leicsmac

On the recent topic of wood burners: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdne9ke0m1o

Better word use. Trying to get all of those cultures to fit into a single society. Quite right. And then the trick becomes at least trying to sort the situation where that is kept to a minimum, because then all the choices that remain are bad ones.

The former bleeds very, very easily into the latter, sadly. There are numerous examples of that.

Interesting insights, thanks. In that case, the only other thing I'll remark on is that the idea of cultural superiority and that put into action by means of conflict, no matter what culture it might be, is probably equally as damaging to society as any other form of supremacist belief - including that of race.

If that's in fact true, rather than that sentiment being amplified by application of bots/other tech for nefarious purposes (and it could well be), then prejudice is an inherent quality for far too many people and that has dire connotations for... well, a lot.

Yes, it may appear that the entire social hierarchy of the past several hundred years has apparently flipped on its head in the last couple of decades. We do live in interesting times.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnv2z059745o Australia's Communications Minister Anika Wells has told the BBC she is not intimidated by technology companies who disagree with the country's "world-leading" social media ban and is ready if Washington weighs in. From December 10, ten social media firms including Snapchat, Meta, TikTok and YouTube will have to take what the government says are "reasonable steps" to stop children under 16 from having accounts on their platforms. "We stand firm on the side of parents and not on the platforms," Wells said. Companies including Meta have said they agree more is needed to keep young people safe online, but don't think a ban is the answer, with some experts raising similar concerns. An interesting insight into Oz being the pathfinder for social media regulation in the Anglosphere.

Casual ecological ignorance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r95q9kv1go And we have our answer! One fall-guy admiral, coming right up. Ten points for picking that one, ser.

At the least, there's some uncertainty about it. Those thinking it was good or bad with certainty might want to consider that.

The only way to be sure about this is to actually look at case history, find the amount of known miscarriages of justice from cases on judge trials vs jury trials, and compare them. Data is the only thing upon which decision making should be based here.

Yes, 2 up 2 down terrace with old style storage heaters on an Octopus tariff, with a smart meter. Only moved in at the beginning of October but I'm paying roughly £100 p/m for all electricity costs so far. Having to be somewhat watchful, but not a total miser, to keep it at that.

That's true, but it's also rather missing the point of the question. Still looking for other answers.

Further to this, I would ask again; if a government or movement like the current US administration isn't described as (neo)fascist, then what word is best used? Jon mentioned "opportunists", which I think does apply to some of them, but what about the "true believers", as it were? Edit: example, how do you describe a man like Stephen Miller?

Exactly. And couple that with a culture that seems to be going ever more towards wanting instant solutions rather than long term patience, and what you get is what we have.

Oh, it's patently obvious that they are liars and hypocrites. However, it appears that even Repub Congress members are looking at this one a bit dimly, which is something.

Personally I think we need the extra pace option rather than more batting or an untested spin option(Carse and Atkinson will be doing a lot), but I guess we'll find out.

There may be something in that. Not sure it makes the results of what they do any less potentially (and actually) severe, though.

Then, once more, what word describes some (bolded and italicised for emphasis) of these people, including some that have, or are looking for the power to shape policy? Pragmatists? Concerned citizens? Tribalists? Genuine question, because I really would like less cause to worry about a rather horrible future. It will certainly be interesting to hear the justification Hegseth and his boss come to with for this.

Agreed, there's a lot of crying wolf going round. But then that story does end with the wolf actually coming and if that word can't be used for the platforms of some of the movers and shakers right now, what word would describe them, I wonder?

In rather related news, what do you call an order to leave no survivors ("kill them all") when you order a strike on a vessel at sea, that is then followed, including the death of two people clinging to the wreckage of their ship and therefore clearly unable to fight back? If you are at war, it's a war crime. If you aren't, it's murder. Which exactly is it, Mr Hegseth?

Yes. "Legitimate concerns" haven't been listened to, so apparently the jump to neofascism (and let's not beat around the bush, the platform of most populist policies of the type being referred to right now mirrors that closely) is the logical next step. With all the likely consequences it entails. I just hope the people with the aforementioned "legitimate concerns" have the courage to own their part in those consequences.

Agreed, hence the "reasonable" part. I think it's pretty obvious that some policy decisions and worldviews, either intentionally or not, have not seeing people as human as intent, consequence or both. However, once more I'm not convinced whether that has any place in political compassing. I guess I've just seen enough dancing around the human cost of viewpoints and decisions on certain topics and would prefer some basic honesty of purpose. Edit: and another thing on worldviews? Good and bad is what people do, not what they are.

Leaving political slant out of it for a moment, are there not apparently quite a few people (again, regardless of political persuasion) who do think the way described above and are perfectly happy to say that they are and act upon it? I've no idea what the complexity is behind actually treating every human as if they are in fact human, rather than not. The second part is a bit more complex because clearly people have different value they place on the future. And, again, I'm trying very hard not to couch this in political terms because I'm not convinced all these things are political.

And on the topic regarding left/right divides and shifts above, my own take on it is it really comes down to whether someone thinks actually treating every demographic of people as people (rather than subhuman, a punchline, an abomination or potential chattel) and actually thinking the future of life is valuable or not is a matter of political compassing, or if it isn't.