Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
I love the way you start with something vaguely rooted in fact, and then veer off at the end.
If you are correct, btw, then we should start to see that French IQs rise relative to everywhere else, as France is the only country in the world where birth rate correlates positively with income and education levels (due to the country's rather sensible pronatal policies).
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
Hang on Dr P. You were quite one of the far left until recently.
Sure, if you define far left as "supported Corbyn". That's why I'm fairly well-informed about the sector. I've supported democratic leftism (which I think of as help the underdog stuff) all my life - I just draw the line at dictatorships and aggressors, whatever ideology they purport to espouse. Ultimately they usually turn out to be about themselves.
People like me don't share the idea that because this is clearly an aggressive war reminiscent of classic imperialism, therefore every action of the West has been sensible. I think we've made various mistakes in handling Russia, both in indulging and even assisting its path to gangster kleptocracy and in rushing NATO to the border at the first opportunity.
Does that justify Putin launching a war? Of course it doesn't. The war is a monstrosity, and it's Putin's monstrosity, not ours.
I cant read the article paywall, (unless somebody has a good workaround?)
but it is interesting how its much more pronounced in the USA middling in France and very small in UK.
Leaving the contrary's defences aside, is this mostly a difference of weather you have a memory of the cold war? maybe?
I think Salisbury is a major effect in the UK. Despite all the talk about oligarchs, we've ben fairly bullish against Russia since at least before Crimea/Donbass/MH17, and all the major parties generally agree about that. Whereas in the US, you have the Donald backing Russia, so it splits on partisan divides.
Well except there's no partisan divide in the US survey results. That's the most interesting thing. Perhaps because the young are influenced by the extreme left and the old by the extreme right, both of which are full of Putin apologists?
Thanks, didn't know that. It does make it more interesting...
As I've said in various posts, the far left in Western Europe have really gone off Russia (to the extent that they were ever fans) - everyone from Corbyn and McDonnell in Britain to the Linke in Germany is supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the left is suddenly signed up to the whole NATO/commercial globalisation agenda, merely that this is so like a classic imperialist war that it's impossible for even hardened leftists to accept as a reasonable way to pursue territorial disputes. In the US, alienation from the whole political establishment may be stronger on both far left and far right, so that if Biden and Congress think Russia are bad, it follows that they must be good? Most people don't really do alienation to that degree in Britain, even on the political wings - neither Farage nor Corbyn are really screaming "Down with the whole system".
Is Corbyn 'supporting' Ukraine? Was he in the build-up to the war, or did he think the west were 'poking' Russia into invading?
He has been far more critical of Putin than Blair and Mandelson and Johnson and Cameron for years now.
No Socialist would support Putin he is a tin pot Capitalist dictator
Oh, go away. Jeremy Corbyn signed the Stop The War statement on the war.
One that said there should not be a war for one paragraph, and then spent the rest of the document blaming 'us' for the war, and essentially said Ukraine should not defend itself.
"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."
"We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
Yes, Corbyn blames *us* for the war. As did Nick Palmer, of this parish.
Why this pisses me off: it is rare in international relations to get such a clear-cut case of right versus wrong; good versus evil. And yet Corbyn and his fellow bottom-feeders look at blaming us for Putin's evil.
There is one person to blame for this evil: Putin. Do you agree?
Thanks for drawing our attention to that petition. A sickening self-identified list of people so ideologically rigid that they can't recognise a clear cut case of imperialist aggression and war crimes. The bastards all think they have greater moral stature and insight than the rest of us!
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
My understanding - and I don't have the stats to hand - is that in general the rich have more kids than the poor, and that the balance of rich kids/poor kids is currently more skewed towards rich kids than at any time in British history. I may be wrong and am too cold to look up the details.
mmm if you are talking about jacob rees mogg...hedge fund level of wealth yes that might be true....these families can afford nannies and or a stay at home wife....im talking more about the broad middle class saddled with mortgage debt
Do you have any data?
This piece from the US suggests that in the last 30 years the traditional relationship you posit (i.e. lower income more kids, higher income fewer kids) has actually reversed:
I cant read the article paywall, (unless somebody has a good workaround?)
but it is interesting how its much more pronounced in the USA middling in France and very small in UK.
Leaving the contrary's defences aside, is this mostly a difference of weather you have a memory of the cold war? maybe?
I think Salisbury is a major effect in the UK. Despite all the talk about oligarchs, we've ben fairly bullish against Russia since at least before Crimea/Donbass/MH17, and all the major parties generally agree about that. Whereas in the US, you have the Donald backing Russia, so it splits on partisan divides.
Well except there's no partisan divide in the US survey results. That's the most interesting thing. Perhaps because the young are influenced by the extreme left and the old by the extreme right, both of which are full of Putin apologists?
Thanks, didn't know that. It does make it more interesting...
As I've said in various posts, the far left in Western Europe have really gone off Russia (to the extent that they were ever fans) - everyone from Corbyn and McDonnell in Britain to the Linke in Germany is supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the left is suddenly signed up to the whole NATO/commercial globalisation agenda, merely that this is so like a classic imperialist war that it's impossible for even hardened leftists to accept as a reasonable way to pursue territorial disputes. In the US, alienation from the whole political establishment may be stronger on both far left and far right, so that if Biden and Congress think Russia are bad, it follows that they must be good? Most people don't really do alienation to that degree in Britain, even on the political wings - neither Farage nor Corbyn are really screaming "Down with the whole system".
Is Corbyn 'supporting' Ukraine? Was he in the build-up to the war, or did he think the west were 'poking' Russia into invading?
He has been far more critical of Putin than Blair and Mandelson and Johnson and Cameron for years now.
No Socialist would support Putin he is a tin pot Capitalist dictator
Oh, go away. Jeremy Corbyn signed the Stop The War statement on the war.
One that said there should not be a war for one paragraph, and then spent the rest of the document blaming 'us' for the war, and essentially said Ukraine should not defend itself.
"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."
"We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
Yes, Corbyn blames *us* for the war. As did Nick Palmer, of this parish.
Why this pisses me off: it is rare in international relations to get such a clear-cut case of right versus wrong; good versus evil. And yet Corbyn and his fellow bottom-feeders look at blaming us for Putin's evil.
There is one person to blame for this evil: Putin. Do you agree?
Thanks for drawing our attention to that petition. A sickening self-identified list of people so ideologically rigid that they can't recognise a clear cut case of imperialist aggression and war crimes. The bastards all think they have greater moral stature and insight than the rest of us!
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
My understanding - and I don't have the stats to hand - is that in general the rich have more kids than the poor, and that the balance of rich kids/poor kids is currently more skewed towards rich kids than at any time in British history. I may be wrong and am too cold to look up the details.
mmm if you are talking about jacob rees mogg...hedge fund level of wealth yes that might be true....these families can afford nannies and or a stay at home wife....im talking more about the broad middle class saddled with mortgage debt
Nope, I reckon it’s those unable to get a mortgage who are having fewer kids.
exactly...the middle class renters priced out by high house prices....not the people living on welfare on council estates
You're making a lot of assumptions, and you haven't really backed it up with data.
Now, it may be true. It may not be true. But right now it's just an assertion.
I cant read the article paywall, (unless somebody has a good workaround?)
but it is interesting how its much more pronounced in the USA middling in France and very small in UK.
Leaving the contrary's defences aside, is this mostly a difference of weather you have a memory of the cold war? maybe?
I think Salisbury is a major effect in the UK. Despite all the talk about oligarchs, we've ben fairly bullish against Russia since at least before Crimea/Donbass/MH17, and all the major parties generally agree about that. Whereas in the US, you have the Donald backing Russia, so it splits on partisan divides.
Well except there's no partisan divide in the US survey results. That's the most interesting thing. Perhaps because the young are influenced by the extreme left and the old by the extreme right, both of which are full of Putin apologists?
Thanks, didn't know that. It does make it more interesting...
As I've said in various posts, the far left in Western Europe have really gone off Russia (to the extent that they were ever fans) - everyone from Corbyn and McDonnell in Britain to the Linke in Germany is supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the left is suddenly signed up to the whole NATO/commercial globalisation agenda, merely that this is so like a classic imperialist war that it's impossible for even hardened leftists to accept as a reasonable way to pursue territorial disputes. In the US, alienation from the whole political establishment may be stronger on both far left and far right, so that if Biden and Congress think Russia are bad, it follows that they must be good? Most people don't really do alienation to that degree in Britain, even on the political wings - neither Farage nor Corbyn are really screaming "Down with the whole system".
Is Corbyn 'supporting' Ukraine? Was he in the build-up to the war, or did he think the west were 'poking' Russia into invading?
He has been far more critical of Putin than Blair and Mandelson and Johnson and Cameron for years now.
No Socialist would support Putin he is a tin pot Capitalist dictator
Oh, go away. Jeremy Corbyn signed the Stop The War statement on the war.
One that said there should not be a war for one paragraph, and then spent the rest of the document blaming 'us' for the war, and essentially said Ukraine should not defend itself.
"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."
"We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
Yes, Corbyn blames *us* for the war. As did Nick Palmer, of this parish.
Why this pisses me off: it is rare in international relations to get such a clear-cut case of right versus wrong; good versus evil. And yet Corbyn and his fellow bottom-feeders look at blaming us for Putin's evil.
There is one person to blame for this evil: Putin. Do you agree?
Thanks for drawing our attention to that petition. A sickening self-identified list of people so ideologically rigid that they can't recognise a clear cut case of imperialist aggression and war crimes. The bastards all think they have greater moral stature and insight than the rest of us!
That’s off your chest now.
What’s for supper?
Do you back Stop The War's initial position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
As an aside, someone in NASA was tasked to write the operational history of the Shuttle after its last flight in 2011. He had a few interns to help him with the work. They assembled a draft, and asked the interns to read it, looking for any terms they did not understand and which needed explanation. The idea being that the history might be a little too technical.
One of the interns asked: "What is the Cold War?"
Despite bring bright enough to get an internship at NASA, she did not know about the Cold War. Which had ended just twenty years earlier...
Many modern kids probably know less about it.
In 1974, my maths teacher came into school in the morning with a flabbergasted look on her face. She asked us, (15-year olds) if we knew which band Paul McCartney played in. We all knew, of course. What had flabbergasted her was that, talking with her young nephew the night before, he had asked her, "Auntie, did you know that Paul McCartney used to play in a band called the Beatles?"
I never had you pegged as a Wings fan.
LOL. I was not. Couldn't stand them. To my eternal shame, I was a Genesis and ELP fan at that time.
But Band on the Run was doing well in the charts at the time. Which I guess is why the nephew knew who Paul McCartney was.
As an aside, it seems Genesis played their last ever gig on Saturday.
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
On topic Boris Johnson is the kind of man to be caught in flagrante delicto with another woman by his wife and denying to his wife he was having an affair.
I know a couple where the girl caught her boyfriend NAKED IN BED WITH ANOTHER WOMAN in the middle of the afternoon, and he managed to talk his way out of it, and convince her nothing untoward was going on
It is amazing what people will believe, when they REALLY want to
Did the girl check the plant pot for a second tumbler of brandy?
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
A follow up to his hit book What If? I bought many people copies of it as a stocking filler.
What If? is great. I like the one where he basically just stacks all the elements of the periodic table beside each other and then explains how the reaction unfolds.
As an aside, someone in NASA was tasked to write the operational history of the Shuttle after its last flight in 2011. He had a few interns to help him with the work. They assembled a draft, and asked the interns to read it, looking for any terms they did not understand and which needed explanation. The idea being that the history might be a little too technical.
One of the interns asked: "What is the Cold War?"
Despite bring bright enough to get an internship at NASA, she did not know about the Cold War. Which had ended just twenty years earlier...
Many modern kids probably know less about it.
In 1974, my maths teacher came into school in the morning with a flabbergasted look on her face. She asked us, (15-year olds) if we knew which band Paul McCartney played in. We all knew, of course. What had flabbergasted her was that, talking with her young nephew the night before, he had asked her, "Auntie, did you know that Paul McCartney used to play in a band called the Beatles?"
I never had you pegged as a Wings fan.
LOL. I was not. Couldn't stand them. To my eternal shame, I was a Genesis and ELP fan at that time.
But Band on the Run was doing well in the charts at the time. Which I guess is why the nephew knew who Paul McCartney was.
As an aside, it seems Genesis played their last ever gig on Saturday.
I cant read the article paywall, (unless somebody has a good workaround?)
but it is interesting how its much more pronounced in the USA middling in France and very small in UK.
Leaving the contrary's defences aside, is this mostly a difference of weather you have a memory of the cold war? maybe?
I think Salisbury is a major effect in the UK. Despite all the talk about oligarchs, we've ben fairly bullish against Russia since at least before Crimea/Donbass/MH17, and all the major parties generally agree about that. Whereas in the US, you have the Donald backing Russia, so it splits on partisan divides.
Well except there's no partisan divide in the US survey results. That's the most interesting thing. Perhaps because the young are influenced by the extreme left and the old by the extreme right, both of which are full of Putin apologists?
Thanks, didn't know that. It does make it more interesting...
As I've said in various posts, the far left in Western Europe have really gone off Russia (to the extent that they were ever fans) - everyone from Corbyn and McDonnell in Britain to the Linke in Germany is supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the left is suddenly signed up to the whole NATO/commercial globalisation agenda, merely that this is so like a classic imperialist war that it's impossible for even hardened leftists to accept as a reasonable way to pursue territorial disputes. In the US, alienation from the whole political establishment may be stronger on both far left and far right, so that if Biden and Congress think Russia are bad, it follows that they must be good? Most people don't really do alienation to that degree in Britain, even on the political wings - neither Farage nor Corbyn are really screaming "Down with the whole system".
Is Corbyn 'supporting' Ukraine? Was he in the build-up to the war, or did he think the west were 'poking' Russia into invading?
He has been far more critical of Putin than Blair and Mandelson and Johnson and Cameron for years now.
No Socialist would support Putin he is a tin pot Capitalist dictator
Oh, go away. Jeremy Corbyn signed the Stop The War statement on the war.
One that said there should not be a war for one paragraph, and then spent the rest of the document blaming 'us' for the war, and essentially said Ukraine should not defend itself.
"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."
"We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
Only in Commie fantasy land is supplying defensive weapons to a country that has been invaded twice in a decade "aggressive posturing" and "pouring oil on the fire"
And they wonder why people call them the Loony Left...
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
A follow up to his hit book What If? I bought many people copies of it as a stocking filler.
What If? is great. I like the one where he basically just stacks all the elements of the periodic table beside each other and then explains how the reaction unfolds.
Or the one about hitting a baseball going at 90% of the speed of light.
Hang on Dr P. You were quite one of the far left until recently.
Sure, if you define far left as "supported Corbyn". That's why I'm fairly well-informed about the sector. I've supported democratic leftism (which I think of as help the underdog stuff) all my life - I just draw the line at dictatorships and aggressors, whatever ideology they purport to espouse. Ultimately they usually turn out to be about themselves.
People like me don't share the idea that because this is clearly an aggressive war reminiscent of classic imperialism, therefore every action of the West has been sensible. I think we've made various mistakes in handling Russia, both in indulging and even assisting its path to gangster kleptocracy and in rushing NATO to the border at the first opportunity.
Does that justify Putin launching a war? Of course it doesn't. The war is a monstrosity, and it's Putin's monstrosity, not ours.
Nick, with absolutely no respect that's bullshit. It doesn't matter if we've made mistakes: the cause of this tragic war is the classic imperialism and fascism shown by Putin. Whatever we did, bar capitulate, he would have done this. It is what he wants.
In fact, you can argue it the other way: if the 'west' had been stronger - say over the use of chemical weapons in Syria - this tragedy might have been avoided.
So people should not be talking of how we 'poked' Russia. Or of incorrect b/s about guarantees about NATO not extending Eastwards (which is wrong both factually and morally). Or Nazis in Ukraine. They should be talking about Putin's evil. Anything else is deliberately muddying the waters.
Putin's war for Ukraine is one of imperial expansionism. When was the last war where a country actually wanted to incorporate a country? Iraq over Kuwait?
I cant read the article paywall, (unless somebody has a good workaround?)
but it is interesting how its much more pronounced in the USA middling in France and very small in UK.
Leaving the contrary's defences aside, is this mostly a difference of weather you have a memory of the cold war? maybe?
I think Salisbury is a major effect in the UK. Despite all the talk about oligarchs, we've ben fairly bullish against Russia since at least before Crimea/Donbass/MH17, and all the major parties generally agree about that. Whereas in the US, you have the Donald backing Russia, so it splits on partisan divides.
Well except there's no partisan divide in the US survey results. That's the most interesting thing. Perhaps because the young are influenced by the extreme left and the old by the extreme right, both of which are full of Putin apologists?
Thanks, didn't know that. It does make it more interesting...
As I've said in various posts, the far left in Western Europe have really gone off Russia (to the extent that they were ever fans) - everyone from Corbyn and McDonnell in Britain to the Linke in Germany is supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the left is suddenly signed up to the whole NATO/commercial globalisation agenda, merely that this is so like a classic imperialist war that it's impossible for even hardened leftists to accept as a reasonable way to pursue territorial disputes. In the US, alienation from the whole political establishment may be stronger on both far left and far right, so that if Biden and Congress think Russia are bad, it follows that they must be good? Most people don't really do alienation to that degree in Britain, even on the political wings - neither Farage nor Corbyn are really screaming "Down with the whole system".
Is Corbyn 'supporting' Ukraine? Was he in the build-up to the war, or did he think the west were 'poking' Russia into invading?
He has been far more critical of Putin than Blair and Mandelson and Johnson and Cameron for years now.
No Socialist would support Putin he is a tin pot Capitalist dictator
Oh, go away. Jeremy Corbyn signed the Stop The War statement on the war.
One that said there should not be a war for one paragraph, and then spent the rest of the document blaming 'us' for the war, and essentially said Ukraine should not defend itself.
"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."
"We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
Only in Commie fantasy land is supplying defensive weapons to a country that has been invaded twice in a decade "aggressive posturing" and "pouring oil on the fire"
And they wonder why people call them the Loony Left...
STW don't wonder about anything. They have already seen the light and have all the answers.
This is probably my prejudice toward the youth showing, but I wonder if they might be more inclined to this tendency as identified by David Baddiel the other day, though old people do it too - a corrollary being people thinking things must be more complicated than they are (and on Ukraine it is a very simple situation in terms of blame)
I have a phrase for this, which is naive sophistication. People who think they will appear sophisticated, that is, by naively thinking, with a raised sophisticated eyebrow, that "nothing is what it seems." Truth is, quite a lot of things are what they seem.
He's spot on there. Things are rarely very simple, but they are also rarely very complicated. Quite often any reasonably intelligent person with a bit of curiosity can figure things out.
I suspect for a lot of young people the Cold War, more than thirty years ago, just doesn't seem that relevant given that 9/11, GWOT, Afghanistan, Iraq, the financial crash, the Arab Spring, and the pandemic have happened since then. Hopefully current events will spur some of them to start doing some reading. They are going to be living with Russia being an absolute pain in the arse, at best, for a long while to come.
A YES vote in Scotland seemed impossible - until it became highly possible, and David Cameron started weeping on live TV. A Brexit vote seemed ludicrously unlikely - I recall Richard Nabavi predicting it would be 70/30 Remain - and then Brexit won [snip]
I think it's easy to forget just what a complete shambles the Leave campaign was just a few months before the referendum, especially during that hilarious time when Bernard Jenkin and other Tory Brexiteers tried to get Dominic Cummings sacked from Vote Leave, and ended up having to ask him how to do it, before changing their minds, but then Cummings and Matthew Elliott resigned from the board anyway:
I think it was probably around then that I posted that I thought that my long-term prediction of Remain winning by 60:40 might be over-cautious and that it could be 70:30.
So, yes, more uncertainty than one tends to think, but there's a bit of a difference compared with the French election in that a referendum is a one-off, whereas in regular elections you can look at how voters behaved in previous contests. No guarantee that it won't be different this time, but previously Le Pen has lost vote share in the final round compared with the polling.
You called it badly wrong but I thought the Leave campaign was an embarrassment.
I basically took matters into my own hands.
Thing is, you never know what the other side is like. Hindsight is 20:20, but the Remain campaign was atrocious.
It was ineffective and talking to itself but it was more professionally run.
A YES vote in Scotland seemed impossible - until it became highly possible, and David Cameron started weeping on live TV. A Brexit vote seemed ludicrously unlikely - I recall Richard Nabavi predicting it would be 70/30 Remain - and then Brexit won [snip]
I think it's easy to forget just what a complete shambles the Leave campaign was just a few months before the referendum, especially during that hilarious time when Bernard Jenkin and other Tory Brexiteers tried to get Dominic Cummings sacked from Vote Leave, and ended up having to ask him how to do it, before changing their minds, but then Cummings and Matthew Elliott resigned from the board anyway:
I think it was probably around then that I posted that I thought that my long-term prediction of Remain winning by 60:40 might be over-cautious and that it could be 70:30.
So, yes, more uncertainty than one tends to think, but there's a bit of a difference compared with the French election in that a referendum is a one-off, whereas in regular elections you can look at how voters behaved in previous contests. No guarantee that it won't be different this time, but previously Le Pen has lost vote share in the final round compared with the polling.
You called it badly wrong but I thought the Leave campaign was an embarrassment.
I basically took matters into my own hands.
Thing is, you never know what the other side is like. Hindsight is 20:20, but the Remain campaign was atrocious.
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
I love the way you start with something vaguely rooted in fact, and then veer off at the end.
If you are correct, btw, then we should start to see that French IQs rise relative to everywhere else, as France is the only country in the world where birth rate correlates positively with income and education levels (due to the country's rather sensible pronatal policies).
That will mean they're sometimes out on a limb challenging fashionable orthodoxy.
It will also mean they learn how to exercise their brains to the fullest extent possible, and both they and society will make better decisions as a result.
I think I was the first person on here to point out the areas Putin is most interested in and the gas and oil reserves. They map very well - Crimea, Donbass, Transnistria. It's almost as if he wants to grab much of Eastern Europe's oil and gas...
But if he was only interested in those areas, then he went about the war utterly wrongly. And he would certainly not have threatened the other Baltic states. So my own view is that he wanted all of Ukraine firmly under his thumb.
And then the rest of the Baltic states.
Fortunately for all of us, and tragically for them in the short term, Ukraine did not capitulate to evil.
I cant read the article paywall, (unless somebody has a good workaround?)
but it is interesting how its much more pronounced in the USA middling in France and very small in UK.
Leaving the contrary's defences aside, is this mostly a difference of weather you have a memory of the cold war? maybe?
I think Salisbury is a major effect in the UK. Despite all the talk about oligarchs, we've ben fairly bullish against Russia since at least before Crimea/Donbass/MH17, and all the major parties generally agree about that. Whereas in the US, you have the Donald backing Russia, so it splits on partisan divides.
Well except there's no partisan divide in the US survey results. That's the most interesting thing. Perhaps because the young are influenced by the extreme left and the old by the extreme right, both of which are full of Putin apologists?
Thanks, didn't know that. It does make it more interesting...
As I've said in various posts, the far left in Western Europe have really gone off Russia (to the extent that they were ever fans) - everyone from Corbyn and McDonnell in Britain to the Linke in Germany is supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the left is suddenly signed up to the whole NATO/commercial globalisation agenda, merely that this is so like a classic imperialist war that it's impossible for even hardened leftists to accept as a reasonable way to pursue territorial disputes. In the US, alienation from the whole political establishment may be stronger on both far left and far right, so that if Biden and Congress think Russia are bad, it follows that they must be good? Most people don't really do alienation to that degree in Britain, even on the political wings - neither Farage nor Corbyn are really screaming "Down with the whole system".
Is Corbyn 'supporting' Ukraine? Was he in the build-up to the war, or did he think the west were 'poking' Russia into invading?
He has been far more critical of Putin than Blair and Mandelson and Johnson and Cameron for years now.
No Socialist would support Putin he is a tin pot Capitalist dictator
Oh, go away. Jeremy Corbyn signed the Stop The War statement on the war.
One that said there should not be a war for one paragraph, and then spent the rest of the document blaming 'us' for the war, and essentially said Ukraine should not defend itself.
"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."
"We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
Yes, Corbyn blames *us* for the war. As did Nick Palmer, of this parish.
Why this pisses me off: it is rare in international relations to get such a clear-cut case of right versus wrong; good versus evil. And yet Corbyn and his fellow bottom-feeders look at blaming us for Putin's evil.
There is one person to blame for this evil: Putin. Do you agree?
Thanks for drawing our attention to that petition. A sickening self-identified list of people so ideologically rigid that they can't recognise a clear cut case of imperialist aggression and war crimes. The bastards all think they have greater moral stature and insight than the rest of us!
That’s off your chest now.
What’s for supper?
Do you back Stop The War's initial position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
I cant read the article paywall, (unless somebody has a good workaround?)
but it is interesting how its much more pronounced in the USA middling in France and very small in UK.
Leaving the contrary's defences aside, is this mostly a difference of weather you have a memory of the cold war? maybe?
I think Salisbury is a major effect in the UK. Despite all the talk about oligarchs, we've ben fairly bullish against Russia since at least before Crimea/Donbass/MH17, and all the major parties generally agree about that. Whereas in the US, you have the Donald backing Russia, so it splits on partisan divides.
Well except there's no partisan divide in the US survey results. That's the most interesting thing. Perhaps because the young are influenced by the extreme left and the old by the extreme right, both of which are full of Putin apologists?
Thanks, didn't know that. It does make it more interesting...
As I've said in various posts, the far left in Western Europe have really gone off Russia (to the extent that they were ever fans) - everyone from Corbyn and McDonnell in Britain to the Linke in Germany is supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the left is suddenly signed up to the whole NATO/commercial globalisation agenda, merely that this is so like a classic imperialist war that it's impossible for even hardened leftists to accept as a reasonable way to pursue territorial disputes. In the US, alienation from the whole political establishment may be stronger on both far left and far right, so that if Biden and Congress think Russia are bad, it follows that they must be good? Most people don't really do alienation to that degree in Britain, even on the political wings - neither Farage nor Corbyn are really screaming "Down with the whole system".
Is Corbyn 'supporting' Ukraine? Was he in the build-up to the war, or did he think the west were 'poking' Russia into invading?
He has been far more critical of Putin than Blair and Mandelson and Johnson and Cameron for years now.
No Socialist would support Putin he is a tin pot Capitalist dictator
Oh, go away. Jeremy Corbyn signed the Stop The War statement on the war.
One that said there should not be a war for one paragraph, and then spent the rest of the document blaming 'us' for the war, and essentially said Ukraine should not defend itself.
"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."
"We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
Yes, Corbyn blames *us* for the war. As did Nick Palmer, of this parish.
Why this pisses me off: it is rare in international relations to get such a clear-cut case of right versus wrong; good versus evil. And yet Corbyn and his fellow bottom-feeders look at blaming us for Putin's evil.
There is one person to blame for this evil: Putin. Do you agree?
Thanks for drawing our attention to that petition. A sickening self-identified list of people so ideologically rigid that they can't recognise a clear cut case of imperialist aggression and war crimes. The bastards all think they have greater moral stature and insight than the rest of us!
That’s off your chest now.
What’s for supper?
Do you back Stop The War's initial position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
I don't really buy it to be honest. I'd have assumed that was his goal at the start of all this, and it probably should have been his aim all along, and certainly he's willing to pay a very high cost to get what he wants, but he's made achieving that aim harder by launching out so widely in the first place. By talking about wider goals of denazifying, and justifications that Ukraine is not a real country etc etc. He's provoked a harsher reaction from the West, and more swiftly, than if he had tried to just push out from Crimea and the regions already held.
Some of that might be down to underestimating how easy it would be to go in, cause damage, and get out with minimal fuss and loss, but it just seems to have been too broad an attack to have simply been a feint to conceal his reduced aims.
Indeed, whilst I don't think western unity will survive if the Ukrainians, gods willing, seek to push back into the Donbas at some point, Putin has made gaining the bits he wants much much harder than it would have been had it been his sole intent from the start. Plenty of people would have gone 'That's terrible, but he really is just going to take over Donbas, can we really escalate things by arming the Ukrainians for that?'
So I don't think it can really just be this was the plan, and it just has been harder than he liked.
He could have sent all his troops there and smashed the Ukrainian forces.
I don't for one minute believe he wasn't going for regime change in Kyiv. He got smacked upside the head by the shit nature of his military's planning, their kit being woefully unready to face the Ukrainian defenders - and a world that said "No!"
Then he miscalculated, because he could have got that much more easily and cheaply without trashing the Russian economy en route. A simple thrust along the coast with all his army would have been far more effective.
Never ascribe to a malicious masterplan what can be explained by stupidity, difficult though those of us who have to deal with the DfE find this...
He could have sent all his troops there and smashed the Ukrainian forces.
I don't for one minute believe he wasn't going for regime change in Kyiv. He got smacked upside the head by the shit nature of his military's planning, their kit being woefully unready to face the Ukrainian defenders - and a world that said "No!"
The Russian Army used to be the second best in the world. Now it is the second best in Ukraine.
He could have sent all his troops there and smashed the Ukrainian forces.
I don't for one minute believe he wasn't going for regime change in Kyiv. He got smacked upside the head by the shit nature of his military's planning, their kit being woefully unready to face the Ukrainian defenders - and a world that said "No!"
The Russian Army used to be the second best in the world. Now it is the second best in Ukraine.
Hang on Dr P. You were quite one of the far left until recently.
Sure, if you define far left as "supported Corbyn". That's why I'm fairly well-informed about the sector. I've supported democratic leftism (which I think of as help the underdog stuff) all my life - I just draw the line at dictatorships and aggressors, whatever ideology they purport to espouse. Ultimately they usually turn out to be about themselves.
People like me don't share the idea that because this is clearly an aggressive war reminiscent of classic imperialism, therefore every action of the West has been sensible. I think we've made various mistakes in handling Russia, both in indulging and even assisting its path to gangster kleptocracy and in rushing NATO to the border at the first opportunity.
Does that justify Putin launching a war? Of course it doesn't. The war is a monstrosity, and it's Putin's monstrosity, not ours.
Nick, with absolutely no respect that's bullshit. It doesn't matter if we've made mistakes: the cause of this tragic war is the classic imperialism and fascism shown by Putin. Whatever we did, bar capitulate, he would have done this. It is what he wants.
In fact, you can argue it the other way: if the 'west' had been stronger - say over the use of chemical weapons in Syria - this tragedy might have been avoided.
So people should not be talking of how we 'poked' Russia. Or of incorrect b/s about guarantees about NATO not extending Eastwards (which is wrong both factually and morally). Or Nazis in Ukraine. They should be talking about Putin's evil. Anything else is deliberately muddying the waters.
Putin's war for Ukraine is one of imperial expansionism. When was the last war where a country actually wanted to incorporate a country? Iraq over Kuwait?
Yes, exactly. How does that differ from what I said? I say we made mistakes but the war is classic imperialism. You say it doesn't matter if we've made mistakes, it's classic imperialism. You say that now the evil war has started, we shouldn't still be going on about past mistakes. I agree, and since the war started I've only mentioned them when someone asked what others on the left had been saying. We tend to be on opposite sides (I remember your mad love for HS2), but on this one we actually agree.
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
My understanding - and I don't have the stats to hand - is that in general the rich have more kids than the poor, and that the balance of rich kids/poor kids is currently more skewed towards rich kids than at any time in British history. I may be wrong and am too cold to look up the details.
mmm if you are talking about jacob rees mogg...hedge fund level of wealth yes that might be true....these families can afford nannies and or a stay at home wife....im talking more about the broad middle class saddled with mortgage debt
Nope, I reckon it’s those unable to get a mortgage who are having fewer kids.
exactly...the middle class renters priced out by high house prices....not the people living on welfare on council estates
Though child benefit is now capped after 2 children
I'm proud to say I've had my views changed on this site and I won't apologise for holding my hands up to things I have got wrong and learning from them.
Remarkably for the first time the SNP is not standing a candidate in every mainland ward in an STV election. They are missing candidates in the Borders including a ward where Labour bizarrely has 2.
Even more remarkably, they are not standing in Caol and Mallaig ward where LD, Green and Tory candidates are returned unopposed.
I am not perfect, I have never claimed to be. But I have been open about my struggles in the hope it might help other people. Most here are extremely pleasant and despite the opinions of some, I get on very well with people I disagree with in general.
Hang on Dr P. You were quite one of the far left until recently.
Sure, if you define far left as "supported Corbyn". That's why I'm fairly well-informed about the sector. I've supported democratic leftism (which I think of as help the underdog stuff) all my life - I just draw the line at dictatorships and aggressors, whatever ideology they purport to espouse. Ultimately they usually turn out to be about themselves.
People like me don't share the idea that because this is clearly an aggressive war reminiscent of classic imperialism, therefore every action of the West has been sensible. I think we've made various mistakes in handling Russia, both in indulging and even assisting its path to gangster kleptocracy and in rushing NATO to the border at the first opportunity.
Does that justify Putin launching a war? Of course it doesn't. The war is a monstrosity, and it's Putin's monstrosity, not ours.
Nick, with absolutely no respect that's bullshit. It doesn't matter if we've made mistakes: the cause of this tragic war is the classic imperialism and fascism shown by Putin. Whatever we did, bar capitulate, he would have done this. It is what he wants.
In fact, you can argue it the other way: if the 'west' had been stronger - say over the use of chemical weapons in Syria - this tragedy might have been avoided.
So people should not be talking of how we 'poked' Russia. Or of incorrect b/s about guarantees about NATO not extending Eastwards (which is wrong both factually and morally). Or Nazis in Ukraine. They should be talking about Putin's evil. Anything else is deliberately muddying the waters.
Putin's war for Ukraine is one of imperial expansionism. When was the last war where a country actually wanted to incorporate a country? Iraq over Kuwait?
Yes, exactly. How does that differ from what I said? I say we made mistakes but the war is classic imperialism. You say it doesn't matter if we've made mistakes, it's classic imperialism. You say that now the evil war has started, we shouldn't still be going on about past mistakes. I agree, and since the war started I've only mentioned them when someone asked what others on the left had been saying. We tend to be on opposite sides (I remember your mad love for HS2), but on this one we actually agree.
The point is *exactly* what you say, and the emphasis.
The emphasis should be on Putin's evil. That is the cause of this war. By saying 'we made mistakes', and I'd argue by even mentioning it, you are excusing, or relieving the evil of, the latter.
Throughout this, you have been keen to stress *our* perceived wrongdoings. You are mostly wrong about them, morally, and factually, but they are also effing irrelevant. You muddy the waters. As you're an intelligent chap, I'll give you the benefit of saying you do so deliberately.
It is like someone blaming Britain for World War Two because Chamberlain appeased Hitler.
Take your point on NATO. Have you considered how stupid that is? The states in eastern Europe are democratic states. They should be free to decide what groups they are a member of, without the threat of war or nuclear oblivion from a larger, bullying neighbour. That's democracy and self-determination.
*Even* if you were right about guarantees given to Russia in the early 1990s (I believe you are not), then why should that constrain what those states do thirty years later? Why does Russia get a veto? How long does that veto last? Fifty years? A hundred? A thousand?
While I think that is too simplistic, Putin wanted all of Ukraine if he could or at least most of it including the capital as.
However weather by luck or judgment he has arranged things so he will get what he really really wants in the south, and possibly east, and declare a victory. his own people will accept it as a victory as he controls the media there. the west will think they have won become he doesn't control the capital, and the sanctions will be watered down and forgotten, then in 5-10 years we will all look back and say how did we let Putin win.
Ans he will have won, we are letting a brutal dictator coming terrible crimes in a western orientated reasonably liberal democracy, and most people appear to me more concerned about a quick peace, than the fact he has expanded his boarders.
I am not perfect, I have never claimed to be. But I have been open about my struggles in the hope it might help other people. Most here are extremely pleasant and despite the opinions of some, I get on very well with people I disagree with in general.
I will apologise for calling Leon dumb.
Calling people dumb is mild as these things go, don't beat yourself up.
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
The poor, the rich, and everyone in between. (Not yet official Labour Party policy, but I'm working on it.)
I am not perfect, I have never claimed to be. But I have been open about my struggles in the hope it might help other people. Most here are extremely pleasant and despite the opinions of some, I get on very well with people I disagree with in general.
I will apologise for calling Leon dumb.
Calling people dumb is mild as these things go, don't beat yourself up.
I think what you mean is: you'd be dumb for beating yourself up about it, you dumbo.
He could have sent all his troops there and smashed the Ukrainian forces.
I don't for one minute believe he wasn't going for regime change in Kyiv. He got smacked upside the head by the shit nature of his military's planning, their kit being woefully unready to face the Ukrainian defenders - and a world that said "No!"
The Russian Army used to be the second best in the world. Now it is the second best in Ukraine.
Aren't you rating the Chechens a bit low there?
They are too busy doing their 'easy rider' reenactments to bother the military ratings.
I am not perfect, I have never claimed to be. But I have been open about my struggles in the hope it might help other people. Most here are extremely pleasant and despite the opinions of some, I get on very well with people I disagree with in general.
I will apologise for calling Leon dumb.
He gives it out and takes it too. But yes polite is good when we can manage it.
I am not perfect, I have never claimed to be. But I have been open about my struggles in the hope it might help other people. Most here are extremely pleasant and despite the opinions of some, I get on very well with people I disagree with in general.
I will apologise for calling Leon dumb.
Calling people dumb is mild as these things go, don't beat yourself up.
You are always kind kle, I consider you a good friend here.
I am not perfect, I have never claimed to be. But I have been open about my struggles in the hope it might help other people. Most here are extremely pleasant and despite the opinions of some, I get on very well with people I disagree with in general.
I will apologise for calling Leon dumb.
He gives it out and takes it too. But yes polite is good when we can manage it.
And he will have won, we are letting a brutal dictator coming terrible crimes in a western orientated reasonably liberal democracy, and most people appear to me more concerned about a quick peace, than the fact he has expanded his borders.
True. That is not a simple thing to just let slide, but that would be the effect of taking too earnest an approach to peace.
Of course, if Ukraine feel they have to do that in any case that will regrettably be what happens, but if they feel they have to do it because the West is desperate to finish this before the next winter and gas demand surge, because peace and quiet is so vital? Well, it's a bad look.
Some things are worth fighting for. A cold calculation is that the West cannot really fight in this one, because of the potential escalations, and that's rough but sound. But anything up to that point, including supporting Ukraine if they want to play it tough and try to push Russia back, not merely survive? That needs doing.
He could have sent all his troops there and smashed the Ukrainian forces.
I don't for one minute believe he wasn't going for regime change in Kyiv. He got smacked upside the head by the shit nature of his military's planning, their kit being woefully unready to face the Ukrainian defenders - and a world that said "No!"
The Russian Army used to be the second best in the world. Now it is the second best in Ukraine.
second best in Ukraine?
I would suggest
1) Ukrainians Foreign legion 2) Ukrainian regular army 3) Chechen army 4) Russian army.
(if you count the Ukrainian Farmers Union then maybe 5th)
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
Unfair.
I'd say I'd seen evidence of nuance and development amongst both those posters since they started on here - they are far less ideological and more reasoned now.
This site is an education.
CHB is a decent chap but gallowgate, although not a moron has no nuance whatsoever. Just few word summaries.
As to the individual at the bottom of the article, where Open Newham say "who?" - he was the labour candidate for York Outer at the 2017 GE at just 21 years of age.
It appears someone might be flagging my posts criticising Stop The War's position on the Ukraine war.
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
It isn't just stop the war. The Green Party want to reduce defence spending to the minimum to achieve adequate security, and abolish the nuclear deterrent. This is a popular political party, particularly with young people. I've got friends who have stood for this party, otherwise smart academics.
All very well, but what would the Green Party about Ukraine? Nothing. Absolutely fuck all. Have a protest. Make impassioned speeches at the UN whilst getting ignored by the rest of the world. That's it.
Putin is an absolute gift to those of us who want a decent military and maintain nuclear bombs. He has done far more than we could ever do to persuade people of the naivety of much left/liberal thinking on matters of defence.
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
My understanding - and I don't have the stats to hand - is that in general the rich have more kids than the poor, and that the balance of rich kids/poor kids is currently more skewed towards rich kids than at any time in British history. I may be wrong and am too cold to look up the details.
mmm if you are talking about jacob rees mogg...hedge fund level of wealth yes that might be true....these families can afford nannies and or a stay at home wife....im talking more about the broad middle class saddled with mortgage debt
Nope, I reckon it’s those unable to get a mortgage who are having fewer kids.
exactly...the middle class renters priced out by high house prices....not the people living on welfare on council estates
You're making a lot of assumptions, and you haven't really backed it up with data.
Now, it may be true. It may not be true. But right now it's just an assertion.
im not dogmatic in my thinking.....but if there has been a reversal of the trend in the last 10 years as Foxy says that is too soon to show up in iq stats so even if foxy is correct on the last 10 years my argument on dysgenic breeding still stands as an explanation for declining iq over the last 30 years or so
I don't know if there's a trend, because we don't have proper data.
I can certainly posit a trend, and I can certainly tell a plausible story.
But the danger is that the story and the data might not match up. And then we're arguing based on something that sure sounds plausible... but might not actually be... you know... true.
And he will have won, we are letting a brutal dictator coming terrible crimes in a western orientated reasonably liberal democracy, and most people appear to me more concerned about a quick peace, than the fact he has expanded his borders.
True. That is not a simple thing to just let slide, but that would be the effect of taking too earnest an approach to peace.
Of course, if Ukraine feel they have to do that in any case that will regrettably be what happens, but if they feel they have to do it because the West is desperate to finish this before the next winter and gas demand surge, because peace and quiet is so vital? Well, it's a bad look.
Some things are worth fighting for. A cold calculation is that the West cannot really fight in this one, because of the potential escalations, and that's rough but sound. But anything up to that point, including supporting Ukraine if they want to play it tough and try to push Russia back, not merely survive? That needs doing.
We could/should be giving them, artillery, tanks, long range missiles, the MiG 29s they were after, and a lot more of the basic stuff. but we are not
I cant read the article paywall, (unless somebody has a good workaround?)
but it is interesting how its much more pronounced in the USA middling in France and very small in UK.
Leaving the contrary's defences aside, is this mostly a difference of weather you have a memory of the cold war? maybe?
I think Salisbury is a major effect in the UK. Despite all the talk about oligarchs, we've ben fairly bullish against Russia since at least before Crimea/Donbass/MH17, and all the major parties generally agree about that. Whereas in the US, you have the Donald backing Russia, so it splits on partisan divides.
Well except there's no partisan divide in the US survey results. That's the most interesting thing. Perhaps because the young are influenced by the extreme left and the old by the extreme right, both of which are full of Putin apologists?
Thanks, didn't know that. It does make it more interesting...
As I've said in various posts, the far left in Western Europe have really gone off Russia (to the extent that they were ever fans) - everyone from Corbyn and McDonnell in Britain to the Linke in Germany is supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the left is suddenly signed up to the whole NATO/commercial globalisation agenda, merely that this is so like a classic imperialist war that it's impossible for even hardened leftists to accept as a reasonable way to pursue territorial disputes. In the US, alienation from the whole political establishment may be stronger on both far left and far right, so that if Biden and Congress think Russia are bad, it follows that they must be good? Most people don't really do alienation to that degree in Britain, even on the political wings - neither Farage nor Corbyn are really screaming "Down with the whole system".
Is Corbyn 'supporting' Ukraine? Was he in the build-up to the war, or did he think the west were 'poking' Russia into invading?
He has been far more critical of Putin than Blair and Mandelson and Johnson and Cameron for years now.
No Socialist would support Putin he is a tin pot Capitalist dictator
Oh, go away. Jeremy Corbyn signed the Stop The War statement on the war.
One that said there should not be a war for one paragraph, and then spent the rest of the document blaming 'us' for the war, and essentially said Ukraine should not defend itself.
"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."
"We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
Yes, Corbyn blames *us* for the war. As did Nick Palmer, of this parish.
Why this pisses me off: it is rare in international relations to get such a clear-cut case of right versus wrong; good versus evil. And yet Corbyn and his fellow bottom-feeders look at blaming us for Putin's evil.
There is one person to blame for this evil: Putin. Do you agree?
Thanks for drawing our attention to that petition. A sickening self-identified list of people so ideologically rigid that they can't recognise a clear cut case of imperialist aggression and war crimes. The bastards all think they have greater moral stature and insight than the rest of us!
That’s off your chest now.
What’s for supper?
Do you back Stop The War's initial position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
Is that an actual question to me 🙂
Yes.
This is the first time I’ve seen it, read to answer your question. It’s great getting a question. I agreed with absolutely all of that letter, up to the point in the first sentence it said address Russia’s security concerns - there are no security concerns that could have been addressed to prevent or stop this war, Putin started warbling on about Ukraine not existing, it was invented by Stalin, Ukraine Nationalists are Nazi’s he needs a Kill all Nazi’s operation. So all the rest of that letter was all UK internal domestic lefty posturing, In fact, Russians now in Ukraine as the aggressor, fellow eastern Slavs are dead, some tonight only have sewage to eat and drink - a lot of Russian people have been taking a harder line against Putin than this letter does, because they understand it a darn sight better than these signatories do, given a blank map, most those signatories couldn’t even place their fingers on Ukraine. It’s the anti Putin Russians I would sign a letter in support of, that’s who I stand with - the second they replace Putin I will be first to call for death to all sanctions on Russia.
To say war is horrible so stop the war, is a very glib position. However, I posted a few weeks ago I supported Blair trying to stop militia in Kosovo, and freeing the falklands, and even standing up to the USA with suez operation, but I have changed my thoughts about being so gung ho about war. If a win win situation can be achieved by negotiations to prevent or stop conflicts I have become very much in favour of that having experienced this war for myself rather than just read about them. Too many ordinary everyday people suffer, so much everlasting sadness on people and families has happened in space of just a month. It’s all on my mind now. I blame Putin for mad ideas in this one, but each conflict has to be measured as unique case, best prevented if possible.
My reply to Stoke was trying to do the Death of Stalin joke, that’s all. 😆
UK’s own history of 20th century conflicts contains a lot of bad moments because of rethinking British Empire as it crumbled in our hands.
PS and I have only ever flagged one post, and that was when the Russian bot said “everything in position, pray for the occupants of Kiev tonight” like Lord Haw Haw. I was actually praying for them anyway, and I felt the bot demeaned something important.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
Elements of the right equally so. My most enthusiastic Putin supporting friend is a confused blood and soil ex-SNP supporter (edging Alba/Tory, bizarrely).
Been a useful litmus test for the nutters. He's a good mate though.
The bit I don't buy in this scenario is the "drop 1,000 elite paratroopers at the airport". Because they were literally all killed or captured.
And those are some of Russia's finest troops.
well thats Putins genius.....you think he wouldnt be stupid enough to do something like that....but he does something that stupid to completely fool people....you see Putin is playing 4d chess and is a genius
It appears someone might be flagging my posts criticising Stop The War's position on the Ukraine war.
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
It isn't just stop the war. The Green Party want to reduce defence spending to the minimum to achieve adequate security, and abolish the nuclear deterrent. This is a popular political party, particularly with young people. I've got friends who have stood for this party, otherwise smart academics.
All very well, but what would the Green Party about Ukraine? Nothing. Absolutely fuck all. Have a protest. Make impassioned speeches at the UN whilst getting ignored by the rest of the world. That's it.
Putin is an absolute gift to those of us who want a decent military and maintain nuclear bombs. He has done far more than we could ever do to persuade people of the naivety of much left/liberal thinking on matters of defence.
Maybe it's just my own political bias/leanings showing but I tend to find the problem with the Green party/parties in the UK is that all the other leading political parties have essentially caught up with them on having green policies (perhaps not quite so radical, but green policies nevertheless), but the Greens haven't caught up with the other parties on having sensible policies on everything else.
They're still largely living off the notion that they're occupying some important but relatively niche political space noone else is considering, which isn't really true any more.
It appears someone might be flagging my posts criticising Stop The War's position on the Ukraine war.
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
But is there no military operation UK government would do you wouldn’t sign a “stop this now” petition? What about Suez, that I understand brought down a Primeminister in 50s by diving the country? What about when UK prevented Jew’s who survived Second World War from leaving Europe for Israel?
PS it was me who gave the like to your response to green heron end of last thread
As an aside, someone in NASA was tasked to write the operational history of the Shuttle after its last flight in 2011. He had a few interns to help him with the work. They assembled a draft, and asked the interns to read it, looking for any terms they did not understand and which needed explanation. The idea being that the history might be a little too technical.
One of the interns asked: "What is the Cold War?"
Despite bring bright enough to get an internship at NASA, she did not know about the Cold War. Which had ended just twenty years earlier...
Many modern kids probably know less about it.
In 1974, my maths teacher came into school in the morning with a flabbergasted look on her face. She asked us, (15-year olds) if we knew which band Paul McCartney played in. We all knew, of course. What had flabbergasted her was that, talking with her young nephew the night before, he had asked her, "Auntie, did you know that Paul McCartney used to play in a band called the Beatles?"
I never had you pegged as a Wings fan.
LOL. I was not. Couldn't stand them. To my eternal shame, I was a Genesis and ELP fan at that time.
But Band on the Run was doing well in the charts at the time. Which I guess is why the nephew knew who Paul McCartney was.
As an aside, it seems Genesis played their last ever gig on Saturday.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
Elements of the right equally so. My most enthusiastic Putin supporting friend is a confused blood and soil ex-SNP supporter (edging Alba/Tory, bizarrely).
Been a useful litmus test for the nutters. He's a good mate though.
Is the "litmus test" thing code for, does a lot of acid? Also, how is he a useful test? Because anyone who is like him but even more so is obviously a demented wanker, whereas lots of people like him but quite a bit less so would probably also qualify as demented wankers. What benchmark exactly are we looking at here?
It appears someone might be flagging my posts criticising Stop The War's position on the Ukraine war.
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
It isn't just stop the war. The Green Party want to reduce defence spending to the minimum to achieve adequate security, and abolish the nuclear deterrent. This is a popular political party, particularly with young people. I've got friends who have stood for this party, otherwise smart academics.
All very well, but what would the Green Party about Ukraine? Nothing. Absolutely fuck all. Have a protest. Make impassioned speeches at the UN whilst getting ignored by the rest of the world. That's it.
Putin is an absolute gift to those of us who want a decent military and maintain nuclear bombs. He has done far more than we could ever do to persuade people of the naivety of much left/liberal thinking on matters of defence.
Maybe it's just my own political bias/leanings showing but I tend to find the problem with the Green party/parties in the UK is that all the other leading political parties have essentially caught up with them on having green policies (perhaps not quite so radical, but green policies nevertheless), but the Greens haven't caught up with the other parties on having sensible policies on everything else.
They're still largely living off the notion that they're occupying some important but relatively niche political space noone else is considering, which isn't really true any more.
I believe its been stated many countries essentially have two green partiy options, so they can cater to a more radical left position or be more centrist or even on the right.
But I'd agree I think that is the main problem, that most parties are various shades of green now. Certainly you will find anti-green policies more on the right, but plenty of Conservatives (and conservatives) are very keen on green issues. So what can the Greens do? Become even greener? Or differentiate in different ways, which requires they remain non mainstream, even as their core policy does become mainstream?
It's a shame as I have a lot of time for many local Greens. They organise very effectively, are very passionate, typically polite, and work damn hard even between elections (which ususally don't go well for them despite their effort).
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
Sterilize the poor!
My point made....its impossible to have a sensible conversation about things such as this. Might as well put your feet up and enjoy the decline
My understanding - and I don't have the stats to hand - is that in general the rich have more kids than the poor, and that the balance of rich kids/poor kids is currently more skewed towards rich kids than at any time in British history. I may be wrong and am too cold to look up the details.
mmm if you are talking about jacob rees mogg...hedge fund level of wealth yes that might be true....these families can afford nannies and or a stay at home wife....im talking more about the broad middle class saddled with mortgage debt
Nope, I reckon it’s those unable to get a mortgage who are having fewer kids.
exactly...the middle class renters priced out by high house prices....not the people living on welfare on council estates
You're making a lot of assumptions, and you haven't really backed it up with data.
Now, it may be true. It may not be true. But right now it's just an assertion.
im not dogmatic in my thinking.....but if there has been a reversal of the trend in the last 10 years as Foxy says that is too soon to show up in iq stats so even if foxy is correct on the last 10 years my argument on dysgenic breeding still stands as an explanation for declining iq over the last 30 years or so
I don't know if there's a trend, because we don't have proper data.
I can certainly posit a trend, and I can certainly tell a plausible story.
But the danger is that the story and the data might not match up. And then we're arguing based on something that sure sounds plausible... but might not actually be... you know... true.
As I say to my employees: "give me data, guys"
i think charles murray in the bell curve gave some decent data for the argument im persuing.....
I read the bell curve a long time ago, but I'm 99.9% sure he doesn't address your fundamental point about birth rates.
It's also an extremely complicated topic: for example only children score significantly higher on IQ tests than those who have siblings. Indeed, a lot of the data on rising IQs historically may simply be a consequence of family sizes diminishing.
It appears someone might be flagging my posts criticising Stop The War's position on the Ukraine war.
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
It isn't just stop the war. The Green Party want to reduce defence spending to the minimum to achieve adequate security, and abolish the nuclear deterrent. This is a popular political party, particularly with young people. I've got friends who have stood for this party, otherwise smart academics.
All very well, but what would the Green Party about Ukraine? Nothing. Absolutely fuck all. Have a protest. Make impassioned speeches at the UN whilst getting ignored by the rest of the world. That's it.
Putin is an absolute gift to those of us who want a decent military and maintain nuclear bombs. He has done far more than we could ever do to persuade people of the naivety of much left/liberal thinking on matters of defence.
Maybe it's just my own political bias/leanings showing but I tend to find the problem with the Green party/parties in the UK is that all the other leading political parties have essentially caught up with them on having green policies (perhaps not quite so radical, but green policies nevertheless), but the Greens haven't caught up with the other parties on having sensible policies on everything else.
They're still largely living off the notion that they're occupying some important but relatively niche political space noone else is considering, which isn't really true any more.
What they are doing is becoming effective local campaigners and are gradually taking more and more council seats. Their NIMBYism is perfect for local elections. I expect them to do well in May.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
Elements of the right equally so. My most enthusiastic Putin supporting friend is a confused blood and soil ex-SNP supporter (edging Alba/Tory, bizarrely).
Been a useful litmus test for the nutters. He's a good mate though.
Is the "litmus test" thing code for, does a lot of acid? Also, how is he a useful test? Because anyone who is like him but even more so is obviously a demented wanker, whereas lots of people like him but quite a bit less so would probably also qualify as demented wankers. What benchmark exactly are we looking at here?
As an aside, someone in NASA was tasked to write the operational history of the Shuttle after its last flight in 2011. He had a few interns to help him with the work. They assembled a draft, and asked the interns to read it, looking for any terms they did not understand and which needed explanation. The idea being that the history might be a little too technical.
One of the interns asked: "What is the Cold War?"
Despite bring bright enough to get an internship at NASA, she did not know about the Cold War. Which had ended just twenty years earlier...
Many modern kids probably know less about it.
In 1974, my maths teacher came into school in the morning with a flabbergasted look on her face. She asked us, (15-year olds) if we knew which band Paul McCartney played in. We all knew, of course. What had flabbergasted her was that, talking with her young nephew the night before, he had asked her, "Auntie, did you know that Paul McCartney used to play in a band called the Beatles?"
I never had you pegged as a Wings fan.
LOL. I was not. Couldn't stand them. To my eternal shame, I was a Genesis and ELP fan at that time.
But Band on the Run was doing well in the charts at the time. Which I guess is why the nephew knew who Paul McCartney was.
As an aside, it seems Genesis played their last ever gig on Saturday.
Turn it on, turn it on again.
A hard reboot? It will take more than that to fix them.
Watch it with the sound off. You can see his soul seeping out of his eyes. They’re sacrificing everything that made us the mother of all Parliaments on the altar of Boris Johnson’s utter depravity. https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1509232250730295304
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
I love the way you start with something vaguely rooted in fact, and then veer off at the end.
If you are correct, btw, then we should start to see that French IQs rise relative to everywhere else, as France is the only country in the world where birth rate correlates positively with income and education levels (due to the country's rather sensible pronatal policies).
That will mean they're sometimes out on a limb challenging fashionable orthodoxy.
It will also mean they learn how to exercise their brains to the fullest extent possible, and both they and society will make better decisions as a result.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
Elements of the right equally so. My most enthusiastic Putin supporting friend is a confused blood and soil ex-SNP supporter (edging Alba/Tory, bizarrely).
Been a useful litmus test for the nutters. He's a good mate though.
Is the "litmus test" thing code for, does a lot of acid? Also, how is he a useful test? Because anyone who is like him but even more so is obviously a demented wanker, whereas lots of people like him but quite a bit less so would probably also qualify as demented wankers. What benchmark exactly are we looking at here?
The supporting Putin thing is the test.
Yebbut, test for what? I don't understand this at all. We can, mostly, tell that support for Putin is irrational without having to look to some kind of demented "good mate" to help us make up our minds.
I think I was the first person on here to point out the areas Putin is most interested in and the gas and oil reserves. They map very well - Crimea, Donbass, Transnistria. It's almost as if he wants to grab much of Eastern Europe's oil and gas...
But if he was only interested in those areas, then he went about the war utterly wrongly. And he would certainly not have threatened the other Baltic states. So my own view is that he wanted all of Ukraine firmly under his thumb.
And then the rest of the Baltic states.
Fortunately for all of us, and tragically for them in the short term, Ukraine did not capitulate to evil.
As I think @rcs1000 pointed out, putting 4 figures of your finest paratroops repeatedly on the bits of Ukraine you allegedly *don't want* is a bit strange. Especially when they kept getting wiped out.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
It appears someone might be flagging my posts criticising Stop The War's position on the Ukraine war.
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
It isn't just stop the war. The Green Party want to reduce defence spending to the minimum to achieve adequate security, and abolish the nuclear deterrent. This is a popular political party, particularly with young people. I've got friends who have stood for this party, otherwise smart academics.
All very well, but what would the Green Party about Ukraine? Nothing. Absolutely fuck all. Have a protest. Make impassioned speeches at the UN whilst getting ignored by the rest of the world. That's it.
Putin is an absolute gift to those of us who want a decent military and maintain nuclear bombs. He has done far more than we could ever do to persuade people of the naivety of much left/liberal thinking on matters of defence.
Maybe it's just my own political bias/leanings showing but I tend to find the problem with the Green party/parties in the UK is that all the other leading political parties have essentially caught up with them on having green policies (perhaps not quite so radical, but green policies nevertheless), but the Greens haven't caught up with the other parties on having sensible policies on everything else.
They're still largely living off the notion that they're occupying some important but relatively niche political space noone else is considering, which isn't really true any more.
I believe its been stated many countries essentially have two green partiy options, so they can cater to a more radical left position or be more centrist or even on the right.
But I'd agree I think that is the main problem, that most parties are various shades of green now. Certainly you will find anti-green policies more on the right, but plenty of Conservatives (and conservatives) are very keen on green issues. So what can the Greens do? Become even greener? Or differentiate in different ways, which requires they remain non mainstream, even as their core policy does become mainstream?
It's a shame as I have a lot of time for many local Greens. They organise very effectively, are very passionate, typically polite, and work damn hard even between elections (which ususally don't go well for them despite their effort).
I think it wrong to suggest they become mainstream and more coherent. That isn't their role. They are more counter-cultural than aiming at conventional power. Like UKIP they have a big effect without big political success, at least in FPTP elections. Being a ferment of ideas, often incoherent or contradictory is a useful contribution to British politics.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
I hate to rain on your parade, but you do need to verify your facts. It is incontrovertibly true that male homosexuality is highly prevalent among giraffes, lions and sheep. Ten percent of rams are exclusively gay. Don't like to be the one to break it to you, but there it is.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
"Those giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around eating and not mating. You sold me... queer giraffes. I want my money back!"
It appears someone might be flagging my posts criticising Stop The War's position on the Ukraine war.
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
It isn't just stop the war. The Green Party want to reduce defence spending to the minimum to achieve adequate security, and abolish the nuclear deterrent. This is a popular political party, particularly with young people. I've got friends who have stood for this party, otherwise smart academics.
All very well, but what would the Green Party about Ukraine? Nothing. Absolutely fuck all. Have a protest. Make impassioned speeches at the UN whilst getting ignored by the rest of the world. That's it.
Putin is an absolute gift to those of us who want a decent military and maintain nuclear bombs. He has done far more than we could ever do to persuade people of the naivety of much left/liberal thinking on matters of defence.
Maybe it's just my own political bias/leanings showing but I tend to find the problem with the Green party/parties in the UK is that all the other leading political parties have essentially caught up with them on having green policies (perhaps not quite so radical, but green policies nevertheless), but the Greens haven't caught up with the other parties on having sensible policies on everything else.
They're still largely living off the notion that they're occupying some important but relatively niche political space noone else is considering, which isn't really true any more.
My problem with them is that they spend far too much time wibbling on about whatever handwringing, woke topic is flavour of the month instead of being 100% focused on Environmentalism. Too many watermelons, not enough greengages.
It appears someone might be flagging my posts criticising Stop The War's position on the Ukraine war.
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
It isn't just stop the war. The Green Party want to reduce defence spending to the minimum to achieve adequate security, and abolish the nuclear deterrent. This is a popular political party, particularly with young people. I've got friends who have stood for this party, otherwise smart academics.
All very well, but what would the Green Party about Ukraine? Nothing. Absolutely fuck all. Have a protest. Make impassioned speeches at the UN whilst getting ignored by the rest of the world. That's it.
Putin is an absolute gift to those of us who want a decent military and maintain nuclear bombs. He has done far more than we could ever do to persuade people of the naivety of much left/liberal thinking on matters of defence.
Maybe it's just my own political bias/leanings showing but I tend to find the problem with the Green party/parties in the UK is that all the other leading political parties have essentially caught up with them on having green policies (perhaps not quite so radical, but green policies nevertheless), but the Greens haven't caught up with the other parties on having sensible policies on everything else.
They're still largely living off the notion that they're occupying some important but relatively niche political space noone else is considering, which isn't really true any more.
I believe its been stated many countries essentially have two green partiy options, so they can cater to a more radical left position or be more centrist or even on the right.
But I'd agree I think that is the main problem, that most parties are various shades of green now. Certainly you will find anti-green policies more on the right, but plenty of Conservatives (and conservatives) are very keen on green issues. So what can the Greens do? Become even greener? Or differentiate in different ways, which requires they remain non mainstream, even as their core policy does become mainstream?
It's a shame as I have a lot of time for many local Greens. They organise very effectively, are very passionate, typically polite, and work damn hard even between elections (which ususally don't go well for them despite their effort).
I think it wrong to suggest they become mainstream and more coherent. That isn't their role. They are more counter-cultural than aiming at conventional power. Like UKIP they have a big effect without big political success, at least in FPTP elections. Being a ferment of ideas, often incoherent or contradictory is a useful contribution to British politics.
It is, but is that what they want to be? If they are content to be a glorified lobby group, influencing the bigger parties, and working at lower levels, that's fine, but their rhetoric tends to speak to bigger ambitions than that.
Isn't some at least of that a matter of youngsters not bothering to keep iup with the news/have an opinion?
Maybe, but there's no excuse for "accidentally" supporting Russia because you haven't been taking an interest in the news.
Nah, for this century America has been led by Bush 43 and Trump, you can see why people aren't enamoured by America.
For some there's no difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
I wonder if the yoof also think more globally than we old farts. Despite the fact I have lived most my life outside Britain (46/17 years out/in), I tend to think about Ukraine being a European war and hence 'our' problem, whereas Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Burma, Nagorny-Karabakh, etc... are really other peoples' problems (until we made them ours, where we did). So they are fundamentally different in my mind.
But for many of the younger generation, it appears that what is front and centre for them is the contrast in how the West has reacted to 'like' situations, and hence for them the hypocrisy in our actions.
I doubt they care any more about other places.
I suspect its more some embittered resentment of the western world which manifests itself in supporting anything opposed to it.
Also, young people are just a lot more stupid than us oldsters. IQs are declining across the West
And they really obviously ARE stupider. You can see it all around you. Less questioning. Sheeplike. Idiotic. Look at @CorrectHorseBattery and @Gallowgate on here. Fucking morons
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
Today's 21 years olds are not scoring as well as those born in 1974 (for example) and testing in 1995.
However, we all suffer from cognitive decline as we get older, particularly if we're gin-riddled. This mean that a 21 year old today will score more highly on an IQ test (on average) than a 54 year old.
I wonder why you chose 1974? My limited understanding of the latest research is that the peak was sometime in the 70s. I have no idea whether this is having a noticeable affect on the workplace.
I have heard from several people - not given to trolling like me - that their younger employees are noticeably dimmer, and more annoying and simultaneously more sensitive and entitled. But definitely dimmer
I'm not entirely making this up to irritate (tho that too)
On the evidence here, it looks like Absolute Peak Human IQ was achieved by people born in the mid 1960s, and then measured in the mid 1970s, which makes total sense
Interesting that the decline in IQ coincides with the start of the almost dysgenic breeding programme we now have in the west whereby low iq women and men have been allowed by the benefits system to breed to their hearts content. At the same time many intelligent women prioritise their career and may have put off having a family to the last minute often having one or zero children. We are now seeing the effects of this which will only get worse and will cause much of the economy to start operating at 3rd world levels
I love the way you start with something vaguely rooted in fact, and then veer off at the end.
If you are correct, btw, then we should start to see that French IQs rise relative to everywhere else, as France is the only country in the world where birth rate correlates positively with income and education levels (due to the country's rather sensible pronatal policies).
That will mean they're sometimes out on a limb challenging fashionable orthodoxy.
It will also mean they learn how to exercise their brains to the fullest extent possible, and both they and society will make better decisions as a result.
Yeah, but then they might talk back.
Not if they've been taught with Tory-mandated stuff like this:
Watch it with the sound off. You can see his soul seeping out of his eyes. They’re sacrificing everything that made us the mother of all Parliaments on the altar of Boris Johnson’s utter depravity. https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1509232250730295304
It’s looking like a fine, staying on for locals, bad set of results blamed on the fine, forced out? Just to clear up one bit, no FPN for Boris whilst others get them all around him is an even bigger poll drop than actually sharing the telling off?
Watch it with the sound off. You can see his soul seeping out of his eyes. They’re sacrificing everything that made us the mother of all Parliaments on the altar of Boris Johnson’s utter depravity. https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1509232250730295304
It’s looking like a fine, staying on for locals, bad set of results blamed on the fine, forced out? Just to clear up one bit, no FPN for Boris whilst others get them all around him is an even bigger poll drop than actually sharing the telling off?
As I recall, the attendees at illicit student parties, etc. got FPN. But the organisers/hosts got much more substantial charges with (if convicted) fines in the £K range and upwards. It would be, erm, distinctive if Mr Johnson, the Cabinet Office head, etc., got let off with FPNs rather than at least being charged (whatever the actual result in court). The comparison would be made.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
"Those giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around eating and not mating. You sold me... queer giraffes. I want my money back!"
You should have known by their interest in soft furnishings.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
I hate to rain on your parade, but you do need to verify your facts. It is incontrovertibly true that male homosexuality is highly prevalent among giraffes, lions and sheep. Ten percent of rams are exclusively gay. Don't like to be the one to break it to you, but there it is.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
"Those giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around eating and not mating. You sold me... queer giraffes. I want my money back!"
Apparently male giraffes use rape as bullying and control, possibly without any concept of queer.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
I hate to rain on your parade, but you do need to verify your facts. It is incontrovertibly true that male homosexuality is highly prevalent among giraffes, lions and sheep. Ten percent of rams are exclusively gay. Don't like to be the one to break it to you, but there it is.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave to Sunil some moments ago.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
"Those giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around eating and not mating. You sold me... queer giraffes. I want my money back!"
Apparently male giraffes use rape as bullying and control, possibly without any concept of queer.
Really? I've often seen giraffes carrying the old rainbow flag, which suggests they are rather more woke that you give them credit.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
"Those giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around eating and not mating. You sold me... queer giraffes. I want my money back!"
Apparently male giraffes use rape as bullying and control, possibly without any concept of queer.
That's what happens when you put giraffes in prison.
The left of Labour have been utterly horrendous on Russia. Just appalling.
When you have people who think 93% of Giraffe’s are gay, getting position on Putin’s invasion right was always going to be way beyond them. Extremists have too much bias, they walk around seeing the world through a prism of their own misconceptions and self fulfilling prophecies. The right place for grown ups is be a moderate around the centre, the extremes is student age politics.
"Those giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. They just walk around eating and not mating. You sold me... queer giraffes. I want my money back!"
That's asexual giraffes. Different kind altogether.
Watch it with the sound off. You can see his soul seeping out of his eyes. They’re sacrificing everything that made us the mother of all Parliaments on the altar of Boris Johnson’s utter depravity. https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1509232250730295304
It’s looking like a fine, staying on for locals, bad set of results blamed on the fine, forced out? Just to clear up one bit, no FPN for Boris whilst others get them all around him is an even bigger poll drop than actually sharing the telling off?
As I recall, the attendees at illicit student parties, etc. got FPN. But the organisers/hosts got much more substantial charges with (if convicted) fines in the £K range and upwards. It would be, erm, distinctive if Mr Johnson, the Cabinet Office head, etc., got let off with FPNs rather than at least being charged (whatever the actual result in court). The comparison would be made.
I think he is just the dear ambushed attendee isn’t he, it’s his wife who arranged them? But no worries, they could flog that spare roll of wallpaper they pushed under the bed to pay for what she’s got coming.
You just know the details on this are leaking out at some point.
Comments
People like me don't share the idea that because this is clearly an aggressive war reminiscent of classic imperialism, therefore every action of the West has been sensible. I think we've made various mistakes in handling Russia, both in indulging and even assisting its path to gangster kleptocracy and in rushing NATO to the border at the first opportunity.
Does that justify Putin launching a war? Of course it doesn't. The war is a monstrosity, and it's Putin's monstrosity, not ours.
This piece from the US suggests that in the last 30 years the traditional relationship you posit (i.e. lower income more kids, higher income fewer kids) has actually reversed:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-018-9160-8
What’s for supper?
A follow up to his hit book What If? I bought many people copies of it as a stocking filler.
Now, it may be true. It may not be true. But right now it's just an assertion.
https://twitter.com/sallygunnell/status/1509176194440347654?s=21&t=mJtrPtWqKlhQ-yY7dYRqsg
And they wonder why people call them the Loony Left...
In fact, you can argue it the other way: if the 'west' had been stronger - say over the use of chemical weapons in Syria - this tragedy might have been avoided.
So people should not be talking of how we 'poked' Russia. Or of incorrect b/s about guarantees about NATO not extending Eastwards (which is wrong both factually and morally). Or Nazis in Ukraine. They should be talking about Putin's evil. Anything else is deliberately muddying the waters.
Putin's war for Ukraine is one of imperial expansionism. When was the last war where a country actually wanted to incorporate a country? Iraq over Kuwait?
I suspect for a lot of young people the Cold War, more than thirty years ago, just doesn't seem that relevant given that 9/11, GWOT, Afghanistan, Iraq, the financial crash, the Arab Spring, and the pandemic have happened since then. Hopefully current events will spur some of them to start doing some reading. They are going to be living with Russia being an absolute pain in the arse, at best, for a long while to come.
https://twitter.com/drpippam/status/1509189718994558976?s=21&t=mJtrPtWqKlhQ-yY7dYRqsg
That will mean they're sometimes out on a limb challenging fashionable orthodoxy.
It will also mean they learn how to exercise their brains to the fullest extent possible, and both they and society will make better decisions as a result.
But if he was only interested in those areas, then he went about the war utterly wrongly. And he would certainly not have threatened the other Baltic states. So my own view is that he wanted all of Ukraine firmly under his thumb.
And then the rest of the Baltic states.
Fortunately for all of us, and tragically for them in the short term, Ukraine did not capitulate to evil.
Some of that might be down to underestimating how easy it would be to go in, cause damage, and get out with minimal fuss and loss, but it just seems to have been too broad an attack to have simply been a feint to conceal his reduced aims.
Indeed, whilst I don't think western unity will survive if the Ukrainians, gods willing, seek to push back into the Donbas at some point, Putin has made gaining the bits he wants much much harder than it would have been had it been his sole intent from the start. Plenty of people would have gone 'That's terrible, but he really is just going to take over Donbas, can we really escalate things by arming the Ukrainians for that?'
So I don't think it can really just be this was the plan, and it just has been harder than he liked.
I don't for one minute believe he wasn't going for regime change in Kyiv. He got smacked upside the head by the shit nature of his military's planning, their kit being woefully unready to face the Ukrainian defenders - and a world that said "No!"
Never ascribe to a malicious masterplan what can be explained by stupidity, difficult though those of us who have to deal with the DfE find this...
It'd be good if the anonymous coward could actually come forward and say why they're flagging it...
And yes, I feel strongly about this. StW are morally and intellectually wrong on this. They are excusing evil.
In practice, it's generally used to signal disagreement or suggest the mods need to look at a post.
In further practice, it usually drives @rcs1000 up the wall because he gets an email every time somebody does it and frequent use clogs his inbox.
Even more remarkably, they are not standing in Caol and Mallaig ward where LD, Green and Tory candidates are returned unopposed.
I will apologise for calling Leon dumb.
The emphasis should be on Putin's evil. That is the cause of this war. By saying 'we made mistakes', and I'd argue by even mentioning it, you are excusing, or relieving the evil of, the latter.
Throughout this, you have been keen to stress *our* perceived wrongdoings. You are mostly wrong about them, morally, and factually, but they are also effing irrelevant. You muddy the waters. As you're an intelligent chap, I'll give you the benefit of saying you do so deliberately.
It is like someone blaming Britain for World War Two because Chamberlain appeased Hitler.
Take your point on NATO. Have you considered how stupid that is? The states in eastern Europe are democratic states. They should be free to decide what groups they are a member of, without the threat of war or nuclear oblivion from a larger, bullying neighbour. That's democracy and self-determination.
*Even* if you were right about guarantees given to Russia in the early 1990s (I believe you are not), then why should that constrain what those states do thirty years later? Why does Russia get a veto? How long does that veto last? Fifty years? A hundred? A thousand?
However weather by luck or judgment he has arranged things so he will get what he really really wants in the south, and possibly east, and declare a victory. his own people will accept it as a victory as he controls the media there. the west will think they have won become he doesn't control the capital, and the sanctions will be watered down and forgotten, then in 5-10 years we will all look back and say how did we let Putin win.
Ans he will have won, we are letting a brutal dictator coming terrible crimes in a western orientated reasonably liberal democracy, and most people appear to me more concerned about a quick peace, than the fact he has expanded his boarders.
Of course, if Ukraine feel they have to do that in any case that will regrettably be what happens, but if they feel they have to do it because the West is desperate to finish this before the next winter and gas demand surge, because peace and quiet is so vital? Well, it's a bad look.
Some things are worth fighting for. A cold calculation is that the West cannot really fight in this one, because of the potential escalations, and that's rough but sound. But anything up to that point, including supporting Ukraine if they want to play it tough and try to push Russia back, not merely survive? That needs doing.
I would suggest
1) Ukrainians Foreign legion
2) Ukrainian regular army
3) Chechen army
4) Russian army.
(if you count the Ukrainian Farmers Union then maybe 5th)
And those are some of Russia's finest troops.
Isn’t this how Israelis so successful in their Arab wars, so quickly taking out planes on ground and the airfields?
https://www.opennewham.co.uk/news/labour-has-chosen
As to the individual at the bottom of the article, where Open Newham say "who?" - he was the labour candidate for York Outer at the 2017 GE at just 21 years of age.
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html
All very well, but what would the Green Party about Ukraine? Nothing. Absolutely fuck all. Have a protest. Make impassioned speeches at the UN whilst getting ignored by the rest of the world. That's it.
Putin is an absolute gift to those of us who want a decent military and maintain nuclear bombs. He has done far more than we could ever do to persuade people of the naivety of much left/liberal thinking on matters of defence.
I can certainly posit a trend, and I can certainly tell a plausible story.
But the danger is that the story and the data might not match up. And then we're arguing based on something that sure sounds plausible... but might not actually be... you know... true.
As I say to my employees: "give me data, guys"
To say war is horrible so stop the war, is a very glib position. However, I posted a few weeks ago I supported Blair trying to stop militia in Kosovo, and freeing the falklands, and even standing up to the USA with suez operation, but I have changed my thoughts about being so gung ho about war. If a win win situation can be achieved by negotiations to prevent or stop conflicts I have become very much in favour of that having experienced this war for myself rather than just read about them. Too many ordinary everyday people suffer, so much everlasting sadness on people and families has happened in space of just a month. It’s all on my mind now. I blame Putin for mad ideas in this one, but each conflict has to be measured as unique case, best prevented if possible.
My reply to Stoke was trying to do the Death of Stalin joke, that’s all. 😆
UK’s own history of 20th century conflicts contains a lot of bad moments because of rethinking British Empire as it crumbled in our hands.
PS and I have only ever flagged one post, and that was when the Russian bot said “everything in position, pray for the occupants of Kiev tonight” like Lord Haw Haw. I was actually praying for them anyway, and I felt the bot demeaned something important.
Been a useful litmus test for the nutters. He's a good mate though.
They're still largely living off the notion that they're occupying some important but relatively niche political space noone else is considering, which isn't really true any more.
PS it was me who gave the like to your response to green heron end of last thread
But I'd agree I think that is the main problem, that most parties are various shades of green now. Certainly you will find anti-green policies more on the right, but plenty of Conservatives (and conservatives) are very keen on green issues. So what can the Greens do? Become even greener? Or differentiate in different ways, which requires they remain non mainstream, even as their core policy does become mainstream?
It's a shame as I have a lot of time for many local Greens. They organise very effectively, are very passionate, typically polite, and work damn hard even between elections (which ususally don't go well for them despite their effort).
It's also an extremely complicated topic: for example only children score significantly higher on IQ tests than those who have siblings. Indeed, a lot of the data on rising IQs historically may simply be a consequence of family sizes diminishing.
https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=marshall&book=island&story=_front
Just to clear up one bit, no FPN for Boris whilst others get them all around him is an even bigger poll drop than actually sharing the telling off?
You just know the details on this are leaking out at some point.