leicsmac

Right. And when such groups have the same amount of power and are shown to engage in the same degree of repeated behaviour directly harming other human beings, then perhaps we can make an apples to apples comparison there. Until then, possibly something other than straight equivalences might be drawn.

To add to this, given those people that she has annoyed, I'm inclined to think that they wouldn't be so amateur in their attempt. So probably just an accident, but I guess we'll see.

If this was a deliberate hit attempt, then quite frankly I'm surprised nothing like it has happened before. She's certainly annoyed enough of the kind of rich, arrogant and death-worshipping people that deserve to be annoyed in the name of the future.

Apparently so. No wonder he changed his tune on the current government over there. And that comes back to the degree of relative power the respective parties hold. More power should = more scrutiny. Unless folks want to see more scenes like last summer, only this time the "concerned patriots" do actually succeed in breaking into/burning down a building with many people inside? The above being said, yes, of course it stands to reason that anyone advocating directly for one particular demographic of people, no matter who they may be, deserves at least a cursory glance to make sure that advocacy isn't going to cross the line.

It is likely his, the problem is proving it to the degree that enough people accept it to be so.

It certainly is more attractive, but it'll only be more effective under the present system if it has coalition/alliance in mind.

Questioning and anticipating where such sentiments might lead isn't thought policing. It's naive in the extreme to not acknowledge or accept that some of those engaged in this new outburst of patriotism have ill intent.

Hopefully not, but I fear that lack of questioning motives now might lead to...unforeseen consequences later. Hope I'm wrong there, though.

That may be the reason some people say they're doing it. Whether it's actually the case is another chat entirely.

Yeah, this is true. However, on some topics, the discussion, arriving at some kind of consensus one way or another, is not just desirable, it's a necessity.

Yeah, that's fair. I do like hearing any kind of attempts at justification from such parties regarding policy areas that IMO they can't so easily use the same "all the same" line on, though.

And let's say that their financial/corruption records are equal in terms of "badness". Well, then with that being equal, the next destination is social and science policy. ... are they just as bad as each other on those?

Ah, thank you for the clarification. Far be it from me to second-guess the intentions of the OP, but perhaps a generalisation wasn't being made and the referral was to a set of people who are weaponising the current sentiment for reasons that are..well, yes, bigoted. These people exist, are active, and are trying to drive the narrative. If that's somehow controversial, I'd be happy to know why. WRT the last paragraph, I believe Popper had some good words to say on that.

Just wait until these nationalist governments ignore changing weather patterns for long enough to cause serious vital resource crises in a lot of areas...

It's part a concerted nationalist campaign. Similar to movements seen across the world right now.

Next one is due on 2027, and Macron, in spite of what has happened today and Le Pens rabble-rousing rhetoric, doesn't need to have one till then. Could this be elaborated on a bit? Not sure what's meant by it. Nah, it's perfectly reasonable to think that Gervais is both a good comic and a hypocritical dick while being clean yourself. In any case, the alignment of most of the accusers and that they'll defend far more likely weirdos tells me all I need to know about how accurate their accusations likely are.

Another example of that thing that anyone with a modicum of sense warned about coming true: (Separation of church and state, anyone?)

Perhaps I'm judging too harshly, yes. Alcaraz certainly seems like a likeable bloke, in any case. I guess I'm hoping for a little more variety in Slam tournaments after a long time of three guys (sometimes four) running the show.

I was hoping for someone to explain a different conclusion to that, because it is also the one I've arrived at and it would be nice to have at least some idea that we're not screwed. The terrifying idea for me is that 44% now - and possibly more at the time - support the idea of a directly violent coup against the result of a free and fair election, given that is exactly what the man directly incited four and a half years ago.

Let's hope that mirrors election results come 2026 and 2028. Tbf he did say "some" rather than "all" in a generalisation. I said earlier that such self interest does span generations, but there is at least a certain lean in voting patterns towards parties that govern self interest with age. That being said, I think age is far from the most critical demographic divide in this case.

BBC News Channel talking head on the subject of Ukraine, Russia and US sanctions: "I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of [Trump's] mouth... the only thing that matters to him is his personal popularity ratings."

That's a theory, but to what end? It still ends as well for them as everyone else, eg. badly.

Well, he has a lot of previous for negative impacts on people's lives. On topic, Alcaraz-Sinner appears to be the new Fed-Nadal with slightly less skill and much less charisma.

And to add to this, 97 (I think) is the amount needed to avoid the biggest ODI loss record.

Approaching record breaker territory here.