leicsmac

Stephen Miller doubling down on the Greenland rhetoric and saying that nations shouldn't have given up their colonies after World War II. Seems the resemblance to Goebbels isn't just physical, then.

Anyhow, in other news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70lw9x581no South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung has called for a "new phase" in ties with China as he met its leader Xi Jinping in Beijing on Monday. Regional security and lifting Beijing's unofficial ban on Korean pop culture is high on Lee's agenda, as he continues his four-day trip in China. He is set to meet China's Premier Li Qiang and the chairman of parliament, Zhao Leji on Tuesday. It marks the first visit by a South Korean leader since 2019. Bilateral ties had soured under Lee's predecessor, impeached ex-president Yoon Suk Yeol, who was very critical of China. Xi, meanwhile, has appeared keen to shore up ties with South Korea amid a diplomatic row between China and Japan. South Korea is a US security ally - like Japan - but also relies on China for trade. Experts say Lee is expected to keep walking a diplomatic tightrope between Beijing and Tokyo. Korea looking to balance things a bit more in terms of diplomacy, then.

Try "EUSSR" or similar. To add to the points above, I have to repeat that reasoned and nuanced discussion is important but it is also a fact that quite a few smart people are smart enough to dress up their intent in just enough obfuscation to say "that's not what I said" when challenged, but the same intent is clear enough. Having such obfuscation and delaying tactics is one the reasons some truly vital matters that cost lives are either not being focused on or are being permitted to be focused on by those whose intent is entirely selfish, short term and destructive.

Also think it's something of a consequence of both the FPTP system (that tends to force pretty dichotomous outcomes) and modern society in general where online discourse is very tribal. The above being said, there are a few issues that are very "black and white" and where if you don't endorse one point of view, you are giving tacit support for the other and the consequences that result from it. Not everything has a large amount of nuance, some issues are very simple in their understanding, process and logical outcomes.

Also, none of this actually addresses the very real issue that the sentiment of self interest and Might Makes Right that drives people like Trump and his followers doesn't end anywhere good for them or for anyone else. It's in everyone's interest to find a way to address that. Sharpish, because the clock is ticking.

Yep, and look at the mess that's caused by people who supposedly aren't "snowflakes" letting such words get to them. But anyhow, that aside, assuming this is true, what really is the answer? A lot of lives may hinge upon it, because it's the key to our species doing the right thing at the right time. I do think the Trump/Hitler comparisons are lazy, because there's numerous differences. However, that should not in any way serve as distraction from the very real consequences of his actions, past, present and future.

Depends on the individual, clearly. I would agree that most people would prefer reasoned conversation, but two observations on that: - my own experience in science communication has taught me that a great many people, enough to affect policy in a democracy, don't accept reasoned explanation of consequences of poor decisions pointed out to them until those consequences are hitting them square in the face, by which time it's a bit late for them and often a lot of innocent sods they've taken along for the ride, the same may be true in other areas of policymaking And - given that attempts at reasoned and adult conversation have led us to where we are now, I'm not entirely sure of that solely as a method of winning enough minds to guide policy in the way it needs to be guided to avoid much more unpleasant times. In principle, I'd be happy to agree entirely here. In practice... not so much.

...which is then used as a convenient justification to avoid discussion/criticism of the very real bad stuff Trump and those who think like him are up to.

Is that possibly the highest value item ever actually insured?

I don't mind the cold. The dry air is hell for causing nosebleeds though.

Yes. But passive aggressive aside, I've learned for a while now when such arguments are in good faith and when they are not. This is the latter - a dichotomy of two sides (of which I'll happily and freely admit belonging to one) talking past each other. There will be no reconciliation, no common ground, because people like the ones in charge right now want neither. I see no utility in spending time and spoons addressing such arguments given the intractable nature of it. But it is as said above. Either that common ground is found and such nationalist powermongers are neutralised through it, or the Earth, along with warfare, does it for us. With the entire species, plus countless millions of others, along for the ride. A rather sad legacy for a supposedly enlightened species. No, just everyone west of roughly 20 degrees West and east of Easter Island. Monroe Doctrine.

I missed your mastery of obfuscation and rhetoric, Prussian. Welcome back.

A few people do appear to be in denial about that. But, in that case, the Earth itself is the great leveler. Pardon me for repeating myself, but the way any Might Makes Right leader, be it Trump, Putin or anyone else, does things is incompatible with the long or even medium term stability of our biosphere, whether as a result of increased natural disasters, warfare over diminished resources, or a combination of the two. That incompatibility will be punished, if will be punished in probably the harshest possible fashion, and even those leaders who think they are untouchable will answer to it in the end. And that's something that people aren't grasping that I find amazing; these people can do what they like, but doing so inevitably dooms us all in the end, so why simply accept that, when the possibility of so much better exists?

And I don't think anyone would deny that the double standard exists. For my part, I just want to see human civilisation actually last long enough to be worth more than a geological flyspeck and a cautionary tale for any future species that might come across it. Thinking the way that Trump and most of those who follow him will almost certainly ensure that doesn't happen. I'm not sure which political compass "wing" being in favour of ensured human future comes under, but whichever it is...

Seize Turnberry and immediately stage the next Open there thereafter. I'm sure @Izzy would approve.

Given past actions and attitudes recently and otherwise, I'm not sure where this highly charitable interpretation of what the man is saying is coming from. If this is true, perhaps one might wonder why the international community are making a noise about it all now then. Could the common factor be in fact the current incumbent of the White House and the way he is acting, rather than them all getting aerated for no legit reason? Perhaps because it's the year 2026 and it's about time humanity moved past the ridiculous and destructive idea of nationalism and spheres of influence, where the "powerful" do as they like with no consequence and the "powerless" do what they must. Perhaps it's time to stop being pathogens in sharp suits, knowing and being no better than mindless self interest. And also time to stop apologising for supposed human beings who act like the aforementioned pathogens in sharp suits.

Ah, fair enough, a standard Appeal to Hypocrisy then. There's no disagreement from me on where the two American parties lie in terms of that policy area (apart from the manner in which it is being done), my own personal ire tends to veer towards other policy areas and general ethos and attitude there. The OP mentioned "an offer they literally cannot refuse". That for me rather obviously implies coercion and anyone familiar with the man knows that coercion is the way Trump mostly operates, so pardon if that conclusion wasn't immediately apparent in reasoning. Except to continue this analogy in this case you want that car no matter what the neighbour says about it and have no intention of going through official buying and selling channels for it, so everyone thinks, rightly, that's there's a good possibility you will try to steal the car if you can't buy it for the price you want it to be.

On the above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o Donald Trump has again proposed annexing Greenland, after Denmark's leader urged him to "stop the threats" over the island. Speaking to reporters, the US president said "we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security". Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of the semi-autonomous Danish territory becoming an annexed part of the US, citing its strategic location for defence purposes and mineral wealth. Greenland's Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen responded by saying "that's enough now" and described the notion of US control over the island as a "fantasy". He said: "No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation. We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law."

What's the issue with blatant coercion of a sovereign nation into giving up its territory because you want it and you have the power to bully them into taking it?

Once again I have to ask; what is the specific point being driven at here? Fair, but it might be nice to acknowledge such things while at the same time considering the best way not to jump from the frying pan into the fire on this one.

Oh, and this is all providing a wonderful distraction from whatever the latest Epstein reveals might be, too.

All three results equally possible right now imo, we'll know a lot more after today's/ tomorrow's play.

The above being said, the UK forming some kind of bloc with Canada, the Antipodean nations and most of Europe would be useful right now. All three of the biggest global powers seem bound and determined to think it's still the Gilded Age where their "spheres of influence" still apply and are wishing to divide the world between themselves.

And @MC Prussian, as much as it is good to see you posting in Gen News again (perhaps we might see you again over on the sci or climate threads too), it's not immediately clear what the point you're trying to make here is with the recent posts. Is it that the US is some kind of misunderstood benevolent power, actually being altruistic under this administration? Is it that they're acting no worse now than they have done in the past? Is it that they're simply playing by rules of realpolitik that for some ludicrously perverse reason "everyone" apparently has to follow? Is it something else entirely? Some more additional clarity would be welcomed, if and when possible.

He's predictable in terms of only serving his own self interest, but other than that small point, this is a good analysis imo.