leicsmac

The only thing I'll add here is that next to no one deserves the outcome of that kind of governance taken to its logical outcome in the long (or even medium) term. It...really wouldn't be great. I do wish more people had an idea of just how precarious and complex our systems are, and how easy even a little pressure, even a few ignored problems, would cause so many problems, fossil records and cautionary tales for the next supposedly smart species.

That falls under "choose not to", IMO. Imagine the scenes elsewhere, too. Still waiting to hear why it will be a good thing beyond for a very few people for a very short time.

It never was about peace, that was just a snake oil selling point. It was always about using government apparatus to inflict cruelty and sadism on "undesirable" demographics. They just tried to do a good job of dressing it up in rhetoric. Either people can't see through the PR, choose not to, or know it's going on and are totally fine with the cruelty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgr9r4qr0ppo US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday that directs the Department of Defense to be known as the Department of War. The move restores a name the agency last held in the 1940s and, according to the text of the order seen by the BBC, the aim is to "project strength and resolve". Well, the primitive bloodlust is at least more obvious now, I guess?

I'm still a little baffled as to why they have nailed their colours to that particular mast so intently. Can't quite get my head around the idea of so many people not giving a shite about their own future (and legacy, which I know often is the only thing that means much to sociopaths), to say nothing of everyone else's.

It's small-picture self interested politics trying to seize control right now (and in a lot of ways it's succeeding), and it's in no way compatible with any kind of sustainable future. Or if it is, I would, yet again, like to know how and why.

These posts highlight the crossroads were at, I think. People, rightly or wrongly, feeling that they're not getting what they want from government, and then in the name of change, any change, bringing in a government that is practically guaranteed to make everyone's lives worse. And that's on the voters, as well as the politicians that were not listening to them. People have agency, and they have responsibility for the consequences of their votes.

That's a possibility. If it's so, though, I just hope those involved know what they're doing. There's a lot at stake.

The mask needs to keep slipping for people to really grasp what it would mean for them to have power tbh.

Fair enough, the feeling is mutual and there's a good YouTube short doc on the Bowe-Golota fight and riot that's on my list.

Isn't it easy to see how the latter can be turned into a usable example of the former?

In the same way that Jan Smuts and the United Party in South Africa were responsible for the election of the National Party in 1948 and all the stuff they got up to subsequently. Or pick whatever historical example one likes. It's an easy get-out clause for some very nasty people to do some very nasty things by establishing a narrative that the previous incumbents allowed them to get in and do them.

Any political figure that talks about the future of their own patch or "own people" without including wider context of how it will fit in with global responses to global problems show themselves to lack the necessary knowledge and motivation - and therefore competence - to guarantee any kind of future but a bad one, for everyone including themselves.

At this point it will take a miracle - a science communicator both academically skilled and also able to sell an idea and policy to the public the same way Johnson or Farage can. And even then they'd have to cope with the vested interests wanting to discredit them because they are happy to see the future burn because they're doing well in the present.

And it is obvious where that ends. The rules the Earth don't give a shit for you ignore them, other than to punish you for it. Severely.

And then the discussion comes back to exactly what this change that people want is, rather than just the wooly concept of it. Policy has to be specific to have much meaning beyond soundbites.

Boris and Farage sell the illusion of authenticity, rather than the real thing. That's a big part of the problem tbh - well, on scientific policy where the facts have to speak for themselves no matter who is selling them, anyway.

Communicating any kind of scientific issue in particular in a way that can be appealing to the electorate enough to get action on is incredibly difficult right now. Covid showed that, and that was just a taste of what's to come. And when such issues are sometimes vital, that's not a good thing.

Well, if we're going to be facetious about it we can then look forward to the next UK government that will both make the leading problem that creates migrants an order of magnitude worse, and then refuse all of them entry and get on with business while million of other people die. Problem solved. We're due a good population crash and we don't want it to be the "right kind" of people, after all. Yep. At a time where lack of unity will only create much bigger problems that will then destroy vital resources, fueling that division still more as the bottom tier of Maslow becomes very precarious. "Die historic on the Fury Road!"

Nor is adopting a policy that would essentially abandon millions of people to their fate, which appears to be what at least some of those protestors want and therefore the other option in this particular matter. Though tbh I've absolutely no idea how any party effectively addresses the way the fabric of society is torn right now - that's down to someone much smarter than me.

To add to the above: if people want to give the current government pelters then fair enough, but it would, asking again, be nice to know which other option folks think is better and exactly why.

Honestly mate, I think they do see the signs but they've got their work cut out for them to actually do something meaningful about it in the face of all the misinformed shit designed to divide flying around right now. And I know this comes up on the regular here, but I think it's obvious that every other viable party option is categorically, empirically worse at the moment. So there's an argument to be made to get them to get their shit more together, but I don't see any other party in government at the present time being anything other than far worse for the future of everyone.

Social cohesion is a global problem tbf. There's a massive current push in the name of individualism both in terms of people and nation states, and that destructive shit is happening everywhere.

There's something in that too tbf.

The Saffers are the inverse SH counterpart of Ireland for the NH: underperform in local championships, but then always bring their best to a World Cup.