Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
“If I were trying to think of the worst thing that could possibly happen for Tory MPs in the next six months, it probably is that Nigel Farage would return."
Reform UK, formerly the Brexit Party, could threaten Tory seats Professor Sir John Curtice tells @PatrickkMaguire.
Dave and George never had a constitutional court to contend with.
This is almost as stupid as the U.S. debt limit.
Germany chokes on its own austerity medicine https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-debt-austerity-climate-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner/ ...Last week’s jaw-dropping constitutional court ruling that effectively rendered the core of the German government’s legislative agenda null and void has left the country in a collective shock. In order to circumvent Germany’s self-imposed deficit strictures, which give governments little room to spend more than they collect in taxes, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition relied on a network of “special funds” outside the main budget. Scholz was convinced the government could tap the money without violating the so-called debt brake.
The court, in no uncertain terms, disagreed. The ruling raises questions about the government’s ability to access a total of €869 billion parked outside the federal budget in 29 “special funds.” The court’s move forced the government to both freeze new spending and put approval of next year’s budget on hold.
A week after the decision, both the magnitude of the ruling and the reality that there’s no easy way out have become increasingly clear. Though Scholz has promised to come up with a new plan “very quickly,” few see a resolution without imposing austerity...
Naive question maybe, but can't the German government legislate to change the deficit rules?
The 'debt brake' is in the constitution, and rewriting that is rather more difficult than just legislating.
Easier to legislate away the US debt limit. And that hasn't happened.
The government will simply declare an emergency situation, like they did the last 3 years, and suspend the debt brake again. This just needs a simple majority in parliament.
Of course, this could also be subject to legal challenge, but I think the government would have a fairly good case. Plus, I don't think the CDU (who brought the last case which the government just lost) would be keen on another challenge. People are now in the situation of not being sure if they will be able to afford household energy bills in the new year - not ideal in the run up to Christmas. People are assuming the money will be found, it would be a brave politician who tried to prolong the uncertainty.
On legislating to remove the debt brake (introduced in 2009 so not exactly set in stone) it would take a two thirds majority in parliament, so it won't happen. However, I wouldn't be surprised if an attempt was made to reform it - some senior CDU politicians have said investment spending should be made exempt from the rules, so there's a chance it could be changed.
Switzerland also has had a constitional debt brake since 2001 (I believe).
I'm late to the discussion, as I had to teach this morning :-o but Kamski sums it up quite well.
Just a couple of extra points. There is no way the "schuldenbremse" (debt brake) will be removed from the constitution during this coalition, because the FDP are in favour of it. The budget crisis needs to be sorted quickly and a constition change takes time.
I can see there being some refinement in that law, specifically to allow long term investment. Large private companies have no problem getting credit for such investment, so it should be legal for governments to do it if the reasons are legitimate. Finding the exact wording that would be acceptable to all the main parties, to gets it past the 2/3 majority of the Bundestag and Bundesrat will be a big challenge.
One final point. The Merkel government introduced the Schuldenbremse but was only able to hold to the Schuldenbremse (pre-covid) by neglecting many aspects of government spending. The most obvious example being on defense spending. The current government is having to spend a lot on just catching up with the lack of investment over the Merkel period, let alone Germany's contribution to the Ukraine weaponry.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Whether he does or doesn't looking at the pictures of him on the anti-semitism march he is looking in pretty good form. Much fitter than he has in a long time, why is that a cheekbone I can almost see framing that loveable grin.
isn’t he on Ozempic? I believe he wrote a column about it
Does that have a zillion side effects or does it work.
It works. It certainly worked for me - with minor side effects, a touch of nausea, for a day or two - but the trouble it certainly stops working when you stop taking it. So I lost a fair few pounds, then the world ran out of Ozempic, and the pounds went back on
I am now returning to it, but I am forced to take a lower dose of Wegovy (a similar drug)
The real revolution will come with Mounjaro, not only is it more effective (apparently) it is made by a different company so we will at last see price competition and greater mass production. In a year or two these drugs will be ubiquitous and much much cheaper
It will be like what happened to Viagra, but greatly accelerated
ah thanks (and @Phil). So like any weightloss method. Works when you're doing it, doesn't when you're not. gotit.
Well, yes, but requiring a lot less effort and dedication. No hours at the gym, no calorie counting and tedious jogging, no desperate resisting of delicious puds in nice restaurants. Your appetite just falls away, and you don’t actually want a pud
For me one of the main benefits was a reduction in desire for booze. I still enjoyed a drink, but my lust for an excess of it notably diminished
And speaking of which, putting calories on the menus at restaurants has all but killed the thrill of going out to eat stone dead.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
If the Tories take the hammering that the polls suggest then there'll be sweet FA for Boris to return for. I think the Tories are a bit deluded at present. They're completely unprepared for how irrelevant they are about to become.
Look two or more years ahead. If Labour manage expectations badly, are forced into alliances that prove tricky (a better chance than people seem to think), allow a resurgence of the left/anti semitism, meet with some black swans, and/or generally screw up the Tories will become relevant quite soon. There is no alternative government in sight, and all politics is relative.
Boris will be 64 in 2028. I think he will stay out of parliamentary politics but it is not impossible. I don't think he will stand in 2024. But if, say, in 2026 Labour is sunk and a byelection comes up that he can't lose, that would be his way back. 10-15% chance of that sort of outcome.
I think the bigger issue for Labour is under promising and still under delivering - they are essentially arguing to be Tory lite who are competent at austerity, rather than the Tory party at the moment which is pretty hard right and also incompetent. If things don't get better (which I doubt they will considering SKS's current policy platform) I don't necessarily people heading straight to the Tories, though. I think RefUK and the Greens will see increases - as people on the left and right increasingly feel the Tories / Labour don't represent them / won't enact their preferred policies anyway.
For now the best Labour can hope for is competence + creating a sense that the glass is half full not half empty. Yes, numbers of voters will look elsewhere but it will remain the case that only Labour or Tory can lead a government.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, meh
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
Why stop there? When you think about it, Anglo-Saxons are basically the same as Germans, so England (and only England, rather than our Celtic neighbours) should become part of a new Holy Roman Empire. We should also cede the channel islands to France, the Falklands to Argentina, and so on.
Your flippancy for human life and freedom may sound funny or smart to some, but really you're just a bore - a would be shock jock trying to shock a group of well to do politics nerds (no offence intended to anyone else, there, I picked a description that I feel also fits myself).
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
Sometimes, it can be hard to distinguish a really good parody from the real thing. The Onion published a mock interview with JK Rowling, once, in which she explained that the whole purpose of writing Harry Potter books was to bring children into Satanism, and until the last couple of paragraphs, it did sound genuine.
Best of all, some US evangelical groups thought it was genuine.
A later spoof interview with JK Rowling was less nuanced though: 'Why are you such a huge fucking hateful dork?' etc.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
Channel 5 pulled The Year The Thames Flooded (1928, apparently) which was set to screen at 9pm.
Bizarre. The woman appears to be some foul-mouthed uneducated chavvie oik. Why was it thought she had anything to offer a serious documentary in the first place?
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
Don't blame Brexit on people who didn't vote for it. Brexit voters have minds of their own and agency over their actions. They voted for it because of things they believed. If those things were true then fair play to them. If they weren't true then point the finger at people who told them that they were, not the people who told them that they weren't.
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
As a Remainer and committed Rejoiner you might be surprised to find I agree. And the hijacking of the Remain campaign by the Conservatives just underlines their incompetence. I thought that Brown's Labour Government had run it's course, an welcomed the Coalition, but looking back, as old men tend to do, I wish there'd been enough Labour and LibDem MP's to stop the Conservatives getting their hands on power again.
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
Don't blame Brexit on people who didn't vote for it. Brexit voters have minds of their own and agency over their actions. They voted for it because of things they believed. If those things were true then fair play to them. If they weren't true then point the finger at people who told them that they were, not the people who told them that they weren't.
Bloody hell that’s given me a headache! Horrible
I’ll blame who I like actually. The blame lies with the likes of Blair, Brown & Cameron, who introduced/did nothing to counter A8 immigration. It caused job insecurity, a fight for public services & messed up social cohesion. Then, instead of empathising with the people they inflicted it upon, they abused them with name calling and smears, despite having zero experience between them of life at the lower end of the pay scale and the challenges that come with it
Whether he does or doesn't looking at the pictures of him on the anti-semitism march he is looking in pretty good form. Much fitter than he has in a long time, why is that a cheekbone I can almost see framing that loveable grin.
isn’t he on Ozempic? I believe he wrote a column about it
Does that have a zillion side effects or does it work.
It works. It certainly worked for me - with minor side effects, a touch of nausea, for a day or two - but the trouble it certainly stops working when you stop taking it. So I lost a fair few pounds, then the world ran out of Ozempic, and the pounds went back on
I am now returning to it, but I am forced to take a lower dose of Wegovy (a similar drug)
The real revolution will come with Mounjaro, not only is it more effective (apparently) it is made by a different company so we will at last see price competition and greater mass production. In a year or two these drugs will be ubiquitous and much much cheaper
It will be like what happened to Viagra, but greatly accelerated
ah thanks (and @Phil). So like any weightloss method. Works when you're doing it, doesn't when you're not. gotit.
Well, yes, but requiring a lot less effort and dedication. No hours at the gym, no calorie counting and tedious jogging, no desperate resisting of delicious puds in nice restaurants. Your appetite just falls away, and you don’t actually want a pud
For me one of the main benefits was a reduction in desire for booze. I still enjoyed a drink, but my lust for an excess of it notably diminished
And speaking of which, putting calories on the menus at restaurants has all but killed the thrill of going out to eat stone dead.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
That is a fantastic amount of weight to lose. As for calories on menus it is my understanding that it is obligatory for larger restaurants.
Whether he does or doesn't looking at the pictures of him on the anti-semitism march he is looking in pretty good form. Much fitter than he has in a long time, why is that a cheekbone I can almost see framing that loveable grin.
isn’t he on Ozempic? I believe he wrote a column about it
Does that have a zillion side effects or does it work.
It works. It certainly worked for me - with minor side effects, a touch of nausea, for a day or two - but the trouble it certainly stops working when you stop taking it. So I lost a fair few pounds, then the world ran out of Ozempic, and the pounds went back on
I am now returning to it, but I am forced to take a lower dose of Wegovy (a similar drug)
The real revolution will come with Mounjaro, not only is it more effective (apparently) it is made by a different company so we will at last see price competition and greater mass production. In a year or two these drugs will be ubiquitous and much much cheaper
It will be like what happened to Viagra, but greatly accelerated
ah thanks (and @Phil). So like any weightloss method. Works when you're doing it, doesn't when you're not. gotit.
Well, yes, but requiring a lot less effort and dedication. No hours at the gym, no calorie counting and tedious jogging, no desperate resisting of delicious puds in nice restaurants. Your appetite just falls away, and you don’t actually want a pud
For me one of the main benefits was a reduction in desire for booze. I still enjoyed a drink, but my lust for an excess of it notably diminished
And speaking of which, putting calories on the menus at restaurants has all but killed the thrill of going out to eat stone dead.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
It's a clever policy, as restaurants will respond by cutting a lot of the crap and offering smaller portion options (Wetherspoons is good at this!).
As someone with previously wildly fluctuating weight (I've gone from 83kg to 63kg in less than a year, and back again), Strava's gentle notifications and calories on menus are critical for keeping me healthy.
Channel 5 pulled The Year The Thames Flooded (1928, apparently) which was set to screen at 9pm.
Bizarre. The woman appears to be some foul-mouthed uneducated chavvie oik. Why was it thought she had anything to offer a serious documentary in the first place?
Did you miss the "Channel 5" bit?
Channel 5 has some seriously good documentaries these days (well, not last night, obviously). iirc Channel 5 was sold off to one of the American networks.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
That is a fantastic amount of weight to lose. As for calories on menus it is my understanding that it is obligatory for larger restaurants.
Yes, it's been on the menu everywhere that I've been. But as with PB posts, nobody forces customers to read the numbers or act on them. We sometimes do say "hmm, maybe not" for very high numbers but treat it as a nudge rather than an instruction, which seems just right.
Losing 5 stone sounds worrying, MM, either in retrospect or now - hope it's now stable.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
Whether he does or doesn't looking at the pictures of him on the anti-semitism march he is looking in pretty good form. Much fitter than he has in a long time, why is that a cheekbone I can almost see framing that loveable grin.
isn’t he on Ozempic? I believe he wrote a column about it
Does that have a zillion side effects or does it work.
It works. It certainly worked for me - with minor side effects, a touch of nausea, for a day or two - but the trouble it certainly stops working when you stop taking it. So I lost a fair few pounds, then the world ran out of Ozempic, and the pounds went back on
I am now returning to it, but I am forced to take a lower dose of Wegovy (a similar drug)
The real revolution will come with Mounjaro, not only is it more effective (apparently) it is made by a different company so we will at last see price competition and greater mass production. In a year or two these drugs will be ubiquitous and much much cheaper
It will be like what happened to Viagra, but greatly accelerated
ah thanks (and @Phil). So like any weightloss method. Works when you're doing it, doesn't when you're not. gotit.
Well, yes, but requiring a lot less effort and dedication. No hours at the gym, no calorie counting and tedious jogging, no desperate resisting of delicious puds in nice restaurants. Your appetite just falls away, and you don’t actually want a pud
For me one of the main benefits was a reduction in desire for booze. I still enjoyed a drink, but my lust for an excess of it notably diminished
And speaking of which, putting calories on the menus at restaurants has all but killed the thrill of going out to eat stone dead.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
That is a fantastic amount of weight to lose. As for calories on menus it is my understanding that it is obligatory for larger restaurants.
Yes agree that is most impressive @MarqueeMark. I fluctuate between 87 and 95 kg. I lose it and then it comes back. In my prime I was 80 kg.
Anyone employing more than 250 people needs to put it on the menu, but I seem to see it everywhere these days. If I am going out to dinner I must say I don't look. I am also baffled and disbelieving as to the accuracy of the numbers. Just have this vision of them counting exactly the number of peas on a plate and teaspoons of gravy, particularly as the calories are displayed down to the individual unit which is nonsense.
It's a refreshing change to see a Western government taking the view that it is not their business to save people from themselves.
Fine, but don't expect a publicly funded health system to step in when your lungs start giving up.
It's taxed in large part to pay for the negative externalities (ie, associated health conditions). If the health service isn't going to deal with the externalities, there's almost no reason to tax it.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
That is a fantastic amount of weight to lose. As for calories on menus it is my understanding that it is obligatory for larger restaurants.
Yes, it's been on the menu everywhere that I've been. But as with PB posts, nobody forces customers to read the numbers or act on them. We sometimes do say "hmm, maybe not" for very high numbers but treat it as a nudge rather than an instruction, which seems just right.
Losing 5 stone sounds worrying, MM, either in retrospect or now - hope it's now stable.
I don't think MM is the one to worry about; I know a few people have lost that sort of weight and kept it off. Fluctuating weight is much more worrying.
Cambodian thought number 2. I’m here - by accident - for the great November water festival. Its very beautiful and very crowded
It’s estimated 2 million people have come to the capital for the festival, from the really remote provinces. When these people see me some of them do that “OMG WTF is that round eyed devil stare” - utterly perplexed yet intrigued. I guess they are seeing westerners for the first time? In the flesh?
(Or it could just be me but I don’t think so, I’ve seen other westerners get the same reaction)
It’s hard to believe that there are still places that untouched in Indochina - yet there must be
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
What I find tedious is your determination to only see the evidence of Ukraine's struggles, and to ignore the evidence of their victories.
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
It's a refreshing change to see a Western government taking the view that it is not their business to save people from themselves.
Fine, but don't expect a publicly funded health system to step in when your lungs start giving up.
It's taxed in large part to pay for the negative externalities (ie, associated health conditions). If the health service isn't going to deal with the externalities, there's almost no reason to tax it.
We seem to have moved from a perspective of rNHS is there to look after us to we are here to look after rNHS.
Channel 5 pulled The Year The Thames Flooded (1928, apparently) which was set to screen at 9pm.
Bizarre. The woman appears to be some foul-mouthed uneducated chavvie oik. Why was it thought she had anything to offer a serious documentary in the first place?
Did you miss the "Channel 5" bit?
Channel 5 has some seriously good documentaries these days (well, not last night, obviously). iirc Channel 5 was sold off to one of the American networks.
Owned by Paramount which is why it randomly shows the first part of a series which is then only available on Paramount’s subscription service
It's a refreshing change to see a Western government taking the view that it is not their business to save people from themselves.
Fine, but don't expect a publicly funded health system to step in when your lungs start giving up.
It's taxed in large part to pay for the negative externalities (ie, associated health conditions). If the health service isn't going to deal with the externalities, there's almost no reason to tax it.
We seem to have moved from a perspective of rNHS is there to look after us to we are here to look after rNHS.
Demand on the NHS is growing at a rate that demographics cannot explain. Growing age-specific rates of chronic conditions and the increased provision of new drugs and treatments have created a vicious cycle.
You have a choice - accept that your taxes will be needed to fund a NHS that takes up 20% of GDP by 2050, get rid of it altogether, or make some public health interventions.
I would go carrot though - £500 off your income tax bill if you're a healthy weight.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
That is a fantastic amount of weight to lose. As for calories on menus it is my understanding that it is obligatory for larger restaurants.
Yes, it's been on the menu everywhere that I've been. But as with PB posts, nobody forces customers to read the numbers or act on them. We sometimes do say "hmm, maybe not" for very high numbers but treat it as a nudge rather than an instruction, which seems just right.
Losing 5 stone sounds worrying, MM, either in retrospect or now - hope it's now stable.
I think it’s a great idea. People who don’t care, don’t care, but I like to know pretty much how many calories I’m eating. I put everything into my fitness pal to keep tabs. Information helps you control weight, drinking etc . It’s similar to an idea I had years ago on here re sugar tax,; just have a big number next to a spoon on the packaging of coke cans etc to indicate how many teaspoons of sugar inside, rather than make them more expensive
It's a refreshing change to see a Western government taking the view that it is not their business to save people from themselves.
Fine, but don't expect a publicly funded health system to step in when your lungs start giving up.
It's taxed in large part to pay for the negative externalities (ie, associated health conditions). If the health service isn't going to deal with the externalities, there's almost no reason to tax it.
We seem to have moved from a perspective of rNHS is there to look after us to we are here to look after rNHS.
Demand on the NHS is growing at a rate that demographics cannot explain. Growing age-specific rates of chronic conditions and the increased provision of new drugs and treatments have created a vicious cycle.
You have a choice - accept that your taxes will be needed to fund a NHS that takes up 20% of GDP by 2050, get rid of it altogether, or make some public health interventions.
I would go carrot though - £500 off your income tax bill if you're a healthy weight.
Good afternoon
Sky say the government has reached an agreement with the medical unions which could end the doctors strikes
Of course the preferred strategy for conquering territory and establishing suzerainty over the local population while retaining their consent and respecting human rights is as follows:
- Build a strong local base of activists, and seize on any local issues that are important to the indigenous - Carpet bomb residential areas with Focus leaflets and bar charts - Build up a strong of successes at local authority level, ultimately getting control of the council - Build on this local strength to target Westminster seats in general election and by-elections - Repeat in neighbouring areas to establish regional strength
You've missed one:
- Have a charismatic, highly-visible leader who voters know and can relate to.
"I’ll always be a Milifan. Ed was the best prime minister we never had"
I still think Ed was a better option than his brothrt.
I do hope that Ed D manages to project his voice a little further. He is a serious operator, with a personal backstory that makes him far better planted in the real worrld than either Sunak or Starmer.
The 2010 election projected the nice but lying Nick Clegg to a large audience - if Ed Davey can manage the same leap I expect Good Things.
I - who am not a LD - confirm that Ed Davey is a good man 👍. However I still don't LD to get more than around 25 seats.
I don't doubt he's a good man, but he isn't a stirring politician. I wonder if post Clegg there is a fear amongst the membership of promoting someone charismatic to the leadership role because of what happened, or if the fallout of the coalition just destroyed the talent base of the LDs so thoroughly that any alluring politicians in the party have had to do the slow climb up the ladder over the last decade before they could be considered leadership material.
Starmer isn't a stirring politician either, but he's eight gazillion points ahead in the polls.
I suspect both your points are right. Given the choice between safe-and-steady Ed Davey and the rather more left-field Layla Moran, the membership chose Davey. In a way this is a shame: Davey is marooned at 10%ish and that always looked the likely outcome, whereas the more charismatic and left-leaning Layla could have either sunk to 2% or risen to 20%.
I'm sure LDHQ will claim that they are ruthlessly targetting Home Counties seats and they expect to pick up a haul of them beyond their national share. (But then they always say that.)
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
Unemployment was over 8% in 2011, but had fallen to under 5% by the referendum in 2016. So "genuine concerns about job security" were not well founded, were they?
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
What I find tedious is your determination to only see the evidence of Ukraine's struggles, and to ignore the evidence of their victories.
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
That's certainly a danger.
But ignoring Ukraine's genuine difficulties risks giving the West a pass for its increasingly slow, late and miserly deliveries of weapons to the heroic Ukrainian army. We've been not too bad, but almost TWO YEARS into this war the Ukrainians still don't have the F16s they've been begging for, nor the version of the ATACMS they need. Nor have the Krauts given them their Taurus stockpile. There's clearly a balance to be struck in what we say. The Ukrainians have achieved miracles with what we've given them. We just haven't given them remotely enough early enough.
Of course the preferred strategy for conquering territory and establishing suzerainty over the local population while retaining their consent and respecting human rights is as follows:
- Build a strong local base of activists, and seize on any local issues that are important to the indigenous - Carpet bomb residential areas with Focus leaflets and bar charts - Build up a strong of successes at local authority level, ultimately getting control of the council - Build on this local strength to target Westminster seats in general election and by-elections - Repeat in neighbouring areas to establish regional strength
You've missed one:
- Have a charismatic, highly-visible leader who voters know and can relate to.
"I’ll always be a Milifan. Ed was the best prime minister we never had"
I still think Ed was a better option than his brothrt.
I do hope that Ed D manages to project his voice a little further. He is a serious operator, with a personal backstory that makes him far better planted in the real worrld than either Sunak or Starmer.
The 2010 election projected the nice but lying Nick Clegg to a large audience - if Ed Davey can manage the same leap I expect Good Things.
I - who am not a LD - confirm that Ed Davey is a good man 👍. However I still don't LD to get more than around 25 seats.
I don't doubt he's a good man, but he isn't a stirring politician. I wonder if post Clegg there is a fear amongst the membership of promoting someone charismatic to the leadership role because of what happened, or if the fallout of the coalition just destroyed the talent base of the LDs so thoroughly that any alluring politicians in the party have had to do the slow climb up the ladder over the last decade before they could be considered leadership material.
Starmer isn't a stirring politician either, but he's eight gazillion points ahead in the polls.
I suspect both your points are right. Given the choice between safe-and-steady Ed Davey and the rather more left-field Layla Moran, the membership chose Davey. In a way this is a shame: Davey is marooned at 10%ish and that always looked the likely outcome, whereas the more charismatic and left-leaning Layla could have either sunk to 2% or risen to 20%.
I'm sure LDHQ will claim that they are ruthlessly targetting Home Counties seats and they expect to pick up a haul of them beyond their national share. (But then they always say that.)
Yes - but he's far ahead in the polls because of FPTP and Tory meltdown, not because of anything he did. Which is also why even if he wins a stonking majority I think the honeymoon will be short - voting for a Labour government under SKS will not be an endorsement of its policies as much as a repudiation of the Tories. When the Tories stop being the obvious big bad in government, suddenly what holds the Labour coalition together goes away and Labour has to actually do a good job. It's what's happened to Biden since beating Trump - he is less popular now because the people who always hated him still hate him, and he's disappointed his own base with a lack of clear policy wins and a meagre economy.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
I know that you caveated your premise, but IQ is not largely inherited, even if it was a good measure of anything beyond the ability to do well on an IQ test (which it isn't)
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
Don't blame Brexit on people who didn't vote for it. Brexit voters have minds of their own and agency over their actions. They voted for it because of things they believed. If those things were true then fair play to them. If they weren't true then point the finger at people who told them that they were, not the people who told them that they weren't.
Maybe it's a healthy process for Leave voters. When mistakes are made (and Brexit was a whopper!) the people who made them often seek to blame others. Once they've done this (at least to their own satisfaction) they become freed-up to acknowledge that whatever it was *was* a mistake. This in turn allows them to think about putting it right (if they can).
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
What I find tedious is your determination to only see the evidence of Ukraine's struggles, and to ignore the evidence of their victories.
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
I take all that as read, not least because 90% of PB is rabidly pro Ukraine and repeats all this
And fair enough. I want Ukraine to win as well I just don’t think they can on the ground, as things stand - and so I point that out
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
Unemployment was over 8% in 2011, but had fallen to under 5% by the referendum in 2016. So "genuine concerns about job security" were not well founded, were they?
The Leaver politicians are now engineering record levels of immigration but with the immigrant population to receive higher wages. Socially, I wonder how that will play out. Will the Brexit voters simply be grateful that they at least have a low-paid job albeit with a reduced scope to further their careers. Or will they instead look at the foreign interlopers with envious eyes?
Of course the preferred strategy for conquering territory and establishing suzerainty over the local population while retaining their consent and respecting human rights is as follows:
- Build a strong local base of activists, and seize on any local issues that are important to the indigenous - Carpet bomb residential areas with Focus leaflets and bar charts - Build up a strong of successes at local authority level, ultimately getting control of the council - Build on this local strength to target Westminster seats in general election and by-elections - Repeat in neighbouring areas to establish regional strength
You've missed one:
- Have a charismatic, highly-visible leader who voters know and can relate to.
"I’ll always be a Milifan. Ed was the best prime minister we never had"
I still think Ed was a better option than his brothrt.
I do hope that Ed D manages to project his voice a little further. He is a serious operator, with a personal backstory that makes him far better planted in the real worrld than either Sunak or Starmer.
The 2010 election projected the nice but lying Nick Clegg to a large audience - if Ed Davey can manage the same leap I expect Good Things.
I - who am not a LD - confirm that Ed Davey is a good man 👍. However I still don't LD to get more than around 25 seats.
I don't doubt he's a good man, but he isn't a stirring politician. I wonder if post Clegg there is a fear amongst the membership of promoting someone charismatic to the leadership role because of what happened, or if the fallout of the coalition just destroyed the talent base of the LDs so thoroughly that any alluring politicians in the party have had to do the slow climb up the ladder over the last decade before they could be considered leadership material.
Starmer isn't a stirring politician either, but he's eight gazillion points ahead in the polls.
I suspect both your points are right. Given the choice between safe-and-steady Ed Davey and the rather more left-field Layla Moran, the membership chose Davey. In a way this is a shame: Davey is marooned at 10%ish and that always looked the likely outcome, whereas the more charismatic and left-leaning Layla could have either sunk to 2% or risen to 20%.
I'm sure LDHQ will claim that they are ruthlessly targetting Home Counties seats and they expect to pick up a haul of them beyond their national share. (But then they always say that.)
Yes - but he's far ahead in the polls because of FPTP and Tory meltdown, not because of anything he did. Which is also why even if he wins a stonking majority I think the honeymoon will be short - voting for a Labour government under SKS will not be an endorsement of its policies as much as a repudiation of the Tories. When the Tories stop being the obvious big bad in government, suddenly what holds the Labour coalition together goes away and Labour has to actually do a good job. It's what's happened to Biden since beating Trump - he is less popular now because the people who always hated him still hate him, and he's disappointed his own base with a lack of clear policy wins and a meagre economy.
After Johnson, Truss and Sunak, voters will be looking forward to boring. If Starmer can add competent to boring, his honeymoon will be longer than some on here expect (or hope for).
Whether he does or doesn't looking at the pictures of him on the anti-semitism march he is looking in pretty good form. Much fitter than he has in a long time, why is that a cheekbone I can almost see framing that loveable grin.
isn’t he on Ozempic? I believe he wrote a column about it
Does that have a zillion side effects or does it work.
It works. It certainly worked for me - with minor side effects, a touch of nausea, for a day or two - but the trouble it certainly stops working when you stop taking it. So I lost a fair few pounds, then the world ran out of Ozempic, and the pounds went back on
I am now returning to it, but I am forced to take a lower dose of Wegovy (a similar drug)
The real revolution will come with Mounjaro, not only is it more effective (apparently) it is made by a different company so we will at last see price competition and greater mass production. In a year or two these drugs will be ubiquitous and much much cheaper
It will be like what happened to Viagra, but greatly accelerated
ah thanks (and @Phil). So like any weightloss method. Works when you're doing it, doesn't when you're not. gotit.
Well, yes, but requiring a lot less effort and dedication. No hours at the gym, no calorie counting and tedious jogging, no desperate resisting of delicious puds in nice restaurants. Your appetite just falls away, and you don’t actually want a pud
For me one of the main benefits was a reduction in desire for booze. I still enjoyed a drink, but my lust for an excess of it notably diminished
And speaking of which, putting calories on the menus at restaurants has all but killed the thrill of going out to eat stone dead.
I can honestly say I have never been to a restaurant that puts calories on their menu.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
That is a fantastic amount of weight to lose. As for calories on menus it is my understanding that it is obligatory for larger restaurants.
It has been a gradual slide back from what was too heavy for my own good. Less sedantary, more dog walks, a big garden - together with less cheese! No huge change to diet otherwise.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
I don't know if you're "smart" by your own definition, but I am confident you haven't read many books.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
What I find tedious is your determination to only see the evidence of Ukraine's struggles, and to ignore the evidence of their victories.
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
I take all that as read, not least because 90% of PB is rabidly pro Ukraine and repeats all this
And fair enough. I want Ukraine to win as well I just don’t think they can on the ground, as things stand - and so I point that out
For me, at least, your myopathy towards a Ukrainian victory is not a particularly absurd belief - no NATO power is going to get more involved than they currently are, Putin is willing to kill thousands of his own men for little benefit and modern warfare is very difficult to predict. It's basically everything else you believe that is patently absurd.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
I don't know if you're "smart" by your own definition, but I am confident you haven't read many books.
I have a BSc and MRes - I would say I'm educated and would say other people call me smart; I'm not very good with complimenting myself.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
Don't blame Brexit on people who didn't vote for it. Brexit voters have minds of their own and agency over their actions. They voted for it because of things they believed. If those things were true then fair play to them. If they weren't true then point the finger at people who told them that they were, not the people who told them that they weren't.
Bloody hell that’s given me a headache! Horrible
I’ll blame who I like actually. The blame lies with the likes of Blair, Brown & Cameron, who introduced/did nothing to counter A8 immigration. It caused job insecurity, a fight for public services & messed up social cohesion. Then, instead of empathising with the people they inflicted it upon, they abused them with name calling and smears, despite having zero experience between them of life at the lower end of the pay scale and the challenges that come with it
It's obvious to me that the sensible among us right, left and centre (70%?) agree on immigration - that it must be in accord with the laws of the country, the current population level, the effect on services, the person applying etc etc.
The 30% on the right or the left who argue differently - i.e. there must be no immigration (right)/ no limit to immigration (esp when accompanied by a sob story real or manufactured) (left) - should ideally be excluded from sensible debate and effective policymaking but this has proved impossible to the extend that the barmy 30% have more voice and sway the the 70% sensibles.
I think that Malcolm Nance has been reading @Sunil_Prasannan 's posts
I AM GOING TO SAY IT:
16,000 dead? HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE KILLED FIGURES ARE TRUE? The number of Palestinians casualties reported are almost IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
Yes, the number of KIA/WIA may ultimately be grievous but I predict these 1,000 KIA per day numbers are simply JUST MADE UP by HAMAS.
WHO IS COUNTING DEAD & WOUNDED & MISSING?
We’ve seen one mass grave of 110 adults. Until the ceasefire there was no integrated medical reporting system or even Wi-Fi, right? How did Doctors collect & pass info on verified dead? Did they use couriers with notebooks? Signal flags? Carrier pigeons? Outside of hospital tallies (& those directors have lied repeatedly about casualties) how do they know how many actually died outside of in their care? Where are they buried? Were HAMAS terrorist KIA numbers were included?
Who is collecting & documenting the corpses in the streets. Where are they all buried? Are there over 160 mass graves (w/100 bodies) the world has somehow not seen?
Also how DID HAMAS KNOW all the exact names, ID numbers & family members on the list of 6,700 dead a week ago?
Sorry. I don’t believe it. I worked Satellite imagery analysis on the Srebrenica massacre of 6,000 KIA & seen countable graves at ISIS’s & Mariupol’s mass grave sites. You can make a raw estimate from the mass graves. BUT WHERE ARE THEY IN GAZA? Don’t tell me all victims are all buried under buildings. Then it’s just as possible the building was empty.
Sorry It is just Impossible to verify ANY HAMAS health ministry death tolls. The media, NGOs & UN uses HAMAS figures.
Of course the preferred strategy for conquering territory and establishing suzerainty over the local population while retaining their consent and respecting human rights is as follows:
- Build a strong local base of activists, and seize on any local issues that are important to the indigenous - Carpet bomb residential areas with Focus leaflets and bar charts - Build up a strong of successes at local authority level, ultimately getting control of the council - Build on this local strength to target Westminster seats in general election and by-elections - Repeat in neighbouring areas to establish regional strength
You've missed one:
- Have a charismatic, highly-visible leader who voters know and can relate to.
"I’ll always be a Milifan. Ed was the best prime minister we never had"
I still think Ed was a better option than his brothrt.
I do hope that Ed D manages to project his voice a little further. He is a serious operator, with a personal backstory that makes him far better planted in the real worrld than either Sunak or Starmer.
The 2010 election projected the nice but lying Nick Clegg to a large audience - if Ed Davey can manage the same leap I expect Good Things.
I - who am not a LD - confirm that Ed Davey is a good man 👍. However I still don't LD to get more than around 25 seats.
I don't doubt he's a good man, but he isn't a stirring politician. I wonder if post Clegg there is a fear amongst the membership of promoting someone charismatic to the leadership role because of what happened, or if the fallout of the coalition just destroyed the talent base of the LDs so thoroughly that any alluring politicians in the party have had to do the slow climb up the ladder over the last decade before they could be considered leadership material.
Starmer isn't a stirring politician either, but he's eight gazillion points ahead in the polls.
I suspect both your points are right. Given the choice between safe-and-steady Ed Davey and the rather more left-field Layla Moran, the membership chose Davey. In a way this is a shame: Davey is marooned at 10%ish and that always looked the likely outcome, whereas the more charismatic and left-leaning Layla could have either sunk to 2% or risen to 20%.
I'm sure LDHQ will claim that they are ruthlessly targetting Home Counties seats and they expect to pick up a haul of them beyond their national share. (But then they always say that.)
Yes - but he's far ahead in the polls because of FPTP and Tory meltdown, not because of anything he did. Which is also why even if he wins a stonking majority I think the honeymoon will be short - voting for a Labour government under SKS will not be an endorsement of its policies as much as a repudiation of the Tories. When the Tories stop being the obvious big bad in government, suddenly what holds the Labour coalition together goes away and Labour has to actually do a good job. It's what's happened to Biden since beating Trump - he is less popular now because the people who always hated him still hate him, and he's disappointed his own base with a lack of clear policy wins and a meagre economy.
After Johnson, Truss and Sunak, voters will be looking forward to boring. If Starmer can add competent to boring, his honeymoon will be longer than some on here expect (or hope for).
I disagree, I don't think most people want boring; I think most people want help. I still believe that part of Johnson's allure to many voters was, despite everything, he did run on helping people (levelling up). Did I believe he'd do it? No, of course not. But lots of people were told it was beyond the pale to vote Corbyn, but did so anyway when it was clear Tories weren't offering to stop austerity. The moment the Tories suggested (even if insincerely) to end austerity, they won.
SKS is hoping that boring and managerial will get him somewhere. But if his boring managerialism doesn't improve peoples' lives - of course it won't.
Isn’t this kind of post, by the tweeter not you, just as unhelpful to the conversation about immigration as someone saying ‘they’re all negative connotation X, Y or Z’? I understand he is in post op euphoria and fair enough, I’d be the same, but the bigger picture is there are positives and negatives depending on your circumstances
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
When there are so many people expressing unnuanced negative views on immigration it's not surprising that people want to give the other side in a similarly unambiguous fashion to try to redress the balance.
That’s why any attempt at a reasonable debate about it turns into closed minded deliberate misunderstandings and futile point scoring.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
Unemployment was over 8% in 2011, but had fallen to under 5% by the referendum in 2016. So "genuine concerns about job security" were not well founded, were they?
Seems to be roughly the same in 2016 as it was in 2004, albeit after climbing very high to a peak in 2011 (convenient place for you to to start) after the A8 immigration
Lots of people were forced into part time/ZHC work on lower wages by then, so I l’d maintain that job security was a well founded concern
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
I don't know if you're "smart" by your own definition, but I am confident you haven't read many books.
I have a BSc and MRes - I would say I'm educated and would say other people call me smart; I'm not very good with complimenting myself.
I think that Malcolm Nance has been reading @Sunil_Prasannan 's posts
I AM GOING TO SAY IT:
16,000 dead? HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE KILLED FIGURES ARE TRUE? The number of Palestinians casualties reported are almost IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
Yes, the number of KIA/WIA may ultimately be grievous but I predict these 1,000 KIA per day numbers are simply JUST MADE UP by HAMAS.
WHO IS COUNTING DEAD & WOUNDED & MISSING?
We’ve seen one mass grave of 110 adults. Until the ceasefire there was no integrated medical reporting system or even Wi-Fi, right? How did Doctors collect & pass info on verified dead? Did they use couriers with notebooks? Signal flags? Carrier pigeons? Outside of hospital tallies (& those directors have lied repeatedly about casualties) how do they know how many actually died outside of in their care? Where are they buried? Were HAMAS terrorist KIA numbers were included?
Who is collecting & documenting the corpses in the streets. Where are they all buried? Are there over 160 mass graves (w/100 bodies) the world has somehow not seen?
Also how DID HAMAS KNOW all the exact names, ID numbers & family members on the list of 6,700 dead a week ago?
Sorry. I don’t believe it. I worked Satellite imagery analysis on the Srebrenica massacre of 6,000 KIA & seen countable graves at ISIS’s & Mariupol’s mass grave sites. You can make a raw estimate from the mass graves. BUT WHERE ARE THEY IN GAZA? Don’t tell me all victims are all buried under buildings. Then it’s just as possible the building was empty.
Sorry It is just Impossible to verify ANY HAMAS health ministry death tolls. The media, NGOs & UN uses HAMAS figures.
They use those figures because, in the past, they have been the most accurate figures. They have, in the past, been more accurate than IDF figures. Indeed, as well as NGOS and the UN, Israeli state and journalistic outlets often uses the figures released by the Gazan Health Ministry.
The reason that the Gazan Health Ministry has the names and ID numbers of the dead is because the base information (ID numbers and names and so on) are given to them by Israel, and then they use those when identifying bodies or asking families for information.
Are you saying there are not mass graves in Gaza? Because... there are?
Edit: Apologies if this isn't your position and you're just posting someone's tweet - I don't know who Malcolm Nance is.
Of course the preferred strategy for conquering territory and establishing suzerainty over the local population while retaining their consent and respecting human rights is as follows:
- Build a strong local base of activists, and seize on any local issues that are important to the indigenous - Carpet bomb residential areas with Focus leaflets and bar charts - Build up a strong of successes at local authority level, ultimately getting control of the council - Build on this local strength to target Westminster seats in general election and by-elections - Repeat in neighbouring areas to establish regional strength
You've missed one:
- Have a charismatic, highly-visible leader who voters know and can relate to.
"I’ll always be a Milifan. Ed was the best prime minister we never had"
I still think Ed was a better option than his brothrt.
I do hope that Ed D manages to project his voice a little further. He is a serious operator, with a personal backstory that makes him far better planted in the real worrld than either Sunak or Starmer.
The 2010 election projected the nice but lying Nick Clegg to a large audience - if Ed Davey can manage the same leap I expect Good Things.
I - who am not a LD - confirm that Ed Davey is a good man 👍. However I still don't LD to get more than around 25 seats.
I don't doubt he's a good man, but he isn't a stirring politician. I wonder if post Clegg there is a fear amongst the membership of promoting someone charismatic to the leadership role because of what happened, or if the fallout of the coalition just destroyed the talent base of the LDs so thoroughly that any alluring politicians in the party have had to do the slow climb up the ladder over the last decade before they could be considered leadership material.
Starmer isn't a stirring politician either, but he's eight gazillion points ahead in the polls.
I suspect both your points are right. Given the choice between safe-and-steady Ed Davey and the rather more left-field Layla Moran, the membership chose Davey. In a way this is a shame: Davey is marooned at 10%ish and that always looked the likely outcome, whereas the more charismatic and left-leaning Layla could have either sunk to 2% or risen to 20%.
I'm sure LDHQ will claim that they are ruthlessly targetting Home Counties seats and they expect to pick up a haul of them beyond their national share. (But then they always say that.)
Yes - but he's far ahead in the polls because of FPTP and Tory meltdown, not because of anything he did. Which is also why even if he wins a stonking majority I think the honeymoon will be short - voting for a Labour government under SKS will not be an endorsement of its policies as much as a repudiation of the Tories. When the Tories stop being the obvious big bad in government, suddenly what holds the Labour coalition together goes away and Labour has to actually do a good job. It's what's happened to Biden since beating Trump - he is less popular now because the people who always hated him still hate him, and he's disappointed his own base with a lack of clear policy wins and a meagre economy.
After Johnson, Truss and Sunak, voters will be looking forward to boring. If Starmer can add competent to boring, his honeymoon will be longer than some on here expect (or hope for).
I disagree, I don't think most people want boring; I think most people want help. I still believe that part of Johnson's allure to many voters was, despite everything, he did run on helping people (levelling up). Did I believe he'd do it? No, of course not. But lots of people were told it was beyond the pale to vote Corbyn, but did so anyway when it was clear Tories weren't offering to stop austerity. The moment the Tories suggested (even if insincerely) to end austerity, they won.
SKS is hoping that boring and managerial will get him somewhere. But if his boring managerialism doesn't improve peoples' lives - of course it won't.
We can never know what Boris would have done by way of levelling up; the money got spent on Covid and then energy bill support.
I think that Malcolm Nance has been reading @Sunil_Prasannan 's posts
I AM GOING TO SAY IT:
16,000 dead? HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE KILLED FIGURES ARE TRUE? The number of Palestinians casualties reported are almost IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
Yes, the number of KIA/WIA may ultimately be grievous but I predict these 1,000 KIA per day numbers are simply JUST MADE UP by HAMAS.
WHO IS COUNTING DEAD & WOUNDED & MISSING?
We’ve seen one mass grave of 110 adults. Until the ceasefire there was no integrated medical reporting system or even Wi-Fi, right? How did Doctors collect & pass info on verified dead? Did they use couriers with notebooks? Signal flags? Carrier pigeons? Outside of hospital tallies (& those directors have lied repeatedly about casualties) how do they know how many actually died outside of in their care? Where are they buried? Were HAMAS terrorist KIA numbers were included?
Who is collecting & documenting the corpses in the streets. Where are they all buried? Are there over 160 mass graves (w/100 bodies) the world has somehow not seen?
Also how DID HAMAS KNOW all the exact names, ID numbers & family members on the list of 6,700 dead a week ago?
Sorry. I don’t believe it. I worked Satellite imagery analysis on the Srebrenica massacre of 6,000 KIA & seen countable graves at ISIS’s & Mariupol’s mass grave sites. You can make a raw estimate from the mass graves. BUT WHERE ARE THEY IN GAZA? Don’t tell me all victims are all buried under buildings. Then it’s just as possible the building was empty.
Sorry It is just Impossible to verify ANY HAMAS health ministry death tolls. The media, NGOs & UN uses HAMAS figures.
They use those figures because, in the past, they have been the most accurate figures. They have, in the past, been more accurate than IDF figures. Indeed, as well as NGOS and the UN, Israeli state and journalistic outlets often uses the figures released by the Gazan Health Ministry.
The reason that the Gazan Health Ministry has the names and ID numbers of the dead is because the base information (ID numbers and names and so on) are given to them by Israel, and then they use those when identifying bodies or asking families for information.
Are you saying there are not mass graves in Gaza? Because... there are?
Edit: Apologies if this isn't your position and you're just posting someone's tweet - I don't know who Malcolm Nance is.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
I don't know if you're "smart" by your own definition, but I am confident you haven't read many books.
I have a BSc and MRes - I would say I'm educated and would say other people call me smart; I'm not very good with complimenting myself.
I have read lots of books, though.
Aw. Bless.
I'm sure you have an absolutely massive IQ.
I mean when I was younger and believed such things were significant it was high-ish, but since studying Psychology and getting older I haven't cared much about it because it is bollocks.
Of course the preferred strategy for conquering territory and establishing suzerainty over the local population while retaining their consent and respecting human rights is as follows:
- Build a strong local base of activists, and seize on any local issues that are important to the indigenous - Carpet bomb residential areas with Focus leaflets and bar charts - Build up a strong of successes at local authority level, ultimately getting control of the council - Build on this local strength to target Westminster seats in general election and by-elections - Repeat in neighbouring areas to establish regional strength
You've missed one:
- Have a charismatic, highly-visible leader who voters know and can relate to.
"I’ll always be a Milifan. Ed was the best prime minister we never had"
I still think Ed was a better option than his brothrt.
I do hope that Ed D manages to project his voice a little further. He is a serious operator, with a personal backstory that makes him far better planted in the real worrld than either Sunak or Starmer.
The 2010 election projected the nice but lying Nick Clegg to a large audience - if Ed Davey can manage the same leap I expect Good Things.
I - who am not a LD - confirm that Ed Davey is a good man 👍. However I still don't LD to get more than around 25 seats.
I don't doubt he's a good man, but he isn't a stirring politician. I wonder if post Clegg there is a fear amongst the membership of promoting someone charismatic to the leadership role because of what happened, or if the fallout of the coalition just destroyed the talent base of the LDs so thoroughly that any alluring politicians in the party have had to do the slow climb up the ladder over the last decade before they could be considered leadership material.
Starmer isn't a stirring politician either, but he's eight gazillion points ahead in the polls.
I suspect both your points are right. Given the choice between safe-and-steady Ed Davey and the rather more left-field Layla Moran, the membership chose Davey. In a way this is a shame: Davey is marooned at 10%ish and that always looked the likely outcome, whereas the more charismatic and left-leaning Layla could have either sunk to 2% or risen to 20%.
I'm sure LDHQ will claim that they are ruthlessly targetting Home Counties seats and they expect to pick up a haul of them beyond their national share. (But then they always say that.)
Yes - but he's far ahead in the polls because of FPTP and Tory meltdown, not because of anything he did. Which is also why even if he wins a stonking majority I think the honeymoon will be short - voting for a Labour government under SKS will not be an endorsement of its policies as much as a repudiation of the Tories. When the Tories stop being the obvious big bad in government, suddenly what holds the Labour coalition together goes away and Labour has to actually do a good job. It's what's happened to Biden since beating Trump - he is less popular now because the people who always hated him still hate him, and he's disappointed his own base with a lack of clear policy wins and a meagre economy.
After Johnson, Truss and Sunak, voters will be looking forward to boring. If Starmer can add competent to boring, his honeymoon will be longer than some on here expect (or hope for).
I disagree, I don't think most people want boring; I think most people want help. I still believe that part of Johnson's allure to many voters was, despite everything, he did run on helping people (levelling up). Did I believe he'd do it? No, of course not. But lots of people were told it was beyond the pale to vote Corbyn, but did so anyway when it was clear Tories weren't offering to stop austerity. The moment the Tories suggested (even if insincerely) to end austerity, they won.
SKS is hoping that boring and managerial will get him somewhere. But if his boring managerialism doesn't improve peoples' lives - of course it won't.
We can never know what Boris would have done by way of levelling up; the money got spent on Covid and then energy bill support.
True-ish, but considering what we do know about Boris (and the Parliamentary Conservative Party) I still doubt it would happen.
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
They killed people - en masse - by where they came from. Virtually all the Cambodian smart people lived in the capital. Citizens of Phnom Penh were all driven out of the city on day zero and forced into intense labour designed in part to kill an awful lot of them
Many smart people were identified by their documents. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, monks, academics, professionals, technicians, managers, scientists, artists, writers, dancers - all killed
Then they moved on to hints of smartness. Owning a book. Reading a book. Speaking French or English. Wearing spectacles. Telling sophisticated jokes. Knowing long words. All got you killed
My driver from Sihanoukville told me the story of his family. His dad - a civil engineer - successfully disguised himself as a peasant and somehow - despite being denounced - survived. The rest of his extended educated middle class family - aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents - all died. Because they were smart
It’s really boring talking to someone as dumb as you and @Decrepiterfuckface and I may take another break
I think that Malcolm Nance has been reading @Sunil_Prasannan 's posts
I AM GOING TO SAY IT:
16,000 dead? HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE KILLED FIGURES ARE TRUE? The number of Palestinians casualties reported are almost IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
Yes, the number of KIA/WIA may ultimately be grievous but I predict these 1,000 KIA per day numbers are simply JUST MADE UP by HAMAS.
WHO IS COUNTING DEAD & WOUNDED & MISSING?
We’ve seen one mass grave of 110 adults. Until the ceasefire there was no integrated medical reporting system or even Wi-Fi, right? How did Doctors collect & pass info on verified dead? Did they use couriers with notebooks? Signal flags? Carrier pigeons? Outside of hospital tallies (& those directors have lied repeatedly about casualties) how do they know how many actually died outside of in their care? Where are they buried? Were HAMAS terrorist KIA numbers were included?
Who is collecting & documenting the corpses in the streets. Where are they all buried? Are there over 160 mass graves (w/100 bodies) the world has somehow not seen?
Also how DID HAMAS KNOW all the exact names, ID numbers & family members on the list of 6,700 dead a week ago?
Sorry. I don’t believe it. I worked Satellite imagery analysis on the Srebrenica massacre of 6,000 KIA & seen countable graves at ISIS’s & Mariupol’s mass grave sites. You can make a raw estimate from the mass graves. BUT WHERE ARE THEY IN GAZA? Don’t tell me all victims are all buried under buildings. Then it’s just as possible the building was empty.
Sorry It is just Impossible to verify ANY HAMAS health ministry death tolls. The media, NGOs & UN uses HAMAS figures.
They use those figures because, in the past, they have been the most accurate figures. They have, in the past, been more accurate than IDF figures. Indeed, as well as NGOS and the UN, Israeli state and journalistic outlets often uses the figures released by the Gazan Health Ministry.
The reason that the Gazan Health Ministry has the names and ID numbers of the dead is because the base information (ID numbers and names and so on) are given to them by Israel, and then they use those when identifying bodies or asking families for information.
Are you saying there are not mass graves in Gaza? Because... there are?
Edit: Apologies if this isn't your position and you're just posting someone's tweet - I don't know who Malcolm Nance is.
Half of the UN works for Hamas
Do Israeli state and journalistic outlets work for Hamas?
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
Take a step back and try to understand what I am saying.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
It does raise questions about the assumed hereditary component of IQ. Clearly that exists but the random/nurturing aspects may be more important still. The random element also does a lot to explain the differences in the IQs of siblings too which always seems to be given modest attention in these studies.
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Dangerous woke nonsense? Harmless and thoughtful?
It took me two goes to realise "uni" meant university. I was wondering why you'd be surprised to find period products in a unisex toilet.
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
I know that you caveated your premise, but IQ is not largely inherited, even if it was a good measure of anything beyond the ability to do well on an IQ test (which it isn't)
Dammit! You mean I have to read with my children and engage in their studies and stuff? Just marrying someone smart* was not enough?
*Ok, not that smart, given she married me - that's how I know I'm smarter than she is - I chose her (smart move), but she chose me (stupid move)
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Dangerous woke nonsense? Harmless and thoughtful?
I would describe it as 'a waste of money'.
Could be - although if they are not used then it's a one-off cost and, what, a few £100s even campus-wide. If they are used then I guess it's not a waste of money.
There's a note next to the box suggesting to replace what you use, if possible, so I assume no or limited ongoing funding. I don't remember any announcement, but I must admit I don't tend to read all the internal comms stuff.
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Dangerous woke nonsense? Harmless and thoughtful?
It took me two goes to realise "uni" meant university. I was wondering why you'd be surprised to find period products in a unisex toilet.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
I know that you caveated your premise, but IQ is not largely inherited, even if it was a good measure of anything beyond the ability to do well on an IQ test (which it isn't)
Dammit! You mean I have to read with my children and engage in their studies and stuff? Just marrying someone smart* was not enough?
*Ok, not that smart, given she married me - that's how I know I'm smarter than she is - I chose her (smart move), but she chose me (stupid move)
The way that women choose their mates is deeply mysterious but I am not sure that it is a great measure of "smartness". My wife is much smarter than me and yet....
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
They killed people - en masse - by where they came from. Virtually all the Cambodian smart people lived in the capital. Citizens of Phnom Penh were all driven out of the city on day zero and forced into intense labour designed in part to kill an awful lot of them
Many smart people were identified by their documents. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, monks, academics, professionals, technicians, managers, scientists, artists, writers, dancers - all killed
Then they moved on to hints of smartness. Owning a book. Reading a book. Speaking French or English. Wearing spectacles. Telling sophisticated jokes. Knowing long words. All got you killed
My driver from Sihanoukville told me the story of his family. His dad - a civil engineer - successfully disguised himself as a peasant and somehow - despite being denounced - survived. The rest of his extended educated middle class family - aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents - all died. Because they were smart
It’s really boring talking to someone as dumb as you and @Decrepiterfuckface and I may take another break
Cheers
Nice anecdote about civil engineers being smart but my point was about undifferentiated intelligence amongst the bottom tiers of society.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
It does raise questions about the assumed hereditary component of IQ. Clearly that exists but the random/nurturing aspects may be more important still. The random element also does a lot to explain the differences in the IQs of siblings too which always seems to be given modest attention in these studies.
The smartest hid their intelligence - or themselves?
Before Leon tells me I know nothing - yes, that's true - well, not strictly true, I saw a Blue Peter episode once where they covered the genocide, but I suspect there was more to it.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
Take a step back and try to understand what I am saying.
I don't really understand what you're saying, but "largely agrarian economy" describes the entire world up until (let's say) around 1650, so by your logic there were also no intelligent people in the Middle Ages, or the Roman Empire, or the ancient Near East.
It is a matter of fact that the Khmer Rouge were highly effective at wiping out their intellectual class in their attempt to return to a fully agrarian economy, and that Mao's Cultural Revolution killed millions of same despite China also having a "largely agrarian economy" at the time.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
It does raise questions about the assumed hereditary component of IQ. Clearly that exists but the random/nurturing aspects may be more important still. The random element also does a lot to explain the differences in the IQs of siblings too which always seems to be given modest attention in these studies.
The smartest hid their intelligence - or themselves?
Before Leon tells me I know nothing - yes, that's true - well, not strictly true, I saw a Blue Peter episode once where they covered the genocide, but I suspect there was more to it.
Blue Peter also interviewed Anne Frank's father. Typical woke BBC brainwashing our kids against genocide.
UKHSA has detected a single confirmed human case of influenza A(H1N2)v, which is the first detection of this strain of flu in a human in the UK. We are monitoring the situation closely.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
Take a step back and try to understand what I am saying.
I don't really understand what you're saying, but "largely agrarian economy" describes the entire world up until (let's say) around 1650, so by your logic there were also no intelligent people in the Middle Ages, or the Roman Empire, or the ancient Near East.
It is a matter of fact that the Khmer Rouge were highly effective at wiping out their intellectual class in their attempt to return to a fully agrarian economy, and that Mao's Cultural Revolution killed millions of same despite China also having a "largely agrarian economy" at the time.
That is the precise opposite of what I was saying, which was that if almost everyone has the same job that needs little brainpower, of course some will be more intelligent than others but there will be no way of telling.
I think that Malcolm Nance has been reading @Sunil_Prasannan 's posts
I AM GOING TO SAY IT:
16,000 dead? HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE KILLED FIGURES ARE TRUE? The number of Palestinians casualties reported are almost IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
Yes, the number of KIA/WIA may ultimately be grievous but I predict these 1,000 KIA per day numbers are simply JUST MADE UP by HAMAS.
WHO IS COUNTING DEAD & WOUNDED & MISSING?
We’ve seen one mass grave of 110 adults. Until the ceasefire there was no integrated medical reporting system or even Wi-Fi, right? How did Doctors collect & pass info on verified dead? Did they use couriers with notebooks? Signal flags? Carrier pigeons? Outside of hospital tallies (& those directors have lied repeatedly about casualties) how do they know how many actually died outside of in their care? Where are they buried? Were HAMAS terrorist KIA numbers were included?
Who is collecting & documenting the corpses in the streets. Where are they all buried? Are there over 160 mass graves (w/100 bodies) the world has somehow not seen?
Also how DID HAMAS KNOW all the exact names, ID numbers & family members on the list of 6,700 dead a week ago?
Sorry. I don’t believe it. I worked Satellite imagery analysis on the Srebrenica massacre of 6,000 KIA & seen countable graves at ISIS’s & Mariupol’s mass grave sites. You can make a raw estimate from the mass graves. BUT WHERE ARE THEY IN GAZA? Don’t tell me all victims are all buried under buildings. Then it’s just as possible the building was empty.
Sorry It is just Impossible to verify ANY HAMAS health ministry death tolls. The media, NGOs & UN uses HAMAS figures.
They use those figures because, in the past, they have been the most accurate figures. They have, in the past, been more accurate than IDF figures. Indeed, as well as NGOS and the UN, Israeli state and journalistic outlets often uses the figures released by the Gazan Health Ministry.
The reason that the Gazan Health Ministry has the names and ID numbers of the dead is because the base information (ID numbers and names and so on) are given to them by Israel, and then they use those when identifying bodies or asking families for information.
Are you saying there are not mass graves in Gaza? Because... there are?
Edit: Apologies if this isn't your position and you're just posting someone's tweet - I don't know who Malcolm Nance is.
Half of the UN works for Hamas
Do Israeli state and journalistic outlets work for Hamas?
Sometimes I see Hamas as akin to a giant octopus with tentacles around the world influencing everywhere.
I think that Malcolm Nance has been reading @Sunil_Prasannan 's posts
I AM GOING TO SAY IT:
16,000 dead? HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE KILLED FIGURES ARE TRUE? The number of Palestinians casualties reported are almost IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
Yes, the number of KIA/WIA may ultimately be grievous but I predict these 1,000 KIA per day numbers are simply JUST MADE UP by HAMAS.
WHO IS COUNTING DEAD & WOUNDED & MISSING?
We’ve seen one mass grave of 110 adults. Until the ceasefire there was no integrated medical reporting system or even Wi-Fi, right? How did Doctors collect & pass info on verified dead? Did they use couriers with notebooks? Signal flags? Carrier pigeons? Outside of hospital tallies (& those directors have lied repeatedly about casualties) how do they know how many actually died outside of in their care? Where are they buried? Were HAMAS terrorist KIA numbers were included?
Who is collecting & documenting the corpses in the streets. Where are they all buried? Are there over 160 mass graves (w/100 bodies) the world has somehow not seen?
Also how DID HAMAS KNOW all the exact names, ID numbers & family members on the list of 6,700 dead a week ago?
Sorry. I don’t believe it. I worked Satellite imagery analysis on the Srebrenica massacre of 6,000 KIA & seen countable graves at ISIS’s & Mariupol’s mass grave sites. You can make a raw estimate from the mass graves. BUT WHERE ARE THEY IN GAZA? Don’t tell me all victims are all buried under buildings. Then it’s just as possible the building was empty.
Sorry It is just Impossible to verify ANY HAMAS health ministry death tolls. The media, NGOs & UN uses HAMAS figures.
They use those figures because, in the past, they have been the most accurate figures. They have, in the past, been more accurate than IDF figures. Indeed, as well as NGOS and the UN, Israeli state and journalistic outlets often uses the figures released by the Gazan Health Ministry.
The reason that the Gazan Health Ministry has the names and ID numbers of the dead is because the base information (ID numbers and names and so on) are given to them by Israel, and then they use those when identifying bodies or asking families for information.
Are you saying there are not mass graves in Gaza? Because... there are?
Edit: Apologies if this isn't your position and you're just posting someone's tweet - I don't know who Malcolm Nance is.
Half of the UN works for Hamas
Do Israeli state and journalistic outlets work for Hamas?
Sometimes I see Hamas as akin to a giant octopus with tentacles around the world influencing everywhere.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
They killed people - en masse - by where they came from. Virtually all the Cambodian smart people lived in the capital. Citizens of Phnom Penh were all driven out of the city on day zero and forced into intense labour designed in part to kill an awful lot of them
Many smart people were identified by their documents. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, monks, academics, professionals, technicians, managers, scientists, artists, writers, dancers - all killed
Then they moved on to hints of smartness. Owning a book. Reading a book. Speaking French or English. Wearing spectacles. Telling sophisticated jokes. Knowing long words. All got you killed
My driver from Sihanoukville told me the story of his family. His dad - a civil engineer - successfully disguised himself as a peasant and somehow - despite being denounced - survived. The rest of his extended educated middle class family - aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents - all died. Because they were smart
It’s really boring talking to someone as dumb as you and @Decrepiterfuckface and I may take another break
Cheers
How anyone survived that horror show is a mystery. I agree with your view that Ta Mok, was quite possibly, the most evil man who ever lived.
I don't know how Cambodia survived the murder of so many intelligent people, but I would say, in any society, especially a poor agrarian one, there are people with brilliant minds, who through accident of birth, never get the chance to shine. They end up working in fields, or on their backs in brothels, or dying in ditches. So, they would survive the cull, and perhaps then, they or their children, got the chance to move up.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
UKHSA has detected a single confirmed human case of influenza A(H1N2)v, which is the first detection of this strain of flu in a human in the UK. We are monitoring the situation closely.
Birdflu klaxon !
They said it was to do with pigs not birds on the one o'clock news.
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Yes, but if your definition of "smart" is "reading a novel" that's not very efficient - one, because you will get lots of not very smart people, and two, because it would be making the claim that literacy is an inherent quality of intelligence as if it isn't just a skill to aid in learning.
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
They killed people - en masse - by where they came from. Virtually all the Cambodian smart people lived in the capital. Citizens of Phnom Penh were all driven out of the city on day zero and forced into intense labour designed in part to kill an awful lot of them
Many smart people were identified by their documents. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, monks, academics, professionals, technicians, managers, scientists, artists, writers, dancers - all killed
Then they moved on to hints of smartness. Owning a book. Reading a book. Speaking French or English. Wearing spectacles. Telling sophisticated jokes. Knowing long words. All got you killed
My driver from Sihanoukville told me the story of his family. His dad - a civil engineer - successfully disguised himself as a peasant and somehow - despite being denounced - survived. The rest of his extended educated middle class family - aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents - all died. Because they were smart
It’s really boring talking to someone as dumb as you and @Decrepiterfuckface and I may take another break
Cheers
How anyone survived that horror show is a mystery. I agree with your view that Ta Mok, was quite possibly, the most evil man who ever lived.
I don't know how Cambodia survived the murder of so many intelligent people, but I would say, in any society, especially a poor agrarian one, there are people with brilliant minds, who through accident of birth, never get the chance to shine. They end up working in fields, or on their backs in brothels, or dying in ditches. So, they would survive the cull, and perhaps then, they or their children, got the chance to move up.
Fair
I shall try and calm down. Being corrected on postwar Cambodian history - where I actually do know an awful lot, and where I have good friends and intense personal experiences - does my nut in
I just googled pol pots family and found out that he had a daughter. She is now… a rice farmer. But a fairly affluent one. The richness of the irony
In the same article (descendants of dictators) I found this gem:
“jaffar Amin, son of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, worked as a manager for DHL for 11 years, according to Foreign Policy. Now he does voiceover work in commercials for companies like Qatar Airways and Hwansung, a South Korean furniture company.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Dangerous woke nonsense? Harmless and thoughtful?
I would describe it as 'a waste of money'.
Mrs J's company provides free sanitary products for its staff (female, obvs.). It seems to work quite well, and is available to anyone in the building, including cleaners, visitors etc. It's also not that expensive.
There was a funny time when a male boss asked Mrs J and some other female staff about what sort of products should be purchased, as he had no idea...
As for unis: these things can be expensive, and I bet the cost isn't that great. My biggest concern would not be cost, but people nicking them and selling them on.
UKHSA has detected a single confirmed human case of influenza A(H1N2)v, which is the first detection of this strain of flu in a human in the UK. We are monitoring the situation closely.
Birdflu klaxon !
They said it was to do with pigs not birds on the one o'clock news.
Technically she endorsed whoever will be GOP nominee rather than Trump specifically 'In an article for the Wall Street Journal, she said: “For as long as most of us can recall, the US has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.
But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
I did say it was “modest”
It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.
Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.
Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
Interesting to consider what Russia’s war aims are and how it’s doing. I don’t subscribe to the “Russia is on the cusp of collapse” narrative but nor the simple Russia is winning which is borne of Western frustration and a taste for the dramatic.
Ideally for them I think the objectives are / were:
- Overwhelm Ukraine militarily and carve it up - Establish a ring of Russia-friendly managed democracies across as much of Europe as possible - Absorb Belarus in due course - Repeat the Ukraine annexation in Moldova, the Baltics and possibly Georgia when the time comes
They’ve not overwhelmed Ukraine and not yet managed that ring of friendly states, though Fico and Wilders take them one baby step closer.
So the backup plan is surely:
- Prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful western economy: essentially act as violent ex lover and stalker until you completely break their will - Remain relevant, so the West can’t just ignore you, by fair means and (mostly) foul
They’re doing quite well on those plan B objectives. Weak states with a vendetta can carry on being an annoyance long after they cease to be a strategic threat.
We should just accept that the Baltics are gone and likewise Moldova. Who really cares anyway? @Cicero is boring now, he’d probably find it more fun under Putin then he could whine at even greater length, and it would serve him right for being a Remainer and relying on the EU
i am sentimentally attached to Georgia tho, we should defend Tbilisi from The Bear
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, mehFr
Also Germany, who gives a fuck. Likewise Poland
And France. Fuck France, with their stupid breads
Spain and Italy don’t count
Slavs begin at Calais, should be our motto
France has nuclear weapons like us so I doubt even Putin would go that far even if he went for all out conquest
Don't encourage him HY. He's being a shock jock dick.
I'm fairly sure it's simpler than that and he was joking. Either that or he's completely changed his mind on international affairs to a highly unfashionable opinion without even the customary announcement of "I have changed my mind on x". Which seems unlikely.
Well yes, thanks, I was clearly joking
I do sometimes get a LITTLE BIT tired of being called a “Putinist shill” or a “fucking appeaser” for pointing out that the war is perhaps not evolving entirely to Ukraine’s advantage, just at the moment, so I asked myself what would an actual “fucking appeaser and Putinist shill” actually write. And it would be something like that
Fuck Europe, let Putin have it all, who cares, defend our own island, etc
You do realise most folk are just having a little fun too, when they call you a Putinist popinjay, or whatever TSE's phrase was ?
I am fairly sure @TSE is joking, when he says this stuff
I am fairly sure several other PBers are really NOT joking, and it gets wearying
It was one of the reasons I took my last break from PB. You could not have a sensible debate about Ukraine’s allegedly faltering war effort without people going tediously mental. I don’t mind being called names (I can hardly object to that) I do mind when the site becomes useless as a place for debate
The thing is, if you seriously think that "Wokeness" is going to end the world, it is hard to know when satire ends or begins. When you're sincere beliefs are absurd, I find it hard to parse when you're using absurdity to joke.
Alternatively, you lack the intellectual acuity to differentiate between satire and sincerity, in someone like me
I am pretty sure that is the explanation, I doubt you will understand it
I mean it's a bad case of Poe's law. Because your absurd sincere views and your absurd jokey views are still ideologically aligned, and you often cite people who sincerely believe things that you say you jokingly state - alongside the added social navigation issues of internet based conversation - it seems difficult to tell either way.
Like I said, it’s just an IQ thing, nothing to be done about it. So don’t stress about it
See, again, difficult to tell if you seriously believe IQ is a useful measure of anything or not considering you bring it up all the time.
Cambodia is a fascinating test case for IQ
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
If we accept IQ is largely inherited, then what Cambodia might show is that actually, for most purposes you do not need to be particularly smart. OK, the Cambodian space programme might not be up to much, nor its chess players, but for general life, high intelligence is not much use.
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
No that’s bollocks. Read the history of the Khmer Rouge. They very very efficiently wiped out the smart people, so you’re talking ill informed nonsense
Look at Asian people in Britain. First generation farm workers, shopkeepers and posties, whose children have stethoscopes slung round their necks. The point is that in an environment where intelligence is not useful, even the Khmer Rouge could not tell the dull rice-planters from the smart ones, even after they'd killed the intelligentsia.
BUT IT IS TOTAL BOLLOCKS
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
It does raise questions about the assumed hereditary component of IQ. Clearly that exists but the random/nurturing aspects may be more important still. The random element also does a lot to explain the differences in the IQs of siblings too which always seems to be given modest attention in these studies.
I agree. I started a post on that but gave up when something else more important came up. Inheritance isn't linear. It is a mish mash. My son has an off the scale IQ (Doing a PH.D at Cambridge, University Challenge, final selection for the GB team in 3 subjects for the International Olympiad, won the Cambridge computer science prize for a paper on Game Theory while in the lower 6th, etc, etc.). My daughter is of average intelligence. I don't know my IQ, but I did have to take a test for a job over 40 years ago and I know I had to score over 130 for an interview. My sister however is of average intelligence and my father was not bright at all, although 2 of his 3 siblings were. My wife is bright (a highly qualified Doctor), but he sister doesn't have any scientific knowledge whatsoever.
It isn't straight forward and then of course there are all those bright kids who never get a chance at a proper education, a book or glasses who go unnoticed particularly in a less advanced society.
It is complicated so I assume bright people (particularly kids) were missed in the cull and bright children were off springs from less bright parents who had intelligence genes lurking.
Technically she endorsed whoever will be GOP nominee rather than Trump specifically 'In an article for the Wall Street Journal, she said: “For as long as most of us can recall, the US has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
UKHSA has detected a single confirmed human case of influenza A(H1N2)v, which is the first detection of this strain of flu in a human in the UK. We are monitoring the situation closely.
Birdflu klaxon !
They said it was to do with pigs not birds on the one o'clock news.
It’s also not true to say that Cambodia in 1975 had a “largely agrarian” economy like, say, England in 1330 or Russia in 1840
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
To continue, there are in any society, far more people who can write, paint, sing, compose, act very well, than there are full time jobs available for them. How many people make a full time living writing novels in this country? A couple of hundred at best? Yet, there are thousands of people who are capable of writing a good story.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
Hmm. I know what you mean, but I’m not sure I entirely agree
However you could be right. How else to explain the vivid survival of Cambodia - which lost 2m people out of 7-8m - and most of them from the educated middle classes?
It’s like trying to imagine Britain if we killed all the Remainers. Ian Dunt. A C Graylng. Jolyon Maugham. @northern_monkey. James o Brian. The entire editorial staff at the guardian. If they were all cudgelled to death with pick axe handles the nation would simply fall apart
Comments
I’ve had two operations in the last 12 months, and on both occasions almost all of the support staff, surgeons, & anaesthetists have been immigrants or the children of immigrants, and I’m very grateful to them. Even pre referendum I said open the floodgates for immigration to staff the NHS, allow competition for jobs above a certain pay grade, but that doesn’t stop me thinking that importing cheap Labour en masse for big corporates to undercut local wages from 2004 onwards was fair on British low paid workers, or good for social cohesion. Pretty much the whole reason I was so pro Leave was the impact of mass immigration on the lowest paid, not anti immigration generally as I think it probably is a good thing when managed carefully
Reform UK, formerly the Brexit Party, could threaten Tory seats Professor Sir John Curtice tells @PatrickkMaguire.
https://x.com/timesradio/status/1729095906555768959?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
but Kamski sums it up quite well.
Just a couple of extra points. There is no way the "schuldenbremse" (debt brake) will be removed from the constitution during this coalition, because the FDP are in favour of it. The budget crisis needs to be sorted quickly and a constition change takes time.
I can see there being some refinement in that law, specifically to allow long term investment. Large private companies have no problem getting credit for such investment, so it should be legal for governments to do it if the reasons are legitimate. Finding the exact wording that would be acceptable to all the main parties, to gets it past the 2/3 majority of the Bundestag and Bundesrat will be a big challenge.
One final point. The Merkel government introduced the Schuldenbremse but was only able to hold to the Schuldenbremse (pre-covid) by neglecting many aspects of government spending. The most obvious example being on defense spending. The current government is having to spend a lot on just catching up with the lack of investment over the Merkel period, let alone Germany's contribution to the Ukraine weaponry.
As someone who is now five stone lighter than I was a decade ago, you really don't need to see them to know what is lethal.
People with genuine concerns about job security, and access to public services just got told they were racist and should be grateful, by supposedly calm centrists. Hence Brexit
‘I want to get out’: two landlords on the ‘broken’ property rental market
From high rents to repossessions and public opprobrium, it’s not just tenants who say the system isn’t working
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/two-landlords-on-the-broken-property-rental-market
I thought that Brown's Labour Government had run it's course, an welcomed the Coalition, but looking back, as old men tend to do, I wish there'd been enough Labour and LibDem MP's to stop the Conservatives getting their hands on power again.
I’ll blame who I like actually. The blame lies with the likes of Blair, Brown & Cameron, who introduced/did nothing to counter A8 immigration. It caused job insecurity, a fight for public services & messed up social cohesion. Then, instead of empathising with the people they inflicted it upon, they abused them with name calling and smears, despite having zero experience between them of life at the lower end of the pay scale and the challenges that come with it
As someone with previously wildly fluctuating weight (I've gone from 83kg to 63kg in less than a year, and back again), Strava's gentle notifications and calories on menus are critical for keeping me healthy.
Losing 5 stone sounds worrying, MM, either in retrospect or now - hope it's now stable.
The Khmer Rouge probably killed 80% people with an IQ over 100. Maybe 95%+ of people with an IQ over 130. Anyone with an education, musical skills, foreign languages, all killed
Today I learned that reading a novel during the Khmer Rouge days was a capital offence. You were instantly executed if you were caught with a novel
No other country on earth has experienced anything like that. ALL the intelligentsia and virtually anyone remotely smart - killed
That should have crippled Cambodia for a century. Only the dull remained
Yet it has not. The country bustles and functions. The food is good. The people smile. Life returns. Businesses prosper and skyscrapers grow
I’ve not quite worked out what it means
Anyone employing more than 250 people needs to put it on the menu, but I seem to see it everywhere these days. If I am going out to dinner I must say I don't look. I am also baffled and disbelieving as to the accuracy of the numbers. Just have this vision of them counting exactly the number of peas on a plate and teaspoons of gravy, particularly as the calories are displayed down to the individual unit which is nonsense.
It’s estimated 2 million people have come to the capital for the festival, from the really remote provinces. When these people see me some of them do that “OMG WTF is that round eyed devil stare” - utterly perplexed yet intrigued. I guess they are seeing westerners for the first time? In the flesh?
(Or it could just be me but I don’t think so, I’ve seen other westerners get the same reaction)
It’s hard to believe that there are still places that untouched in Indochina - yet there must be
Ukraine have defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and can now export grain, in defiance of Russia's declared blockade.
Ukraine has used their own drones to attack military and industrial targets deep inside Russia showing that Russia is less able to defend against long-range attacks than Ukraine is.
These victories, by sea and in the air, are building blocks for future advances on land.
Don't give up when victory is there for the taking. You would talk the West into a historic and dangerous defeat.
You have a choice - accept that your taxes will be needed to fund a NHS that takes up 20% of GDP by 2050, get rid of it altogether, or make some public health interventions.
I would go carrot though - £500 off your income tax bill if you're a healthy weight.
Sky say the government has reached an agreement with the medical unions which could end the doctors strikes
https://news.sky.com/story/new-pay-offer-made-to-nhs-consultants-could-end-strikes-13017490
I suspect both your points are right. Given the choice between safe-and-steady Ed Davey and the rather more left-field Layla Moran, the membership chose Davey. In a way this is a shame: Davey is marooned at 10%ish and that always looked the likely outcome, whereas the more charismatic and left-leaning Layla could have either sunk to 2% or risen to 20%.
I'm sure LDHQ will claim that they are ruthlessly targetting Home Counties seats and they expect to pick up a haul of them beyond their national share. (But then they always say that.)
So "genuine concerns about job security" were not well founded, were they?
But what Cambodia probably also shows is that in what was a largely agrarian economy, there was nothing to distinguish highly intelligent people anyway (see above) so it is unlikely they were all killed.
But ignoring Ukraine's genuine difficulties risks giving the West a pass for its increasingly slow, late and miserly deliveries of weapons to the heroic Ukrainian army. We've been not too bad, but almost TWO YEARS into this war the Ukrainians still don't have the F16s they've been begging for, nor the version of the ATACMS they need. Nor have the Krauts given them their Taurus stockpile. There's clearly a balance to be struck in what we say. The Ukrainians have achieved miracles with what we've given them. We just haven't given them remotely enough early enough.
And fair enough. I want Ukraine to win as well I just don’t think they can on the ground, as things stand - and so I point that out
Also, really smart people could surely learn how to fake not being smart to survive the Khmer Rouge or, indeed, would be part of the Khmer Rouge themselves to stay alive.
It’s so over the top. But it’s brilliant and I love it
Never stop travelling - PBers - never stop travelling
I have read lots of books, though.
The 30% on the right or the left who argue differently - i.e. there must be no immigration (right)/ no limit to immigration (esp when accompanied by a sob story real or manufactured) (left) - should ideally be excluded from sensible debate and effective policymaking but this has proved impossible to the extend that the barmy 30% have more voice and sway the the 70% sensibles.
I AM GOING TO SAY IT:
16,000 dead? HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE KILLED FIGURES ARE TRUE? The number of Palestinians casualties reported are almost IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
Yes, the number of KIA/WIA may ultimately be grievous but I predict these 1,000 KIA per day numbers are simply JUST MADE UP by HAMAS.
WHO IS COUNTING DEAD & WOUNDED & MISSING?
We’ve seen one mass grave of 110 adults. Until the ceasefire there was no integrated medical reporting system or even Wi-Fi, right? How did Doctors collect & pass info on verified dead? Did they use couriers with notebooks? Signal flags? Carrier pigeons? Outside of hospital tallies (& those directors have lied repeatedly about casualties) how do they know how many actually died outside of in their care? Where are they buried? Were HAMAS terrorist KIA numbers were included?
Who is collecting & documenting the corpses in the streets. Where are they all buried? Are there over 160 mass graves (w/100 bodies) the world has somehow not seen?
Also how DID HAMAS KNOW all the exact names, ID numbers & family members on the list of 6,700 dead a week ago?
Sorry. I don’t believe it. I worked Satellite imagery analysis on the Srebrenica massacre of 6,000 KIA & seen countable graves at ISIS’s & Mariupol’s mass grave sites. You can make a raw estimate from the mass graves. BUT WHERE ARE THEY IN GAZA? Don’t tell me all victims are all buried under buildings. Then it’s just as possible the building was empty.
Sorry It is just Impossible to verify ANY HAMAS health ministry death tolls. The media, NGOs & UN uses HAMAS figures.
https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/status/1729097962939146580
SKS is hoping that boring and managerial will get him somewhere. But if his boring managerialism doesn't improve peoples' lives - of course it won't.
Lots of people were forced into part time/ZHC work on lower wages by then, so I l’d maintain that job security was a well founded concern
How much Khmer Rouge history have you read? I’m guessing it is approximately zero
I'm sure you have an absolutely massive IQ.
The reason that the Gazan Health Ministry has the names and ID numbers of the dead is because the base information (ID numbers and names and so on) are given to them by Israel, and then they use those when identifying bodies or asking families for information.
Are you saying there are not mass graves in Gaza? Because... there are?
Edit: Apologies if this isn't your position and you're just posting someone's tweet - I don't know who Malcolm Nance is.
Today I visited one of the general access uni toilets (i.e. not behind a swipe-card door in a department, where I haven't seen this) and, in this male toilet, there was a basket of free period products.
Dangerous woke nonsense? Harmless and thoughtful?
Many smart people were identified by their documents. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, monks, academics, professionals, technicians, managers, scientists, artists, writers, dancers - all killed
Then they moved on to hints of smartness. Owning a book. Reading a book. Speaking French or English. Wearing spectacles. Telling sophisticated jokes. Knowing long words. All got you killed
My driver from Sihanoukville told me the story of his family. His dad - a civil engineer - successfully disguised himself as a peasant and somehow - despite being denounced - survived. The rest of his extended educated middle class family - aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents - all died. Because they were smart
It’s really boring talking to someone as dumb as you and @Decrepiterfuckface and I may take another break
Cheers
*Ok, not that smart, given she married me - that's how I know I'm smarter than she is - I chose her (smart move), but she chose me (stupid move)
There's a note next to the box suggesting to replace what you use, if possible, so I assume no or limited ongoing funding. I don't remember any announcement, but I must admit I don't tend to read all the internal comms stuff.
But yes, some ambiguity there.
Before Leon tells me I know nothing - yes, that's true - well, not strictly true, I saw a Blue Peter episode once where they covered the genocide, but I suspect there was more to it.
It is a matter of fact that the Khmer Rouge were highly effective at wiping out their intellectual class in their attempt to return to a fully agrarian economy, and that Mao's Cultural Revolution killed millions of same despite China also having a "largely agrarian economy" at the time.
Birdflu klaxon !
I don't know how Cambodia survived the murder of so many intelligent people, but I would say, in any society, especially a poor agrarian one, there are people with brilliant minds, who through accident of birth, never get the chance to shine. They end up working in fields, or on their backs in brothels, or dying in ditches. So, they would survive the cull, and perhaps then, they or their children, got the chance to move up.
It had a typical post-colonial economy of the twentieth century. Yes most people worked in the fields and got a pretty basic education. But they weren’t all illiterate. France had tried to educate them and succeeded, in part
By 1975 Cambodia also had a sizeable and sophisticated middle class based in Phnom Penh, much of it quite new, but real nonetheless. The KRouge leaders are a classic example. They weren’t aristocrats but they all went to university in Paris - that is, tragically, where they picked up their radical Maoism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAimDLp5TmA
I shall try and calm down. Being corrected on postwar Cambodian history - where I actually do know an awful lot, and where I have good friends and intense personal experiences - does my nut in
I just googled pol pots family and found out that he had a daughter. She is now… a rice farmer. But a fairly affluent one. The richness of the irony
In the same article (descendants of dictators) I found this gem:
“jaffar Amin, son of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, worked as a manager for DHL for 11 years, according to Foreign Policy. Now he does voiceover work in commercials for companies like Qatar Airways and Hwansung, a South Korean furniture company.
And, I expect it's true in other fields. There are more brilliant minds out there than there are available jobs to match brilliant minds. Conversely, there are plenty of jobs that are available, in the professions, for those who are simply reasonably bright.
So, a society can survive the mass murder of intellectuals.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-us-election-donald-trump-b2454049.html
Speaking of intellectuals...
There was a funny time when a male boss asked Mrs J and some other female staff about what sort of products should be purchased, as he had no idea...
As for unis: these things can be expensive, and I bet the cost isn't that great. My biggest concern would not be cost, but people nicking them and selling them on.
“The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.”'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-us-election-donald-trump-b2454049.html
It isn't straight forward and then of course there are all those bright kids who never get a chance at a proper education, a book or glasses who go unnoticed particularly in a less advanced society.
It is complicated so I assume bright people (particularly kids) were missed in the cull and bright children were off springs from less bright parents who had intelligence genes lurking.
No one is going to vote for the Republican candidate (whoever that may be, wink wink) now!
Fly in the oinkment.
However you could be right. How else to explain the vivid survival of Cambodia - which lost 2m people out of 7-8m - and most of them from the educated middle classes?
It’s like trying to imagine Britain if we killed all the Remainers. Ian Dunt. A C Graylng. Jolyon Maugham. @northern_monkey. James o Brian. The entire editorial staff at the guardian. If they were all cudgelled to death with pick axe handles the nation would simply fall apart