To be fair fewer young people than in Germany, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, Ireland, New Zealand and Canada say they don't think they will ever be able to buy a home.
We will see what difference Labour's pledge to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years makes
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
They're not clowns. It was Konstantin Kisin who made that point. One I am still puzzled by. But don't forget by his own definition he ISN'T English himself. He even claims his English born son will never be English. It's odd to me and I think it is very strange to question someone else's identity.
Part of the problem is the fact that migrants have tended to adopt a British rather than English identity. The latter does then get seen as more of an ethnic construct. But with the future of the UK in doubt there is obviously a need for some kind of civic English identity which obviously lots of non-white people in England wish to embrace.
Who is more “English”?
England cricket captain, Douglas Jardine, Winchester, Oxford.
No they are not better - they put off a decent chunk of middle America, just as Corbyn put off a decent chunk of middle Britain. Pick someone who has electoral success in a swing or red leaning state.
Isn't that the point though? They're doing better in certain ways, and it would be better for the Dems if others with wider appeal demonstrated similar drive and energy?
Undeniably Corbyn had the most drive and energy of any recent Labour leader or leadership contender. Did it help one iota in delivering Labour's aims and objectives, or did it actually hinder them?
Firing up your base is easy, but often counter productive.
You've missed my point - that they need someone with drive and energy focusing beyond the base, that is, to do what AOC/Bernie can do, but more widely targeted so it is, as you suggest, more effectual.
At the moment it doesn't seem like anyone more mainstream is doing much of anything, not that gets picked up anyway.
How active was Starmer? How effective was Starmer?
Different circumstances entirely. Boris was disliked by many but is actually pretty mainstream, and an election was 5 years away. The Dems have mid terms to prepare for, and a lot of existential crap to be dealing with.
I don't understand the objection here - I'm not saying they should go full Corbyn and ignore anyone not in their base, quite the opposite. But the electoral cycle never really seems to end over there, they need some energy, and it would be better if fringe figures were not the ones making the running.
To be fair fewer young people than in Germany, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, Ireland, New Zealand and Canada say they don't think they will ever be able to buy a home.
We will see what difference Labour's pledge to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years makes
They will be 200k-300k short and young people will be annoyed and older homeowners quietly pleased.
For comparison this the rental costs in various cities in Europe, which doesn't align to the chart in the header. eg Vienna is cheap in comparison, livable city and wages are higher than in the UK
I rented in Vienna when I lived there. Elegant spacious city centre apartment for what a Rigsby type bedsit would have cost in an equivalent part of London.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
Does Sunak pass the cricket test? I assume Fraser Nelson, unlike most Scots, would pass it. For avoidance of doubt, I would fail it unless the opposition is Australia.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
I've never particularly 'got' that podcast, or liked the presenters. It's always felt a little 'false' to me.
I've seen some of their stuff, thought it had a kind of blunt talking appeal, it helped to get guests who would get ignored or be on the defensive in other contexts.
My impression is two things have happened to them - one, with their success they've gotten up their own arses about their significance as commentators, which kills any kind of relatable or comedic vibe as mostly regular dudes, and two, any claim to be 'politically non-binary' as Kisin at least used to joke about is a nonsense, but he doesn't want to admit to it.
No they are not better - they put off a decent chunk of middle America, just as Corbyn put off a decent chunk of middle Britain. Pick someone who has electoral success in a swing or red leaning state.
Isn't that the point though? They're doing better in certain ways, and it would be better for the Dems if others with wider appeal demonstrated similar drive and energy?
Undeniably Corbyn had the most drive and energy of any recent Labour leader or leadership contender. Did it help one iota in delivering Labour's aims and objectives, or did it actually hinder them?
Firing up your base is easy, but often counter productive.
You've missed my point - that they need someone with drive and energy focusing beyond the base, that is, to do what AOC/Bernie can do, but more widely targeted so it is, as you suggest, more effectual.
At the moment it doesn't seem like anyone more mainstream is doing much of anything, not that gets picked up anyway.
How active was Starmer? How effective was Starmer?
Different circumstances entirely. Boris was disliked by many but is actually pretty mainstream, and an election was 5 years away. The Dems have mid terms to prepare for, and a lot of existential crap to be dealing with.
I don't understand the objection here - I'm not saying they should go full Corbyn and ignore anyone not in their base, quite the opposite. But the electoral cycle never really seems to end over there, they need some energy, and it would be better if fringe figures were not the ones making the running.
I think it would be better for the Dems (and the rest of the liberal democratic world) if Bernie was quieter and less visible so I'm not giving him credit for being active and visible.
The Dems best strategy is to be united and accept the leadership of a quiet moderate who appeals to the centre.
No they are not better - they put off a decent chunk of middle America, just as Corbyn put off a decent chunk of middle Britain. Pick someone who has electoral success in a swing or red leaning state.
Isn't that the point though? They're doing better in certain ways, and it would be better for the Dems if others with wider appeal demonstrated similar drive and energy?
Undeniably Corbyn had the most drive and energy of any recent Labour leader or leadership contender. Did it help one iota in delivering Labour's aims and objectives, or did it actually hinder them?
Firing up your base is easy, but often counter productive.
He got a hung parliament in 2017 and 40% of the vote, still the highest Labour voteshare since Blair in 2001
To be fair fewer young people than in Germany, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, Ireland, New Zealand and Canada say they don't think they will ever be able to buy a home.
We will see what difference Labour's pledge to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years makes
They will be 200k-300k short and young people will be annoyed and older homeowners quietly pleased.
Older homeowners and NIMBYs won't be pleased by the extra homes on the greenbelt
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
I've never particularly 'got' that podcast, or liked the presenters. It's always felt a little 'false' to me.
I've seen some of their stuff, thought it had a kind of blunt talking appeal, it helped to get guests who would get ignored or be on the defensive in other contexts.
My impression is two things have happened to them - one, with their success they've gotten up their own arses about their significance as commentators, which kills any kind of relatable or comedic vibe as mostly regular dudes, and two, any claim to be 'politically non-binary' as Kisin at least used to joke about is a nonsense, but he doesn't want to admit to it.
Never heard it and won't - but is it going for a Joe Rogan type vibe? You know, softhead populism with a veneer of amiability?
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
I've never particularly 'got' that podcast, or liked the presenters. It's always felt a little 'false' to me.
I've seen some of their stuff, thought it had a kind of blunt talking appeal, it helped to get guests who would get ignored or be on the defensive in other contexts.
My impression is two things have happened to them - one, with their success they've gotten up their own arses about their significance as commentators, which kills any kind of relatable or comedic vibe as mostly regular dudes, and two, any claim to be 'politically non-binary' as Kisin at least used to joke about is a nonsense, but he doesn't want to admit to it.
Never heard it and won't - but is it going for a Joe Rogan type vibe? You know, softhead populism with a veneer of amiability?
I've only ever seen clips of Rogan, but that sounds pretty close.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
I've never particularly 'got' that podcast, or liked the presenters. It's always felt a little 'false' to me.
I've seen some of their stuff, thought it had a kind of blunt talking appeal, it helped to get guests who would get ignored or be on the defensive in other contexts.
My impression is two things have happened to them - one, with their success they've gotten up their own arses about their significance as commentators, which kills any kind of relatable or comedic vibe as mostly regular dudes, and two, any claim to be 'politically non-binary' as Kisin at least used to joke about is a nonsense, but he doesn't want to admit to it.
Never heard it and won't - but is it going for a Joe Rogan type vibe? You know, softhead populism with a veneer of amiability?
I don't know Rogan, but no it's not soft headed populism. They've done a lot of good interviews with researchers in different fields.
No they are not better - they put off a decent chunk of middle America, just as Corbyn put off a decent chunk of middle Britain. Pick someone who has electoral success in a swing or red leaning state.
Isn't that the point though? They're doing better in certain ways, and it would be better for the Dems if others with wider appeal demonstrated similar drive and energy?
Undeniably Corbyn had the most drive and energy of any recent Labour leader or leadership contender. Did it help one iota in delivering Labour's aims and objectives, or did it actually hinder them?
Firing up your base is easy, but often counter productive.
He got a hung parliament in 2017 and 40% of the vote, still the highest Labour voteshare since Blair in 2001
And the biggest ever positive swing during a GE campaign? Course, Mrs May did contribute there.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I'm not sure that explains her position. The reality is that anyone who put their head above the parapet on that issue got a massive amount of abuse for it. I suspect that is more likely to have changed her. She hardly needs the fame or popularity.
'Poor Algerian boxer' who shouldn't be competing in the female category. That's the fault of the boxing authorities though. I'm sure JK may have overstepped the mark on occasion but compared to the vitriolic abuse she got? No contest.
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I'm not sure that explains her position. The reality is that anyone who put their head above the parapet on that issue got a massive amount of abuse for it. I suspect that is more likely to have changed her. She hardly needs the fame or popularity.
'Poor Algerian boxer' who shouldn't be competing in the female category. That's the fault of the boxing authorities though. I'm sure JK may have overstepped the mark on occasion but compared to the vitriolic abuse she got? No contest.
Yes: but that's not her fault. She certainly didn't deserve opprobrium.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I'm not sure that explains her position. The reality is that anyone who put their head above the parapet on that issue got a massive amount of abuse for it. I suspect that is more likely to have changed her. She hardly needs the fame or popularity.
It may be a bit of both. If twitter has taught us anything it is that even billionaires feed off and get radicalised by chasing the comments of random online weirdos.
They don't need it, they shouldn't be affected by it, it may not even be a conscious choice to chase fame or popularity, which as you note Rowling for one did not need as they already have it, but it still happens.
As predicted on here regarding the impossibility of cutting federal US spending much without reforming Medicaid and Medicare, via the FT:
"Elon Musk’s hyperactive efficiency drive failed to prevent US federal spending rising to a record $603bn last month, new Treasury data has revealed, highlighting the Trump administration’s difficulty in cutting the size of government.
Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency claims to have already made more than $100bn of savings but only a handful of departments registered any decreases in the first full month of the new administration.
Spending rose by $40bn compared with the same month last year on a like-for-like basis, a 7 per cent increase.
“Doge savings are so small as not to be identifiable in monthly spending totals,” said Jessica Riedl, an economic policy expert at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank, who has been analysing the initiative’s efforts.
Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, oversaw a cut in spending at the US Agency for International Development, whose monthly outlay was revealed to have been halved to $226mn, compared with $547mn in the same month last year.
However, this saving was dwarfed by the consequences of a mere 3 per cent rise in monthly healthcare spending, which cost an additional $5bn. A 6 per cent rise in social security outlays cost an additional $8bn."
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
LDs tend to be greener than the Greens who tend to be redder than Labour. So the Greens will have a better chance attacking Labour for being too right wing. They won't attract many LDs though with that strategy. I think the Greens will ignore the LDs and focus on Labour.
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
Runcorn is more white working class than the UK average and with fewer graduates and also voted Leave more than the UK did in 2016.
The Greens have zero chance in a seat like that, it will be a straight Reform v Labour fight
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
I've never particularly 'got' that podcast, or liked the presenters. It's always felt a little 'false' to me.
It's best viewed in the understanding that Francis Foster has electrodes attached to his balls and receives an electric shock if he speaks.
(Narrator: "Konstantin Kisin", "Francis Foster": are these comic-book characters? Peter Parker, Lois Lane, Otto Octavius, Lana Lang, J. Jonah Jameson... )
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
True. But Imane Khalif notwithstanding JKR has in her own mind been upholding her view of the rights of (biological, I suppose it must be pointed out) women.
I'm sure she (JKR) would look upon your intervention as yet another insurance of a (biological) man telling women what they should or shouldn't do.
SCOOP: Social Security, facing pressure from DOGE, weighs big cuts to phone service. Agency considers ending phone program that helps with claims processing and is used by millions
Sanders is picking up increasingly large numbers at his local rallies.
He's becoming the de facto U.S. opposition.
It's nice to know there is one.
There's a difference between being an opposition and being a credible alternative Government. Jeremy Corbyn for example was only the former, never the latter. Kemi Badenoch is the former at best currently.
By contrast, Tony Blair and David Cameron evolved from being opposition leaders to credible alternative Prime Ministers and so indeed did Keir Starmer though in each case the circumstances were different.
Making that journey isn't easy and doesn't always happen.
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
Runcorn is more white working class than the UK average and with fewer graduates and also voted Leave more than the UK did in 2016.
The Greens have zero chance in a seat like that, it will be a straight Reform v Labour fight
I'd agree, and just add that the Greens have a pretty low profile nationally at the moment, which won't help. Partly due to having joint leaders, who I suspect less than 5% of voters could name, let alone recognise. They have lost their only really well-known face - Caroline Lucas.
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
It is funny you say that because originally I thought this was a Reform win against Labour with the rest being also rans. Then Reform went into suicide mode and I wondered if the LDs or Greens maybe give it a go from nowhere. With negative views on Reform, Labour and Tories it is an opportunity. I guess we will know if the Greens or LDs turn up. If not they will be squeezed into nothing. I think it is worth them trying. A few weeks ago I would have thought it pointless waste of resources.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
The widely-held view that JK Rowling has changed her views since 2020 is a bit of a myth. Her worldview in 2020 was this:
Everything that followed was consistent with that. She holds that men and women are defined at conception, men cannot become women (and vice versa) under any circumstances, that medical/surgical procedures to do so are wrong, that those who promote the concept of trans cause misogynistic effects, that those who deprecate the concept of trans are hero(ines) who are unjustly abused. All perfectly legitimate views, although I don't agree with at least one of them.
What has happened since 2020 is that she has become more intense and frequent in her expression of her views, more eager to deprecate those who disagree with her, and more eager to fund those who agree with her. I think you could describe that as "radicalisation" but it's not a qualitative change, if you see what I mean.
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
The widely-held view that JK Rowling has changed her views since 2020 is a bit of a myth. Her worldview in 2020 was this:
Everything that followed was consistent with that. She holds that men and women are defined at conception, men cannot become women (and vice versa) under any circumstances, that medical/surgical procedures to do so are wrong, that those who promote the concept of trans cause misogynistic effects, that those who deprecate the concept of trans are hero(ines) who are unjustly abused. All perfectly legitimate views, although I don't agree with at least one of them.
What has happened since 2020 is that she has become more intense and frequent in her expression of her views, more eager to deprecate those who disagree with her, and more eager to fund those who agree with her. I think you could describe that as "radicalisation" but it's not a qualitative change, if you see what I mean.
I'm not sure that's quote right, because that piece is pretty nuanced: i.e., "I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people".
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
Runcorn is more white working class than the UK average and with fewer graduates and also voted Leave more than the UK did in 2016.
The Greens have zero chance in a seat like that, it will be a straight Reform v Labour fight
I'd agree, and just add that the Greens have a pretty low profile nationally at the moment, which won't help. Partly due to having joint leaders, who I suspect less than 5% of voters could name, let alone recognise. They have lost their only really well-known face - Caroline Lucas.
Can they not find her? Where did they last see her?
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
True. But Imane Khalif notwithstanding JKR has in her own mind been upholding her view of the rights of (biological, I suppose it must be pointed out) women.
I'm sure she (JKR) would look upon your intervention as yet another insurance of a (biological) man telling women what they should or shouldn't do.
I'm describing what another biological human has done. I don't believe that's been prohibited yet.
SCOOP: Social Security, facing pressure from DOGE, weighs big cuts to phone service. Agency considers ending phone program that helps with claims processing and is used by millions
ISTR that at one time, a bus company decided a good way to run to schedule was for the buses not to stop and pick up passengers.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
The widely-held view that JK Rowling has changed her views since 2020 is a bit of a myth. Her worldview in 2020 was this:
Everything that followed was consistent with that. She holds that men and women are defined at conception, men cannot become women (and vice versa) under any circumstances, that medical/surgical procedures to do so are wrong, that those who promote the concept of trans cause misogynistic effects, that those who deprecate the concept of trans are hero(ines) who are unjustly abused. All perfectly legitimate views, although I don't agree with at least one of them.
What has happened since 2020 is that she has become more intense and frequent in her expression of her views, more eager to deprecate those who disagree with her, and more eager to fund those who agree with her. I think you could describe that as "radicalisation" but it's not a qualitative change, if you see what I mean.
I'm not sure that's quote right, because that piece is pretty nuanced: i.e., "I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people".
Saying that transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people is not the same as saying that the rest of society must treat people who have transitioned the same as biological members of their new gender in all circumstances.
Playing Devil's Advocate - housing simply isn't much of an issue for most people in the UK, as the polling keeps finding. On average, housing costs are the lowest they have been (as a proportion of income) since the early 1980s. Health, the economy, immigration, even crime and defence are higher - even for 25-49 year olds.
What has happened is a squeezing of the mortgage class, with renters and outright-owners increasing. There is also a geographical element, with the "housing crisis" primarily affecting the cities where our journalists live. People in the north of England are concerned about housing to the smallest degree anywhere in the UK, for example.
This suits the two main parties just fine, given those are client votes - young renters in university/growth cities vote Labour, owners in the Shires vote Conservative. I don't think housing is the reason at all for the rise of Reform, whose voters are more likely than others to own outright or live in council housing.
I agree in part, but you are glossing over demographics.
Housing costs are “lowest since the 1980s” because of the growing number of elderly no-mortgage homeowners.
Anyone under about 50, and living in the only productive region, ie London and the South East, is fucked. Economically, that’s a disaster.
I agree the political ramifications are less obvious than “this is why Cons and Lab are screwed”.
They have milked the rest of the country for a long time so just desserts.
Deserts.
Not sand my friend , think puddings
I know, it is still deserts though - as in deserving something.
Me being an annoying PB pedant - got to keep my reputation up.
You are totally wrong, it is they get their "just desserts" it is most certainly not "deserts" @Luckyguy1983
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
The widely-held view that JK Rowling has changed her views since 2020 is a bit of a myth. Her worldview in 2020 was this:
Everything that followed was consistent with that. She holds that men and women are defined at conception, men cannot become women (and vice versa) under any circumstances, that medical/surgical procedures to do so are wrong, that those who promote the concept of trans cause misogynistic effects, that those who deprecate the concept of trans are hero(ines) who are unjustly abused. All perfectly legitimate views, although I don't agree with at least one of them.
What has happened since 2020 is that she has become more intense and frequent in her expression of her views, more eager to deprecate those who disagree with her, and more eager to fund those who agree with her. I think you could describe that as "radicalisation" but it's not a qualitative change, if you see what I mean.
I'm not sure that's quote right, because that piece is pretty nuanced: i.e., "I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people".
Hmmm. Fair point. But it's difficult to reconcile her views that medical/surgical procedures are wrong, unless I've misunderstood her (has she ever *recommended* such for individuals who have not yet transitioned?)
From the excellent Sanders link, that Nigel posted : Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says “these are the scariest times in my life” because of Elon Musk’s growing power and what the former presidential candidate described as both an “oligarchy” and “the movement toward authoritarianism.”
“It is not just they want to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut programs for working people. Frankly, that’s happened before,” Sanders said of powerful conservatives in America during an interview with Jon Lovett on “Pod Save America.”
“You combine that with the power of the oligarchy in general, you combine that with Mr. Musk owning Twitter and able to send out his messages to hundreds of millions of people,” Sanders said, ticking off what he sees as the biggest threats to progressivism and economic justice in the United States.
He also pointed out the exodus of veteran journalists from The Washington Post and owner Jeff Bezos pledging to dedicate the venerable paper’s opinion section to personal liberties and free markets.
“You combine that with the fact that people like Bezos, the second-wealthiest person in the country, fired or got rid of most of his editorial staff and turning it into a right-wing thing,” he said.
Sanders argued that President Trump’s threats against the media and other critics represents a movement toward authoritarianism.
“Trump is suing major media outlets and is threatening to investigate PBS and NPR,” he said. “So it’s not only the power of money, it’s also combined with that the movement toward authoritarianism.”
Sanders argued that Trump and Musk are violating the law by freezing congressionally appropriated funding and shuttering federal agencies without permission from Congress.
“When Trump unilaterally cuts federal funding that was passed by Congress, that is illegal, that is unconstitutional,” he said.
“When you have the vice president saying, well, in his judgment the courts don’t have the right to stop unconstitutional acts of the president, man, that is authoritarianism,” he argued. “He is now trying to end what the Founding Fathers was pretty smart about, creating a form of government where there were checks and balances.
I'm slightly surprised Britain doesn't come out of this data worse than it does. We appear to better off than the Nethetlands, where everything seems perfect.
What do mean "worse"? E.g. Germany has lower housing costs, both renting and with mortgage, than we do. That includes people on lower incomes. Over 60% live in flats, compared with 15% here.
Our economy is structured around owning a detached house in a way that most other European economies do not.
It's structured in such a way as to put a large part of anyone's income into a debt generating contract as opposed to savings/discretionary spending. The second largest purchase, a car, is similarly tied to a debt generating contract.
The nation as individuals are living on credit (i.e. debt) as is the government. Somewhere in the past we have lost our senses.
Wouldn't a college education be the second largest purchase. come to think of it? But the same applies, all the more.
shedloads never pay a penny back as they end up in McDonald's or behind a bar etc. If you pay it back you are on a good salary.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
I've never particularly 'got' that podcast, or liked the presenters. It's always felt a little 'false' to me.
It's best viewed in the understanding that Francis Foster has electrodes attached to his balls and receives an electric shock if he speaks.
(Narrator: "Konstantin Kisin", "Francis Foster": are these comic-book characters? Peter Parker, Lois Lane, Otto Octavius, Lana Lang, J. Jonah Jameson... )
Just don't mention that to Stan Lee. Raj did that in Big Bang Theory and rather upset the old fellow.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
True. But Imane Khalif notwithstanding JKR has in her own mind been upholding her view of the rights of (biological, I suppose it must be pointed out) women.
I'm sure she (JKR) would look upon your intervention as yet another insurance of a (biological) man telling women what they should or shouldn't do.
I'm describing what another biological human has done. I don't believe that's been prohibited yet.
SCOOP: Social Security, facing pressure from DOGE, weighs big cuts to phone service. Agency considers ending phone program that helps with claims processing and is used by millions
ISTR that at one time, a bus company decided a good way to run to schedule was for the buses not to stop and pick up passengers.
Stratford Blue, I think?
One reason why it was fully absorbed into Midland Red.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I'm not sure that explains her position. The reality is that anyone who put their head above the parapet on that issue got a massive amount of abuse for it. I suspect that is more likely to have changed her. She hardly needs the fame or popularity.
'Poor Algerian boxer' who shouldn't be competing in the female category. That's the fault of the boxing authorities though. I'm sure JK may have overstepped the mark on occasion but compared to the vitriolic abuse she got? No contest.
Exactly , that was no woman for sure they should have been in the men's competition.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
Playing Devil's Advocate - housing simply isn't much of an issue for most people in the UK, as the polling keeps finding. On average, housing costs are the lowest they have been (as a proportion of income) since the early 1980s. Health, the economy, immigration, even crime and defence are higher - even for 25-49 year olds.
What has happened is a squeezing of the mortgage class, with renters and outright-owners increasing. There is also a geographical element, with the "housing crisis" primarily affecting the cities where our journalists live. People in the north of England are concerned about housing to the smallest degree anywhere in the UK, for example.
This suits the two main parties just fine, given those are client votes - young renters in university/growth cities vote Labour, owners in the Shires vote Conservative. I don't think housing is the reason at all for the rise of Reform, whose voters are more likely than others to own outright or live in council housing.
I agree in part, but you are glossing over demographics.
Housing costs are “lowest since the 1980s” because of the growing number of elderly no-mortgage homeowners.
Anyone under about 50, and living in the only productive region, ie London and the South East, is fucked. Economically, that’s a disaster.
I agree the political ramifications are less obvious than “this is why Cons and Lab are screwed”.
They have milked the rest of the country for a long time so just desserts.
Deserts.
Not sand my friend , think puddings
I know, it is still deserts though - as in deserving something.
Me being an annoying PB pedant - got to keep my reputation up.
You are totally wrong, it is they get their "just desserts" it is most certainly not "deserts" @Luckyguy1983
PS: yours is likely an American version so pants trousers
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
The widely-held view that JK Rowling has changed her views since 2020 is a bit of a myth. Her worldview in 2020 was this:
Everything that followed was consistent with that. She holds that men and women are defined at conception, men cannot become women (and vice versa) under any circumstances, that medical/surgical procedures to do so are wrong, that those who promote the concept of trans cause misogynistic effects, that those who deprecate the concept of trans are hero(ines) who are unjustly abused. All perfectly legitimate views, although I don't agree with at least one of them.
What has happened since 2020 is that she has become more intense and frequent in her expression of her views, more eager to deprecate those who disagree with her, and more eager to fund those who agree with her. I think you could describe that as "radicalisation" but it's not a qualitative change, if you see what I mean.
I'm not sure that's quote right, because that piece is pretty nuanced: i.e., "I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people".
Saying that transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people is not the same as saying that the rest of society must treat people who have transitioned the same as biological members of their new gender in all circumstances.
The housing crisis could be ended in a stroke by reverting out planning system the system we had in the 1930s that worked really well.
Unfortunately too many want to prevent construction though.
As the voice of nuance on here today, reverting to the planning system we had in the 1930s would be a positive and significant step. But it would still take time for actual homes to be built.
See Jonathan Reynolds finally apologies in commons today for his lies about being a solicitor in a speech in HoC.
Won't stop the review by the SRA. He should resign.
Meanwhile LibDem Rachel Gilmour is in hot water. (Is she one of these great LD MPs I keep hearing about?)
Said to have called a security guard at EDF a 'c**t' and 'obnoxious t**t' and 'bet he votes f***** Tory'. When shown a film there, asked 'why are you showing me this s**t' and 'don't show me this s**t again'. When asked a question by a constituent, was said to have told them that she wasn't going to 'chat s**t' with them. Charmer.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
See Jonathan Reynolds finally apologies in commons today for his lies about being a solicitor in a speech in HoC.
Won't stop the review by the SRA. He should resign.
Meanwhile LibDem Rachel Gilmour is in hot water. (Is she one of these great LD MPs I keep hearing about?)
Said to have called a security guard at EDF a 'c**t' and 'obnoxious t**t' and 'bet he votes f***** Tory'. When shown a film there, asked 'why are you showing me this s**t' and 'don't show me this s**t again'. When asked a question by a constituent, was said to have told them that she wasn't going to 'chat s**t' with them. Charmer.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
The widely-held view that JK Rowling has changed her views since 2020 is a bit of a myth. Her worldview in 2020 was this:
Everything that followed was consistent with that. She holds that men and women are defined at conception, men cannot become women (and vice versa) under any circumstances, that medical/surgical procedures to do so are wrong, that those who promote the concept of trans cause misogynistic effects, that those who deprecate the concept of trans are hero(ines) who are unjustly abused. All perfectly legitimate views, although I don't agree with at least one of them.
What has happened since 2020 is that she has become more intense and frequent in her expression of her views, more eager to deprecate those who disagree with her, and more eager to fund those who agree with her. I think you could describe that as "radicalisation" but it's not a qualitative change, if you see what I mean.
I'm not sure that's quote right, because that piece is pretty nuanced: i.e., "I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people".
Saying that transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people is not the same as saying that the rest of society must treat people who have transitioned the same as biological members of their new gender in all circumstances.
Obviously.
It might be obvious to you but for a lot of people it's very contentious.
From the excellent Sanders link, that Nigel posted : Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says “these are the scariest times in my life” because of Elon Musk’s growing power and what the former presidential candidate described as both an “oligarchy” and “the movement toward authoritarianism.”
“It is not just they want to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut programs for working people. Frankly, that’s happened before,” Sanders said of powerful conservatives in America during an interview with Jon Lovett on “Pod Save America.”
“You combine that with the power of the oligarchy in general, you combine that with Mr. Musk owning Twitter and able to send out his messages to hundreds of millions of people,” Sanders said, ticking off what he sees as the biggest threats to progressivism and economic justice in the United States.
He also pointed out the exodus of veteran journalists from The Washington Post and owner Jeff Bezos pledging to dedicate the venerable paper’s opinion section to personal liberties and free markets.
“You combine that with the fact that people like Bezos, the second-wealthiest person in the country, fired or got rid of most of his editorial staff and turning it into a right-wing thing,” he said.
Sanders argued that President Trump’s threats against the media and other critics represents a movement toward authoritarianism.
“Trump is suing major media outlets and is threatening to investigate PBS and NPR,” he said. “So it’s not only the power of money, it’s also combined with that the movement toward authoritarianism.”
Sanders argued that Trump and Musk are violating the law by freezing congressionally appropriated funding and shuttering federal agencies without permission from Congress.
“When Trump unilaterally cuts federal funding that was passed by Congress, that is illegal, that is unconstitutional,” he said.
“When you have the vice president saying, well, in his judgment the courts don’t have the right to stop unconstitutional acts of the president, man, that is authoritarianism,” he argued. “He is now trying to end what the Founding Fathers was pretty smart about, creating a form of government where there were checks and balances.
“This is a scary moment,” Sanders declared.
Agree. However one thought crosses my mind which may ameliorate things a bit. Could it be that Trump is scary in all the ways we have instanced except perhaps one?
The only area where I sense that Trump is both saying what he sort of thinks, and that what he thinks uniquely accords with all normal people's thoughts too, is when he says he is opposed to the killing of men, women and children in war.
A dangerous prediction; but on balance I don't think he is going to go round killing Canadians, or having his soldiers killed by Canadians. Or anyone else if he can help it. I don't think he wants it on his conscience.
This, I suggest if correct, distinguishes him from the company of Putin and other monsters - none of whom could care less - and changes the odds on various sub-optimal events. Does anyone get the same feeling?
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I'm not sure that explains her position. The reality is that anyone who put their head above the parapet on that issue got a massive amount of abuse for it. I suspect that is more likely to have changed her. She hardly needs the fame or popularity.
'Poor Algerian boxer' who shouldn't be competing in the female category. That's the fault of the boxing authorities though. I'm sure JK may have overstepped the mark on occasion but compared to the vitriolic abuse she got? No contest.
Exactly , that was no woman for sure they should have been in the men's competition.
But they were "observed" as female at birth which according to some people should be the be-all and end-all of the matter.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
From the excellent Sanders link, that Nigel posted : Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says “these are the scariest times in my life” because of Elon Musk’s growing power and what the former presidential candidate described as both an “oligarchy” and “the movement toward authoritarianism.”
“It is not just they want to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut programs for working people. Frankly, that’s happened before,” Sanders said of powerful conservatives in America during an interview with Jon Lovett on “Pod Save America.”
“You combine that with the power of the oligarchy in general, you combine that with Mr. Musk owning Twitter and able to send out his messages to hundreds of millions of people,” Sanders said, ticking off what he sees as the biggest threats to progressivism and economic justice in the United States.
He also pointed out the exodus of veteran journalists from The Washington Post and owner Jeff Bezos pledging to dedicate the venerable paper’s opinion section to personal liberties and free markets.
“You combine that with the fact that people like Bezos, the second-wealthiest person in the country, fired or got rid of most of his editorial staff and turning it into a right-wing thing,” he said.
Sanders argued that President Trump’s threats against the media and other critics represents a movement toward authoritarianism.
“Trump is suing major media outlets and is threatening to investigate PBS and NPR,” he said. “So it’s not only the power of money, it’s also combined with that the movement toward authoritarianism.”
Sanders argued that Trump and Musk are violating the law by freezing congressionally appropriated funding and shuttering federal agencies without permission from Congress.
“When Trump unilaterally cuts federal funding that was passed by Congress, that is illegal, that is unconstitutional,” he said.
“When you have the vice president saying, well, in his judgment the courts don’t have the right to stop unconstitutional acts of the president, man, that is authoritarianism,” he argued. “He is now trying to end what the Founding Fathers was pretty smart about, creating a form of government where there were checks and balances.
“This is a scary moment,” Sanders declared.
Agree. However one thought crosses my mind which may ameliorate things a bit. Could it be that Trump is scary in all the ways we have instanced except perhaps one?
The only area where I sense that Trump is both saying what he sort of thinks, and that what he thinks uniquely accords with all normal people's thoughts too, is when he says he is opposed to the killing of men, women and children in war.
A dangerous prediction; but on balance I don't think he is going to go round killing Canadians, or having his soldiers killed by Canadians. Or anyone else if he can help it. I don't think he wants it on his conscience.
This, I suggest if correct, distinguishes him from the company of Putin and other monsters - none of whom could care less - and changes the odds on various sub-optimal events. Does anyone get the same feeling?
I remember seeing a tweet when Trump v1 happened:
The only thing I'm clinging onto is that global thermonuclear war would be bad for the golfing & hotel industry.
See Jonathan Reynolds finally apologies in commons today for his lies about being a solicitor in a speech in HoC.
Won't stop the review by the SRA. He should resign.
Meanwhile LibDem Rachel Gilmour is in hot water. (Is she one of these great LD MPs I keep hearing about?)
Said to have called a security guard at EDF a 'c**t' and 'obnoxious t**t' and 'bet he votes f***** Tory'. When shown a film there, asked 'why are you showing me this s**t' and 'don't show me this s**t again'. When asked a question by a constituent, was said to have told them that she wasn't going to 'chat s**t' with them. Charmer.
A bit outrageous she called the security card that, rather than the management where everyone would be nodding in agreement.
She must be extremely stupid. The lowest ranked people (and security guards are right at the bottom) have to act exactly according to management dictates. Or be fired.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
They're not clowns. It was Konstantin Kisin who made that point. One I am still puzzled by. But don't forget by his own definition he ISN'T English himself. He even claims his English born son will never be English. It's odd to me and I think it is very strange to question someone else's identity.
Part of the problem is the fact that migrants have tended to adopt a British rather than English identity. The latter does then get seen as more of an ethnic construct. But with the future of the UK in doubt there is obviously a need for some kind of civic English identity which obviously lots of non-white people in England wish to embrace.
Who is more “English”?
England cricket captain, Douglas Jardine, Winchester, Oxford.
Former PM Rishi Sunak, Winchester, Oxford.
One was born in India if that helps.
It's hard to think of someone more English than Cliff Richard or Joanna Lumley. Both born in India.
From the excellent Sanders link, that Nigel posted : Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says “these are the scariest times in my life” because of Elon Musk’s growing power and what the former presidential candidate described as both an “oligarchy” and “the movement toward authoritarianism.”
“It is not just they want to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut programs for working people. Frankly, that’s happened before,” Sanders said of powerful conservatives in America during an interview with Jon Lovett on “Pod Save America.”
“You combine that with the power of the oligarchy in general, you combine that with Mr. Musk owning Twitter and able to send out his messages to hundreds of millions of people,” Sanders said, ticking off what he sees as the biggest threats to progressivism and economic justice in the United States.
He also pointed out the exodus of veteran journalists from The Washington Post and owner Jeff Bezos pledging to dedicate the venerable paper’s opinion section to personal liberties and free markets.
“You combine that with the fact that people like Bezos, the second-wealthiest person in the country, fired or got rid of most of his editorial staff and turning it into a right-wing thing,” he said.
Sanders argued that President Trump’s threats against the media and other critics represents a movement toward authoritarianism.
“Trump is suing major media outlets and is threatening to investigate PBS and NPR,” he said. “So it’s not only the power of money, it’s also combined with that the movement toward authoritarianism.”
Sanders argued that Trump and Musk are violating the law by freezing congressionally appropriated funding and shuttering federal agencies without permission from Congress.
“When Trump unilaterally cuts federal funding that was passed by Congress, that is illegal, that is unconstitutional,” he said.
“When you have the vice president saying, well, in his judgment the courts don’t have the right to stop unconstitutional acts of the president, man, that is authoritarianism,” he argued. “He is now trying to end what the Founding Fathers was pretty smart about, creating a form of government where there were checks and balances.
“This is a scary moment,” Sanders declared.
Agree. However one thought crosses my mind which may ameliorate things a bit. Could it be that Trump is scary in all the ways we have instanced except perhaps one?
The only area where I sense that Trump is both saying what he sort of thinks, and that what he thinks uniquely accords with all normal people's thoughts too, is when he says he is opposed to the killing of men, women and children in war.
A dangerous prediction; but on balance I don't think he is going to go round killing Canadians, or having his soldiers killed by Canadians. Or anyone else if he can help it. I don't think he wants it on his conscience.
This, I suggest if correct, distinguishes him from the company of Putin and other monsters - none of whom could care less - and changes the odds on various sub-optimal events. Does anyone get the same feeling?
Not so sure, because he believes might is right and the weaker side should avoid bloodshed by surrender ASAP
From the excellent Sanders link, that Nigel posted : Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says “these are the scariest times in my life” because of Elon Musk’s growing power and what the former presidential candidate described as both an “oligarchy” and “the movement toward authoritarianism.”
“It is not just they want to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut programs for working people. Frankly, that’s happened before,” Sanders said of powerful conservatives in America during an interview with Jon Lovett on “Pod Save America.”
“You combine that with the power of the oligarchy in general, you combine that with Mr. Musk owning Twitter and able to send out his messages to hundreds of millions of people,” Sanders said, ticking off what he sees as the biggest threats to progressivism and economic justice in the United States.
He also pointed out the exodus of veteran journalists from The Washington Post and owner Jeff Bezos pledging to dedicate the venerable paper’s opinion section to personal liberties and free markets.
“You combine that with the fact that people like Bezos, the second-wealthiest person in the country, fired or got rid of most of his editorial staff and turning it into a right-wing thing,” he said.
Sanders argued that President Trump’s threats against the media and other critics represents a movement toward authoritarianism.
“Trump is suing major media outlets and is threatening to investigate PBS and NPR,” he said. “So it’s not only the power of money, it’s also combined with that the movement toward authoritarianism.”
Sanders argued that Trump and Musk are violating the law by freezing congressionally appropriated funding and shuttering federal agencies without permission from Congress.
“When Trump unilaterally cuts federal funding that was passed by Congress, that is illegal, that is unconstitutional,” he said.
“When you have the vice president saying, well, in his judgment the courts don’t have the right to stop unconstitutional acts of the president, man, that is authoritarianism,” he argued. “He is now trying to end what the Founding Fathers was pretty smart about, creating a form of government where there were checks and balances.
“This is a scary moment,” Sanders declared.
Agree. However one thought crosses my mind which may ameliorate things a bit. Could it be that Trump is scary in all the ways we have instanced except perhaps one?
The only area where I sense that Trump is both saying what he sort of thinks, and that what he thinks uniquely accords with all normal people's thoughts too, is when he says he is opposed to the killing of men, women and children in war.
A dangerous prediction; but on balance I don't think he is going to go round killing Canadians, or having his soldiers killed by Canadians. Or anyone else if he can help it. I don't think he wants it on his conscience.
This, I suggest if correct, distinguishes him from the company of Putin and other monsters - none of whom could care less - and changes the odds on various sub-optimal events. Does anyone get the same feeling?
I remember seeing a tweet when Trump v1 happened:
The only thing I'm clinging onto is that global thermonuclear war would be bad for the golfing & hotel industry.
He can't see the woods for the trees at the moment, but hopefully will be able to iron it out and perhaps develop a hybrid system for the governance of Canada. I wouldn't putter any money on it though, let alone a big wedge.
Telegraph: According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
They're not clowns. It was Konstantin Kisin who made that point. One I am still puzzled by. But don't forget by his own definition he ISN'T English himself. He even claims his English born son will never be English. It's odd to me and I think it is very strange to question someone else's identity.
Part of the problem is the fact that migrants have tended to adopt a British rather than English identity. The latter does then get seen as more of an ethnic construct. But with the future of the UK in doubt there is obviously a need for some kind of civic English identity which obviously lots of non-white people in England wish to embrace.
Who is more “English”?
England cricket captain, Douglas Jardine, Winchester, Oxford.
Former PM Rishi Sunak, Winchester, Oxford.
One was born in India if that helps.
It's hard to think of someone more English than Cliff Richard or Joanna Lumley. Both born in India.
Telegraph: According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
*BND = Germany’s foreign intelligence agency
Odd reporting. I don't think many doubt it came from Wuhan so what's that 80 to 95 percent bollocks. I'd be interested to no what kind of accident they think it was.
Telegraph: According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
*BND = Germany’s foreign intelligence agency
Odd reporting. I don't think many doubt it came from Wuhan so what's that 80 to 95 percent bollocks. I'd be interested to no what kind of accident they think it was.
They think it was an accident in a laboratory. As it says right there ..
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
They're not clowns. It was Konstantin Kisin who made that point. One I am still puzzled by. But don't forget by his own definition he ISN'T English himself. He even claims his English born son will never be English. It's odd to me and I think it is very strange to question someone else's identity.
Part of the problem is the fact that migrants have tended to adopt a British rather than English identity. The latter does then get seen as more of an ethnic construct. But with the future of the UK in doubt there is obviously a need for some kind of civic English identity which obviously lots of non-white people in England wish to embrace.
Who is more “English”?
England cricket captain, Douglas Jardine, Winchester, Oxford.
Former PM Rishi Sunak, Winchester, Oxford.
One was born in India if that helps.
It's hard to think of someone more English than Cliff Richard or Joanna Lumley. Both born in India.
Jardine is a Scottish surname I believe.
Indeed. William Jardine and James Matheson, 2 Scots on the make, formed Jardine Matheson in China in 1832.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
Telegraph: According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
*BND = Germany’s foreign intelligence agency
Odd reporting. I don't think many doubt it came from Wuhan so what's that 80 to 95 percent bollocks. I'd be interested to no what kind of accident they think it was.
They think it was an accident in a laboratory. As it says right there ..
There are many accidents in laboratories. Do they think it was a manufactured virus or natural? Did someone drop a flask? Did a monkey bite someone? Not a hard question to answer. And my real query was the bit about being certain it came from Wuhan. We all know that.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
They're not clowns. It was Konstantin Kisin who made that point. One I am still puzzled by. But don't forget by his own definition he ISN'T English himself. He even claims his English born son will never be English. It's odd to me and I think it is very strange to question someone else's identity.
Part of the problem is the fact that migrants have tended to adopt a British rather than English identity. The latter does then get seen as more of an ethnic construct. But with the future of the UK in doubt there is obviously a need for some kind of civic English identity which obviously lots of non-white people in England wish to embrace.
Who is more “English”?
England cricket captain, Douglas Jardine, Winchester, Oxford.
Former PM Rishi Sunak, Winchester, Oxford.
One was born in India if that helps.
It's hard to think of someone more English than Cliff Richard or Joanna Lumley. Both born in India.
Swift, Wilde and Yeats surely out-rank them? (Ok, maybe not Joanna Lumley)
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
I don't believe in unisex lavatories and changing rooms. That issue can be solved simply by conferring the right to use the assumed gender of toilets and changing rooms only when surgical transition is complete. I have never heard of a fully transitioned transsexual molesting women in a toilet - though I admit anything can happen. I imagine the likelihood is the same or less as a woman doing it. The issue is perverts wanting to use these spaces as a kink. Nobody (or near as damn it nobody) goes through a full diagnosis and surgical transition to indulge a kink.
The sports issue is harder - there I think all you can do is insist trans athletes compete as their birth gender or in special competitions.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
'You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.'
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
I wouldn't bother. Lab leak is an article of belief now, rather than a topic for serious debate.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
They're not clowns. It was Konstantin Kisin who made that point. One I am still puzzled by. But don't forget by his own definition he ISN'T English himself. He even claims his English born son will never be English. It's odd to me and I think it is very strange to question someone else's identity.
Part of the problem is the fact that migrants have tended to adopt a British rather than English identity. The latter does then get seen as more of an ethnic construct. But with the future of the UK in doubt there is obviously a need for some kind of civic English identity which obviously lots of non-white people in England wish to embrace.
Who is more “English”?
England cricket captain, Douglas Jardine, Winchester, Oxford.
Former PM Rishi Sunak, Winchester, Oxford.
One was born in India if that helps.
It's hard to think of someone more English than Cliff Richard or Joanna Lumley. Both born in India.
Jardine is a Scottish surname I believe.
Indeed. William Jardine and James Matheson, 2 Scots on the make, formed Jardine Matheson in China in 1832.
Also Sir William Jardine of Applegarth. A fine amateur zoologist. Edit: a fine zoologist full stop (partly cos there were very few pros in the early-mid C19 ...)
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
'You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.'
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
How would you know that person was not a normal woman?
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
I don't believe in unisex lavatories and changing rooms. That issue can be solved simply by conferring the right to use the assumed gender of toilets and changing rooms only when surgical transition is complete. I have never heard of a fully transitioned transsexual molesting women in a toilet - though I admit anything can happen. I imagine the likelihood is the same or less as a woman doing it. The issue is perverts wanting to use these spaces as a kink. Nobody (or near as damn it nobody) goes through a full diagnosis and surgical transition to indulge a kink.
The sports issue is harder - there I think all you can do is insist trans athletes compete as their birth gender or in special competitions.
A number of airports in the US have gone to all cubicle bathrooms, and I must admit, it seems to work pretty well. Certainly much better than I would have expected.
I'm slightly surprised Britain doesn't come out of this data worse than it does. We appear to better off than the Nethetlands, where everything seems perfect.
What do mean "worse"? E.g. Germany has lower housing costs, both renting and with mortgage, than we do. That includes people on lower incomes. Over 60% live in flats, compared with 15% here.
Our economy is structured around owning a detached house in a way that most other European economies do not.
It's structured in such a way as to put a large part of anyone's income into a debt generating contract as opposed to savings/discretionary spending. The second largest purchase, a car, is similarly tied to a debt generating contract.
The nation as individuals are living on credit (i.e. debt) as is the government. Somewhere in the past we have lost our senses.
Wouldn't a college education be the second largest purchase. come to think of it? But the same applies, all the more.
shedloads never pay a penny back as they end up in McDonald's or behind a bar etc. If you pay it back you are on a good salary.
Or emigrate.
And none of this helps the debt issue one bit. At least your jamjar can be repossessed.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
I'm not sure the first part of that logic is terribly logical. It is surely far more likely that two differing samples of the virus were leaked (either on the same occasion or different occasions) than that lightning struck twice in the wet market.
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
I guessed yesterday at the opposite - Greens coming back to Labour to vote tactically against Reform. I'd say you're probably better than me at these predictions, so you could be right.
Oh, I could well be wrong.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
Can't say anything about other countries, but the LibDems have got very little in common with the FDP, and the British Green parties are also quite different to the German Greens. The German Greens are a centrist party with an emphasis on Net Zero, the FDP are a business lobby group whose main policy is giving tax giveaways to the very wealthiest.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
And how do you know that the lab worker identifies as female?
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
And how do you know that the lab worker identifies as female?
Assuming that Chinese people adopt traditional gender roles...
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
'You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.'
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
How would you know that person was not a normal woman?
What is a normal woman? Is a normal woman equipped with testes?
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
Comments
We will see what difference Labour's pledge to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years makes
England cricket captain, Douglas Jardine, Winchester, Oxford.
Former PM Rishi Sunak, Winchester, Oxford.
One was born in India if that helps.
I don't understand the objection here - I'm not saying they should go full Corbyn and ignore anyone not in their base, quite the opposite. But the electoral cycle never really seems to end over there, they need some energy, and it would be better if fringe figures were not the ones making the running.
My impression is two things have happened to them - one, with their success they've gotten up their own arses about their significance as commentators, which kills any kind of relatable or comedic vibe as mostly regular dudes, and two, any claim to be 'politically non-binary' as Kisin at least used to joke about is a nonsense, but he doesn't want to admit to it.
The Dems best strategy is to be united and accept the leadership of a quiet moderate who appeals to the centre.
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/berichte-corona-stammt-laut-bnd-doch-aus-chinesischem-labor-regierung-haelt-akten-seit-5-jahren-geheim-li.2306480
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'Poor Algerian boxer' who shouldn't be competing in the female category. That's the fault of the boxing authorities though. I'm sure JK may have overstepped the mark on occasion but compared to the vitriolic abuse she got? No contest.
However, my guess is that the Greens are going to throw the kitchen sink at this one, because right now they're stuck behind the LibDems in the polls. And if you look at every other country in Europe, the Greens are on 15-20% (while D66/FDP/etc are on 5%), so they probably have a lot of opportunity to eat into the LD vote. But doing that requires electoral success. So, I think they are going to work very hard here, and the Labour vote is soft and Keir Starmer is not particularly popular.
They don't need it, they shouldn't be affected by it, it may not even be a conscious choice to chase fame or popularity, which as you note Rowling for one did not need as they already have it, but it still happens.
"Elon Musk’s hyperactive efficiency drive failed to prevent US federal spending rising to a record $603bn last month, new Treasury data has revealed, highlighting the Trump administration’s difficulty in cutting the size of government.
Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency claims to have already made more than $100bn of savings but only a handful of departments registered any decreases in the first full month of the new administration.
Spending rose by $40bn compared with the same month last year on a like-for-like basis, a 7 per cent increase.
“Doge savings are so small as not to be identifiable in monthly spending totals,” said Jessica Riedl, an economic policy expert at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank, who has been analysing the initiative’s efforts.
Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, oversaw a cut in spending at the US Agency for International Development, whose monthly outlay was revealed to have been halved to $226mn, compared with $547mn in the same month last year.
However, this saving was dwarfed by the consequences of a mere 3 per cent rise in monthly healthcare spending, which cost an additional $5bn. A 6 per cent rise in social security outlays cost an additional $8bn."
https://on.ft.com/4ht1TzV
So the Greens will have a better chance attacking Labour for being too right wing.
They won't attract many LDs though with that strategy. I think the Greens will ignore the LDs and focus on Labour.
The Greens have zero chance in a seat like that, it will be a straight Reform v Labour fight
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Runcorn and Helsby
(Narrator: "Konstantin Kisin", "Francis Foster": are these comic-book characters? Peter Parker, Lois Lane, Otto Octavius, Lana Lang, J. Jonah Jameson... )
I'm sure she (JKR) would look upon your intervention as yet another insurance of a (biological) man telling women what they should or shouldn't do.
https://x.com/ktumulty/status/1899858341540802726
SCOOP: Social Security, facing pressure from DOGE, weighs big cuts to phone service. Agency considers ending phone program that helps with claims processing and is used by millions
By contrast, Tony Blair and David Cameron evolved from being opposition leaders to credible alternative Prime Ministers and so indeed did Keir Starmer though in each case the circumstances were different.
Making that journey isn't easy and doesn't always happen.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
Everything that followed was consistent with that. She holds that men and women are defined at conception, men cannot become women (and vice versa) under any circumstances, that medical/surgical procedures to do so are wrong, that those who promote the concept of trans cause misogynistic effects, that those who deprecate the concept of trans are hero(ines) who are unjustly abused. All perfectly legitimate views, although I don't agree with at least one of them.
What has happened since 2020 is that she has become more intense and frequent in her expression of her views, more eager to deprecate those who disagree with her, and more eager to fund those who agree with her. I think you could describe that as "radicalisation" but it's not a qualitative change, if you see what I mean.
(boom-tish. Here all week, folx)
Unfortunately too many want to prevent construction though.
Sanders is the main opposition now.
PS: yours is likely an American version so pants
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says “these are the scariest times in my life” because of Elon Musk’s growing power and what the former presidential candidate described as both an “oligarchy” and “the movement toward authoritarianism.”
“It is not just they want to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut programs for working people. Frankly, that’s happened before,” Sanders said of powerful conservatives in America during an interview with Jon Lovett on “Pod Save America.”
“You combine that with the power of the oligarchy in general, you combine that with Mr. Musk owning Twitter and able to send out his messages to hundreds of millions of people,” Sanders said, ticking off what he sees as the biggest threats to progressivism and economic justice in the United States.
He also pointed out the exodus of veteran journalists from The Washington Post and owner Jeff Bezos pledging to dedicate the venerable paper’s opinion section to personal liberties and free markets.
“You combine that with the fact that people like Bezos, the second-wealthiest person in the country, fired or got rid of most of his editorial staff and turning it into a right-wing thing,” he said.
Sanders argued that President Trump’s threats against the media and other critics represents a movement toward authoritarianism.
“Trump is suing major media outlets and is threatening to investigate PBS and NPR,” he said. “So it’s not only the power of money, it’s also combined with that the movement toward authoritarianism.”
Sanders argued that Trump and Musk are violating the law by freezing congressionally appropriated funding and shuttering federal agencies without permission from Congress.
“When Trump unilaterally cuts federal funding that was passed by Congress, that is illegal, that is unconstitutional,” he said.
“When you have the vice president saying, well, in his judgment the courts don’t have the right to stop unconstitutional acts of the president, man, that is authoritarianism,” he argued. “He is now trying to end what the Founding Fathers was pretty smart about, creating a form of government where there were checks and balances.
“This is a scary moment,” Sanders declared.
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
Columbia J-school students from abroad are being told to obey in advance by their dean.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/nyregion/columbia-university-trump-protests.html?smid=bs-share
https://bsky.app/profile/froomkin.bsky.social/post/3lk7dv7uawc2w
One reason why it was fully absorbed into Midland Red.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
Won't stop the review by the SRA. He should resign.
Meanwhile LibDem Rachel Gilmour is in hot water. (Is she one of these great LD MPs I keep hearing about?)
Said to have called a security guard at EDF a 'c**t' and 'obnoxious t**t' and 'bet he votes f***** Tory'. When shown a film there, asked 'why are you showing me this s**t' and 'don't show me this s**t again'. When asked a question by a constituent, was said to have told them that she wasn't going to 'chat s**t' with them. Charmer.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2026222/Rachel-Gilmour-hinkley-swearing
The only area where I sense that Trump is both saying what he sort of thinks, and that what he thinks uniquely accords with all normal people's thoughts too, is when he says he is opposed to the killing of men, women and children in war.
A dangerous prediction; but on balance I don't think he is going to go round killing Canadians, or having his soldiers killed by Canadians. Or anyone else if he can help it. I don't think he wants it on his conscience.
This, I suggest if correct, distinguishes him from the company of Putin and other monsters - none of whom could care less - and changes the odds on various sub-optimal events. Does anyone get the same feeling?
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
The only thing I'm clinging onto is that global thermonuclear war would be bad for the golfing & hotel industry.
According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
*BND = Germany’s foreign intelligence agency
Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.
Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
The sports issue is harder - there I think all you can do is insist trans athletes compete as their birth gender or in special competitions.
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
https://x.com/ft/status/1899886898828456154
And none of this helps the debt issue one bit. At least your jamjar can be repossessed.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
It's not just housing..the state we're in..💩
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.