here, but chapeau) he relentlessly dragged the Labour, who are not always the most biddable congregation, into power with a handsome majority. Maybe he'll apply the same industrious obduracy to the business of government.
I can see that, but I can also see a counter argument: he did not relentlessly drag Labour into power. Instead, he just sat around whilst the Conservatives imploded.
A question is how much the remarkably low Labour share got at the GE could have been increased. What should worry Labour is the idea that Starmer and his team did work relentlessly, and that 34% is pretty much their max potential vote.
The counter counter argument is that 34% is not that bad in modern European legislative elections, exceeding the vote share any other party in Western Europe apart from the stubbornly duopolistic Maltese government and opposition.
(As you go east, there are sloghtly more examples, for example in Poland and Greece).
But, by that score, I'd note 24% is not as apocalyptic for the Tories as it would have been 25 years ago.
It's not just a quarter of a century ago though. In the week before the 2024 election was called, Labour polled 43-48% (and the Tories 20-27%). Pre-partygate, both main parties were trading in the high-thirties. A year earlier, they were tied at around 40.
Now, we can say that some of that was an unusually large two-party share (as was the 2019 election), and that ever since 2012 the old three-party (plus nationalists in Wales / Scotland) had broken down and vote share become more dispersed, and that's true. 2019, despite the very concentrated results, saw volatility across the year as a whole that was unprecedented since at least 1981/2 and probably since 1931 or even 1918-24.
Anyway, 24% is borderline apocalyptic for both main parties. The Tories ending on their lowest ever number of MPs, in more than 200 years as a party, tells its own story - but it was perilously close to being an awful lot worse still.
It’s a shame it wasn’t, really - including for them.
The public wanted to teach the Tories a lesson, yet they don’t seem to have learned anything.
It's something that is one of the banes of education. Just because a teacher plans a lesson to teach X, it's awfully hard to stop a class learning Y, which may have nothing to do with the intial intention and may not even be correct.
So the Conservatives do seem to have learned a lesson from July 4- namely that their actions need to be more right-wing. Some voters undoubtedly wanted to teach that lesson. How many remains to be seen.
This site is missing a good Reform voter to balance the traditional mainstream views. I am not a Reform voter but have been trying to understand their viewpoint.
One of the biggest mistakes that the Tories are making is that they are assuming that the Reform voters will come back to them if Labour are useless and they say some stuff about ECHR etc. The hatred of the Tory party from many Reform voters is visceral and unlikely to shift anytime soon. The Tories let in the millions, raised taxes like crazy, put in the laws for NCHIs and jailed Tommy.
There is a thought that Farage fully controls Reform this is clearly not the case. The right wing have a multitude of powerful figures and the USA influence as well as the European influence cannot be underestimated. It is ironic that while the Tory party has almost no links to Europe the Reform party has many followers in countries such as France, Holland and Germany. The Tory party is essentially a domestic rural party. The Reform party is much more international.
I disagree that you can effectively run a country when only 25% of the population support you. I stay in Scotland where Labour has much less ability to influence events. But even in England it is hard to push through changes in the legal system when say the police report to a local commissioner who is politically opposed to you. Non crime hate incidents are very concentrated on regions with strong local Labour control. In Scotland they dont exist. It will be the same in other milestones such as the NHS and house building.
Next year will be relatively quiet on elections with a couple of key mayor battles in England but 2026 will be a massive election year. If Labour gets wiped out in 2026 then Starmer is probably gone. He has 18 months to get the economy growing.
Good post.
I tried doing something similar with regard to the US election, noting that well-known centrist commentators were all getting behind Trump, even if I didn’t support him myself.
It’s interesting to note that many of the foreign anti-Trump sources are much less accepting of his victory than domestic US sources.
There's a global revolution against institutionally-captured 'liberal democracy'. Romania obviously wants to do it in the most dramatic way possible and have another Ceausescu moment.
Ceaucescu was about as far away from liberal democracy as possible
From a good thread on historical pet ownership. With an implicit rebuke to Leon.
In the early modern period, the upper classes began to describe dogs in affectionate terms. Prussian King Frederick the Great was a proponent of dogs, and wrote on the death of his favorite dog:
“I have had a domestic loss which has completely upset my philosophy. I confide all my frailties in you: I have lost Biche, and her death has reawoken in me the loss of all my friends, particularly of him who gave her to me. I was ashamed that a dog could so deeply affect my soul, but the sedentary life I lead and the faithfulness of this poor creature had so strongly attached me to her, her suffering so moved me, that I confess, I am sad and afflicted. Does one have to be hard? Must one be insensitive? I believe that anyone capable of indifference towards a faithful animal is unable to be grateful towards an equal, and that, if one must choose, it is best to be too sensitive than too hard.” 10/25 https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1864782891546480651
He was right to be ashamed of his absurd sentimentality. It’s a fucking DOG - GET OVER IT
There are plenty of examples of cross-species friendships, and of animals being sad when other animals die. And it seems daft to admonish an animal for sentimentality. I don't think therefore we should berate Frederick the Great too hard either.
Er, old Friedrich *was* an animal ...
As for what Leon sees as undue sentimentality, there's a lot in the thought that domesticated dogs and other pets are part of the human condition. Humans are, after all, a result of the same process of domestication that created those pets.
There’s an emerging view that wolves domesticated themselves, rather than it being the result of intentional human initiative.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
I'd always assumed it was the wolves that sought out humans, not the other way.
That hasn’t been the assumption until recently, and you still read theories along the lines of some Stone Age man imagining that having his own pet wolf would be super-useful and hence he nicked some wolf cubs and trained them up to be useful pets.
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
The corollary, and just as intereesting, question is how far natural selection favoured those *hominids* who were willing to have pooches around.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
That sounds very likely. Such person would be down there with someone who widely travels the world but whose brainpower is so hampered that they always return with the same political opinions as some uneducated bloke who has spent his entire life in a caravan in beautiful all-English Jaywick.
TBF natural selection makes no value judgements. It can [edit] be positively detrimental to have a dog in the family under certain circumstances.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
Early man domesticated dogs for companionship and for the myriad of useful things they can do which we can’t. And cats for…whatever it is that cats are useful for.
Wrong way round, the odd mouse excepted. Cats domesticated humans for whatever they are useful for.
Wow. Romania. This shows what's possible if you put your mind to it. America needs to move quickly though. Jan 20th is not far off now.
This would be a brilliant move. If you wanted to hand absolute power to Trump & Co.
The suspicion has to be my comment wasn't meant quite literally.
Still, one side generally abiding by norms and rules vs these rancid right populists with no such compuctions ... it is an interesting aspect of the current political landscape.
“My team and I are staying on top of and taking seriously the situation involving unknown drones flying over Morris, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties. Yesterday, I participated in a bipartisan call with Secretary Mayorkas, Governor Murphy, and key government and law enforcement officials to address this issue.
I will continue to push federal authorities to work swiftly to give the public a full understanding of the situation and work toward a resolution.”
There's a global revolution against institutionally-captured 'liberal democracy'. Romania obviously wants to do it in the most dramatic way possible and have another Ceausescu moment.
Tell me what do you see in the multi Millionaire sociopath and electoral fraudster Vladimir Putin?
Same still going at Lakenheath, where the U.S. is about to station. Nuclear weapons for the first time in 15 years.
According to the unconfirmed reoort above, they can still operate in high winds.
Get back to us when there is one shot down, or seen in daylight and properly photographed.
Its not aliens folks.
So give me an explanation, and then tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
You can be interested if you want. I sense that you live for the dramatic and thus are WANTING a dramatic resolution. How about someone thought they saw something and now others are thinking they are seeing things (contagion). Or that after someone thought they saw something, some local idiots then started using drones for fun.
I doubt very much its the Chinese or the Russians.
I'd rule out aliens.
People are, on the whole, terrible witnesses.
I said give me your explanation and tell me why we shouldn’t be worried or interested
Because you literally said this is “unexciting” and “PB shrugs”
Because like most flaps there was probably an initial trigger (someone saw something) and then it snowballed.
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
So you don’t think it’s both interesting (and worrying!) that entire military/security agencies have been apparently fooled - and troops sent out, and special forces activated, and jets and copters scrambled (which has all happened) - and they’ve been fooled because this is really just some ongoing mass hallucination in the UK and USA based on maybe one drone or maybe no drone at all
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
“Yeah, whatever, people have kids all the time”
What happened at Gatwick? The airport completely shut down.
You’re really quite dim. I get that. But do try, just a bit?
Gatwick is ALSO really interesting because it shows the power of psychological contagion/mass delusion - something which should compel all of us in a post truth age of easily faked images and videos. Indeed this stuff should fascinate anyone interested in almost anything - but especially society and politics - as it is going to get worse not better
However I don’t think we have a Gatwick situation here. Too many videos, too many locations, too many witnesses, too many extreme reactions from the ,military/security authorities, and it has gone on too long
No one knows what is happening. But if forced to guess I would - as I say - point at the Russians. It is an easy way to cause nerves and anxiety in the west, send up some unusual drones, at a time of great geopolitical volatility, roil us further, rely on our own psychological stress to do the rest
But, that’s just a guess
It could indeed be psychological warfare. Several of the sites host nuclear weapons, in both the U.S. abd here.
Comments
It was fecking awesome!
So the Conservatives do seem to have learned a lesson from July 4- namely that their actions need to be more right-wing. Some voters undoubtedly wanted to teach that lesson. How many remains to be seen.
Wolves competed with humans when it came to hunting, and as humans became more successful, scavenging became the better survival strategy for the wolf. Those that were less anxious and aggressive around human settlements had the advantage, and hence natural selection kicked in well before any human imagined having their own wolf about the house.
Dogs became humans’ companions well before any other animal, before horses, before farm animals - indeed before the invention of agriculture.
And hasn’t it served their genes well? While our other hunting competitors are either extinct or pushed to the margins of the modern world, there are zillions of dogs and we’re feeding and looking after them into perpetuity.
Once capacity is there, it becomes commercially sensible for manufacturers to make cheap mass market EVs. (China is, of course, already doing so, to an extent, but most of their cheaper offerings aren't available for the western market - and/or won't meet our product regulations.)
Take crop circles. What was always the most likely explanation? People stamping down the crops to make pretty pictures. The art was actually incredible - more so as it was done at night, but it was still people walking round on planks at night in fields.
Take Gatwick? Was there EVER an initial drone? Were there others? Probably not. A mistake at the start and then the flap begins.
https://news.sky.com/story/romanias-top-court-annuls-results-of-first-round-of-presidential-election-13268026
It's either an adversary, or something beyond the normal parameters. As mentioned in that X thread, this weekend's winds should be a good a good test of how advanced whatever it is is, if they keep turning out day, up until now.
Ahahaha here we are:
from G4Media: it appears the elections will be held from scratch, with candidates having to register again and having to go through the validation process at the Central Electoral Bureau.
That they opened the show with “Sandstorm” was the icing on the cake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsVaw4BAprU
That just makes you “shrug”?
What were you like when your wife told you she was pregnant?
“Yeah, whatever, people have kids all the time”
That wolves gradually trained themselves to live alongside human settlements, and natural selection favoured those whom humans were most willing to tolerate around the place, is a far more credible hypothesis.
AIUI there’s no actual interference in the election process suspected, but rather social media influence to young people on foreign platforms (read: TikTok) that’s alleged to have Russian money behind it.
So someone who despises dogs - indeed, eats them - might be an evolutionary throwback from an earlier era, for instance?
Let's hope we don't need to do anything similar at a future general election where an obscenely rich foreigner dumps a bucket load of money into supporting one party on social media so that he can get an outcome that suits his businesses.
But not nearly as much as with cats. See: toxoplasmosis, brain-altering parasites such as. It may be no accident that cats seem to have become fellow-travellers much more recently.
My honest guess is Russians using locals, because something is almost certainly happening. This isn’t like Gatwick (but if it was that would arguably be even more interesting, a form of mass hysteria across two countries in multiple places involving several organisations)
With the initial trigger - the Russians freaking everyone out with clever drones, then maybe some psychological contagion??
Rabbitholing this I have discovered that the USA really does - probably - possess some quite weird hi-tech aircraft.
Back in the Warminster flap there is a report of glowing orange balls in the sky that would suddenly jump in space, without passing through the intermediate area. Its Salisbury Plain. This was military flares. As one extinguished a new one would be fired. And yet these people convinced themselves it was something more significant. In their defence they were not from the area, but still.
Over and out
Thank God we’d never stoop so low. We are British
NB the possibility that some of the sightings were of Plod Air.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-53041256
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-57610272
This has been consistent daily reports, in two specific areas of the U.K. and U.S.A , for almost a month, now.
Gatwick is ALSO really interesting because it shows the power of psychological contagion/mass delusion - something which should compel all of us in a post truth age of easily faked images and videos. Indeed this stuff should fascinate anyone interested in almost anything - but especially society and politics - as it is going to get worse not better
However I don’t think we have a Gatwick situation here. Too many videos, too many locations, too many witnesses, too many extreme reactions from the ,military/security authorities, and it has gone on too long
No one knows what is happening. But if forced to guess I would - as I say - point at the Russians. It is an easy way to cause nerves and anxiety in the west, send up some unusual drones, at a time of great geopolitical volatility, roil us further, rely on our own psychological stress to do the rest
But, that’s just a guess
The Turkish backed rebels are also advancing on Kurdish positions in the NE of Syria and we must hope the Kurds hold them off too
This site is missing a good Reform voter to balance the traditional mainstream views. I am not a Reform voter but have been trying to understand their viewpoint.
One of the biggest mistakes that the Tories are making is that they are assuming that the Reform voters will come back to them if Labour are useless and they say some stuff about ECHR etc. The hatred of the Tory party from many Reform voters is visceral and unlikely to shift anytime soon. The Tories let in the millions, raised taxes like crazy, put in the laws for NCHIs and jailed Tommy.
There is a thought that Farage fully controls Reform this is clearly not the case. The right wing have a multitude of powerful figures and the USA influence as well as the European influence cannot be underestimated. It is ironic that while the Tory party has almost no links to Europe the Reform party has many followers in countries such as France, Holland and Germany. The Tory party is essentially a domestic rural party. The Reform party is much more international.
I disagree that you can effectively run a country when only 25% of the population support you. I stay in Scotland where Labour has much less ability to influence events. But even in England it is hard to push through changes in the legal system when say the police report to a local commissioner who is politically opposed to you. Non crime hate incidents are very concentrated on regions with strong local Labour control. In Scotland they dont exist. It will be the same in other milestones such as the NHS and house building.
Next year will be relatively quiet on elections with a couple of key mayor battles in England but 2026 will be a massive election year. If Labour gets wiped out in 2026 then Starmer is probably gone. He has 18 months to get the economy growing.
I am pretty sure there are several others on PB
You cannot simply cancel election results you don’t like on the basis of that
Also, what if the Romanian voters say Fuck you, and elect this guy again? What then?
I can't work out why you PB right wingers are so soft on Putin electoral fraud.
Anulling elections isn't.
Openly accepting those who are agents of not merely foreign but malign powers is not necessary in keeping with sensible behaviour.
Even if you are right the Tories don't necessarily need them too. On the latest FindOutNow poll Reform are starting to eat into Labour white working class voters having already eaten into Tory white working class voters and with the Tories holding and slightly increasing their more middle class 2024 vote (while Labour also leaks some progressive middle class votes to the Greens) they are now ahead on 26% to 24% for Reform and 23% for Labour.
So under FPTP that would still give Kemi most seats, followed by Labour albeit with Farage close to holding the balance of power.
On your other points the Online Safety Act applies in Scotland too and the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act has similar terms to the Malicious Communications Act. The Tories are also linked to other centre right parties across the world via the IDU
I tried doing something similar with regard to the US election, noting that well-known centrist commentators were all getting behind Trump, even if I didn’t support him myself.
It’s interesting to note that many of the foreign anti-Trump sources are much less accepting of his victory than domestic US sources.
About time ...
Still, one side generally abiding by norms and rules vs these rancid right populists with no such compuctions ... it is an interesting aspect of the current political landscape.
“My team and I are staying on top of and taking seriously the situation involving unknown drones flying over Morris, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties. Yesterday, I participated in a bipartisan call with Secretary Mayorkas, Governor Murphy, and key government and law enforcement officials to address this issue.
I will continue to push federal authorities to work swiftly to give the public a full understanding of the situation and work toward a resolution.”
https://x.com/congressmankean/status/1864727265436705237?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
Apparently an entire squadron of USAF jets had to be relocated due to the drones
So, no, I don’t think is a few silly security guys getting freaked by a balloon, like Gatwick