leicsmac

The whole Mises Institute, come to that. That being said, I would like to hear an argument in favour of such self interest as it pertains to the future because like I said, I've not heard one and I want to know if there is an argument there or it is simply that they don't assign importance to that future. I don't think so, but I guess we shall see.

Would be interested in hearing any viewpoint from those more given to individualism on here on this one, to be honest.

I think they're playing both sides right now, and there's a lot of animus between the Asian nations that we in the West don't go into the depths of.

See above regarding definitions of intelligence. Personally, I've no idea how someone with even a modicum of smarts cannot or will not consider things outside their line of sight in their reasoning (even in the cause of mutual self interest), but that's me. Again, individualism and Just World Fallacy taken to its logical outcome. Every single human in anywhere approaching a modern society relies upon, and should appreciate, the labour of people they have never known and never will for keeping that society running and giving them the comforts they enjoy.

The Just World Fallacy has a lot to answer for. Additionally, there's a reason it and general inequality that it is one of the drivers of are known and listed as one of the biggest problems our species faces

I'm yet to hear an argument from that particular area that actually considers factors beyond short term personal gain to be honest. Earnings don't mean much when you have no resources to buy with them and preserve the life and comfort of yourself and those around you. Edit: I guess it comes down to how a person defines intelligence; either through making short term gain, or considering the future of themselves and others.

Can only speak for where I've lived, but in both Korea and the US people could be absolutely brutal towards their countrypeople based on perceived differences and stereotypes, so no, I don't think it's unique. Edit: the movie "Parasite" is a good showing of how a people can be split and stereotyped along money/class lines in Korea.

Well, yes, say what you want about Farage, he rolled high on his Charisma stat in a very con artist way and apparently that means the policy platform is a good thing for the future too. Which of course, it isn't. It would be nice were the man and his ability to manipulate were guided by anything other than short term self interest.

A couple of observations: Firstly, given the way landscapes change so quickly in this era, four years is a very, very long time in politics. I think predictions about how things will be then are rather foolhardy. Secondly, the propensity of humans to go fast-food and choose something worse just because the present option doesn't happen to be to their taste right now is rather amazing. Whether it's always been that way or digital media has accentuated it, I don't know, but where is the entirely necessary long term thought? Rome wasn't built in a day, but it sure as hell can be destroyed in one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8383r6d2po Nine former leaders of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have spoken out against Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, publishing an open letter that criticises his policies - including restricting vaccines, pulling funding for research, and firing thousands of healthcare workers. They also wrote in an open letter that last week's removal of Dr Susan Monarez as CDC director - which was followed by a string of resignations in protest - added fuel to a "raging fire". Here's a hint; viruses don't tend to care about your politics, Mr Kennedy. They will kill and maim all the same, and it will be your responsibility that they have done so when they could have been prevented.

They're putting on a show of solidarity, but there's rifts under the surface between all of them. As said a page or two ago, Xi is the one calling the shots now. Putin doesn't have nearly deep enough pockets or resources that can be bought with them.

^^^ This. Organised religion has no place in lawmaking or enforcing in a modern country in 2025.

There's something in that. That being said, my own views on the incompatibility of human division along either nation state or ethnic lines with the tech advances being made and the natural challenges that are coming to us rapidly are very well stated on here, and every single day I see increasing amounts of evidence to confirm them and where they inevitably lead.

As true as this is, there is a significant proportion of the population that, for their own reasons or through digital media, believe that "British = White Speaking English Only Forever", and are seemingly willing to make their point about it in strong terms at the present time, to the point of violent enforcement. The only question now is will they convince enough people to make their viewpoint a matter of political policy. Like I said, a crossroads.

It's like every eighty to a hundred years for the last few hundred our species likes to stand on the precipice of becoming... well, the same or worse than other animals, in terms of treating other members of the same species as things.

We shall find out. WRT the second sentence - it's like people keep saying to me about democracy, on paper there appears to be a shitstorm but every other option is worse.

It's a possibility. It depends on how things play out and how willing the followers of "our Tommeh" are to live up to their reputation.

I can't really find a compelling point against that tbh.

As has a lot of the world. Just at the wrong time for our species for it to happen. We live in interesting times.

Yes, and I wonder if we'll see if everyone understands that nuance enough to make that distinction consistently when gross generalisations and such incitement designed to appeal to prejudices and lead to violence is ubiquitous in the digital world. My money would be on not.

I wonder where advocacy of violence against a marginalised group fits into free speech laws in the UK, US or anywhere else, tbh. Especially given that there are those out there demonstrably ready to act upon that advocacy.

Digital information proliferation in all its dark glory, I'm afraid.

Naturally and unreservedly agree with you there.

One would hope not, but given the amount of things that have happened in the last decade on account of people with not a lot of reach on the internet saying things, I'm going to keep a broad mind on the possibility. In any case, I'm just hopeful that the sentiment in the OP was ironic and not indicating that the majority of the UK populace have a problem with rather large lack of empathy.

I rather hope that this is ironic, otherwise advocating violence towards a marginalised demographic being a "sensible view that is held by the majority of people" would be a rather depressing indictment on UK society.