Ok. Well I'm all talked out here. I think we've long forgotten the topic. — fishfry

Let's agree to disagree. Sorry I brought it up. No wait, you brought it up and I let you bait me for a while. — fishfry

I agree. But I would like a better mutual understanding before we move on. I don't know for sure about you, but my comments were intended to provoke a reply, but only in the interests of a discussion. I thought you were doing the same. I didn't realize that you thought I was baiting you, which is a different kettle of fish. So I apologize.

Sorry I mentioned it. — fishfry

I wasn't complaining that you did. In fact, in our disagreement, the vagueness of meaning enables a diagnosis of what we disagree about, so it was actually useful. (I'm not sure whether the same applies to the concept of metaphysics.)

Oh please. He left as gracefully as Caesar did. — fishfry

Quite so. I'm afraid I was guilty of irony, which is always dangerous. His inability to recognize when the game is up is not particularly unusual. I can think of other examples.

The Dem hysteria that started on election night of 2016 has been extremely damaging to the country. — fishfry

I agree with you that the hysteria around everything is very damaging. But I think both sides are to blame. Each side thinks that it can win by escalating the emotional temperature; the media feeds on that and joins in. The question who started it is a good one - unless the answer is to be used as a weapon of further escalation.
But neither side is really to blame. There can be little doubt that a large part of the problem is systemic - the whole set-up encourages escalation and the desire to win, rather than compromise. Again, it's not unique to the US. It's not difficult to think of other examples.

Well toss a can of soup on a painting then. You lost me here. — fishfry

Couple of soup throwers were convicted, they're going to jail. So never mind on the soup. Looks like England has had enough of the eco-loons. — fishfry

At least they threw tomato soup, which is easier to clean than pain. — Ludwig V

I see from the reports that the soup did actually damage the paint of the frame, so I was wrong about that.

Responding to those protests with outrage and attempts to suppress is exactly what they want - to attract attention and controversy. Difficult as it may be, the only thing that would persuade them to stop is ignoring them. But it is also important to reward them when they do the right thing, there should be a reasonable response to civilized and legal protests.
Failure to recognize when one is being baited is very common and failure to deal with it rationally - by not rising to the bait - frequently underlies escalation.

Did you hear about that windmill that fell apart, closing a beach during the height of tourist season? Fiberglass shards everywhere. — fishfry

I'm not sure what you expect me to say. It's definitely a bad thing. Needs to be checked out and any problems resolved - and any parties who haven't been doing their job properly held to account.

But does it show that wind farms should be abolished? I don't think so. The fact that so many people dislike them is much more relevant and it's right to be cautious about setting them up. Off-shore farms seem to be more acceptable, so it's better to be content with them. (There's the question of bird strikes as well, though I've heard that they may have found a solution to that.) I think it's unlikely that that on-shore farms can be a major contributor to the project of finding renewable sources of energy. For on-shore generation, solar farms may be more appropriate.

I agree. But I would like a better mutual understanding before we move on. I don't know for sure about you, but my comments were intended to provoke a reply, but only in the interests of a discussion. I thought you were doing the same. I didn't realize that you thought I was baiting you, which is a different kettle of fish. So I apologize. — Ludwig V

Not necessary, I willingly took the bait.

Quite so. I'm afraid I was guilty of irony, which is always dangerous. His inability to recognize when the game is up is not particularly unusual. I can think of other examples. — Ludwig V

Over on the political forums in the Lounge, someone actually suggested to me with a straight face that Biden willingly stepped down. I confess I don't understand that degree uncritically parroting propaganda.

I agree with you that the hysteria around everything is very damaging. But I think both sides are to blame. Each side thinks that it can win by escalating the emotional temperature; the media feeds on that and joins in. The question who started it is a good one - unless the answer is to be used as a weapon of further escalation.
But neither side is really to blame. There can be little doubt that a large part of the problem is systemic - the whole set-up encourages escalation and the desire to win, rather than compromise. Again, it's not unique to the US. It's not difficult to think of other examples. — Ludwig V

The Dems refused to accept the result of the 2016 election and have been causing mischief since then, with Russiagate, two fake impeachments, lawfare, and then weakening Trump's Secret Service protection to the degree that he almost got killed. I doubt they're done yet.

I see from the reports that the soup did actually damage the paint of the frame, so I was wrong about that. — Ludwig V

I hope these court cases will deter some of the vandalism.

Responding to those protests with outrage and attempts to suppress is exactly what they want - to attract attention and controversy. Difficult as it may be, the only thing that would persuade them to stop is ignoring them. But it is also important to reward them when they do the right thing, there should be a reasonable response to civilized and legal protests.
Failure to recognize when one is being baited is very common and failure to deal with it rationally - by not rising to the bait - frequently underlies escalation. — Ludwig V

You can't ignore people blocking major highways. Glad those leaders are going to prison.

I'm not sure what you expect me to say. — Ludwig V

LOL I'm baiting you!

It's definitely a bad thing. Needs to be checked out and any problems resolved - and any parties who haven't been doing their job properly held to account. — Ludwig V

Point being, EV's are a disaster. Green energy is a disaster. If the eco measures actually worked, I'd support them. They don't. They're a scam, and their negative impact falls mostly on the poor of the world, so that the upscale can feel better about themselves.

But does it show that wind farms should be abolished? — Ludwig V

Many of those projects should be abolished, for good and sound reasons.

I don't think so. The fact that so many people dislike them is much more relevant and it's right to be cautious about setting them up. Off-shore farms seem to be more acceptable, so it's better to be content with them. (There's the question of bird strikes as well, though I've heard that they may have found a solution to that.) — Ludwig V

Bird stew?

I think it's unlikely that that on-shore farms can be a major contributor to the project of finding renewable sources of energy. For on-shore generation, solar farms may be more appropriate. — Ludwig V

You're halfway to my point of view. And now that Germany, for one, is starting to see the economic downsides of their green energy programs, the tide is turning.

The Dems refused to accept the result of the 2016 election and have been causing mischief since then, with Russiagate, two fake impeachments, lawfare, and then weakening Trump's Secret Service protection to the degree that he almost got killed. I doubt they're done yet. — fishfry

I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of all of that. I don't know enough. But I don't believe that Trump's hands are clean, either. Even if Trump himself didn't intend to encourage them, which is very hard indeed to believe, his supporters invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 2021.

I hope these court cases will deter some of the vandalism. — fishfry

I don't think the courts will deter anyone. The protesters are getting what they wanted. Publicity, fuss, arguments.

Many of those projects should be abolished, for good and sound reasons. — fishfry

Maybe so. But not because a single blade on a single tower snapped off.

Point being, EV's are a disaster. Green energy is a disaster. If the eco measures actually worked, I'd support them. They don't. They're a scam, and their negative impact falls mostly on the poor of the world, so that the upscale can feel better about themselves. — fishfry

Well, I'm not keen on any of it. Not least because I'm not anywhere near wealthy enough to avoid the negative economic impacts - and you are right, it will not be the wealthy who bear the brunt of them. On the contrary, they are quite likely to make money out of it. But I don't see any evidence that the whole thing is a scam. True, we're not having much effect yet. But we are nowhere near the level where we might actually slow climate change down. All I see is oil companies defending their profits and nuclear companies returning to profitability by polluting the planet for the next 100,000 years.

Bird stew? — fishfry

That made me laugh. A lot of those birds taste and smell very strongly of fish. Not surprising. They mostly eat fish and that makes them very unappetizing. They reckon that painting one of the blades black, instead of white, makes them flicker, which is enough to deter them.

You're halfway to my point of view. And now that Germany, for one, is starting to see the economic downsides of their green energy programs, the tide is turning. — fishfry

China has invested a great deal of money and years of effort in cornering the market for rare metals. They must be very confident about where we are going in the long run.

I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of all of that. I don't know enough. But I don't believe that Trump's hands are clean, either. Even if Trump himself didn't intend to encourage them, which is very hard indeed to believe, his supporters invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 2021. — Ludwig V

Spare me. In 2020 leftist BLM/Antifa mobs killed 20 people and caused $2B with a 'B' in documented insurance claims. All you're doing is throwing out leftist talking points. Videos show that the Capitol police let the protesters in, they were all unarmed, and most of them calmly wandered around, often escorted by the Capital police. Enough with the leftist propaganda. This is not productive.

Maybe so. But not because a single blade on a single tower snapped off. — Ludwig V

It's a metaphor for the whole enterprise.

You J6'd me? Are you kidding?

Well, I'm not keen on any of it. Not least because I'm not anywhere near wealthy enough to avoid the negative economic impacts - and you are right, it will not be the wealthy who bear the brunt of them. On the contrary, they are quite likely to make money out of it. But I don't see any evidence that the whole thing is a scam. True, we're not having much effect yet. But we are nowhere near the level where we might actually slow climate change down. All I see is oil companies defending their profits and nuclear companies returning to profitability by polluting the planet for the next 100,000 years. — Ludwig V

Had enough. J6 was the end. Take it to Lounge where the TDS sufferers hang out. Do you honestly believe the J6 propaganda?

That made me laugh. A lot of those birds taste and smell very strongly of fish. Not surprising. They mostly eat fish and that makes them very unappetizing. They reckon that painting one of the blades black, instead of white, makes them flicker, which is enough to deter them. — Ludwig V

Interesting if true. No more politics please. J6 is like argumentum at Hitlerum. Terminal point of any conversation.

China has invested a great deal of money and years of effort in cornering the market for rare metals. They must be very confident about where we are going in the long run. — Ludwig V

They're also bring coal plants online like nobody's business.

J6. Jeez man that's all you got?

This is not a political thread and actually I've had quite enough of the TDS over on the Lounge. No more please.

You J6'd me? Are you kidding? — fishfry

Had enough. J6 was the end. — fishfry

J6. Jeez man that's all you got? — fishfry

I can see you are serious. But I have no idea what you are talking about.

I can see you are serious. But I have no idea what you are talking about. — Ludwig V

Right you are. I drank my own Kool-Aid. J6 is an emotional topic for me. Thank you for giving me a chance to gather some of my thoughts. You don't need to agree, but at least this is what's on my mind about J6.

J6 was a Reichstag fire for our times. A psy-op, a mass propaganda event. It was no "insurrection." The protesters weren't even armed. There was no intention to "take over the government" nor could they if they'd wanted to. An emotionally troubled guy in a fur vest and a horned helmet sitting in Nancy Pelosi's chair is not an insurrection. It's just a politicized word to make half the country hate the other half. Poor deluded bastard got three and a half years.

There was a lack of security, caused when Pelosi didn't support Trump in calling out the National Guard. Things got out of hand. People who were violent should be prosecuted and given the same slaps on the wrists the Floyd rioters got. George Floyd, by the way, died of a fentanyl overdose. The medical examiner said that if he'd seen Floyd's body dying peacefully, he'd have no trouble calling it a fentanyl overdose. He had a fatal dose in him.

That doesn't make Derek Chauvin officer of the year. He didn't kill Floyd, but he's in prison for smirking.

The Feds have thrown the book at little old ladies who walked peacefully through the Capitol, invited in by the Capitol police. We've seen the videos. People who didn't even go inside got tracked down and prosecuted.

Meanwhile the Floyd rioters caused two billion dollars in insurance-confirmed damage, so the real number's higher. 20 died. Kamala supported a bail fund for rioters who got out and committed far worse crimes. In New York City a pair of lawyers tossed Molotov cocktails into cop cars and got slaps on the wrist.

As we speak, there are hundreds of J6 protesters still in jail. There are stories that the temperatures in the cells are in the 40s. That's Fahrenheit, that's 4.44 Celsius. People denied access to their medications. The Feds, on behalf of the Democratic party, are running a political Gulag. It's utterly shameful that Democrats and liberals cheer this on.

The Feds had informants and provocateurs in the crowd.

The J6 committee was a complete fraud. They didn't allow the Republicans to choose their own members. Tens of thousands of hours of video remain locked away, never seen. The committee put together a Hollywood production of selected excerpts from the videos. They lied, cheated, and perverted the US criminal justice system. That will have long term repercussions that are not good. Once the rule of law gets perverted to political purposes, a nation does not recover.

So for those reasons and many others, I strongly oppose the Democratic spin on J6. I want the people languishing in jail right now to get the same lenient treatment as the Floyd rioters. I want all the video released to the public. I want members of the committee prosecuted for destroying records. I want the undercover provocateurs exposed. I want the whole sordid, evil propaganda op exposed and the people responsible held accountable.

So, whether you agree with my points or not, this is why I reacted as I did. J6 is a crime perpetrated on the US by the Democratic party. They need to be held accountable. The truth needs to come out.

OK. I didn't grasp the significance of J6 until later. I'm sorry I upset you. It wasn't in any way intended as baiting, or even provocation.

Thanks for explaining. It would be absurd for me to argue with you. I don't know anything like enough. It is indeed to be hoped that (more of) the truth, or, maybe a better balanced account, will emerge one day. I accept that Trump did not intend to overturn the whole constitution, so calling it a coup, in the normal sense, is an exaggeration. But it does seem inescapable that he was not prepared to accept the election result until he had tried everything possible to overturn it.

But, if I may, my perspective is that all politicians will play dirty when push comes to shove and the opportunity arises. There's no point in moralizing about it, that's how the world is. So there's no reason to think that Trump (or his supporters) are an exception. That's not an unreasonable view, is it?

OK. I didn't grasp the significance of J6 until later. I'm sorry I upset you. It wasn't in any way intended as baiting, or even provocation. — Ludwig V

It's good. I needed to rationally state my position, not just get upset. It's frustrating because J6 is a massive article of faith on the left. And I used to be on the left. That's what drives me nuts. I just don't know what's gotten into my former fellow leftists. They went insane when Trump got elected. I don't love Trump, I see his many flaws, but he's the only alternative to what's been happening to the left. Perverting the criminal justice system for political gain. If this stands, we are no longer the same country. We meaning the US of course. I suppose our cousins across the pond can only watch in bemusement and horror as the US comes apart at the seams.

Thanks for explaining. It would be absurd for me to argue with you. I don't know anything like enough. It is indeed to be hoped that (more of) the truth, or, maybe a better balanced account, will emerge one day. I can even accept that Trump did not intend to overturn the whole constitution, but it does seem inescapable that he was not prepared to accept the election result until he had tried everything possible to overturn it. Calling it a coup, in the normal sense, is an exaggeration. — Ludwig V

But "he was not prepared to accept the election result until he had tried everything possible to overturn it" is just what Al Gore did against Bush in 2000. Hillary paid for the Steele dossier and created the Russiagate nightmare that wrecked Trump's presidency. The Intel agencies said Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation, even after they knew it was real. Stacey Abrams still thinks she's governor of Georgia even though she lost by 50,000 votes.

When Dems try to overthrow or deny elections, it's ok with them. When Orange Hitler does it, they weaken his Secret Service protection. Ok that's a strong charge. I think the case can be made.

But, if I may, my perspective is that all politicians will play dirty when push comes to shove and the opportunity arises. There's no point in moralizing about it, that's how the world is. So there's no reason to think that Trump (or his supporters) are an exception. That's not an unreasonable view, is it? — Ludwig V

Perfectly reasonable. In fact my position on electoral cheating is that the GOP needs to learn to do it better. If they got out-cheated in 2020, they shouldn't whine. They should cheat better themselves. As the saying goes: Politics Ain't Beanbag. GOPs better wake up. The Dems may be evil, but the GOPs are hopeless at best, and often complicit.

ps -- I can't find what category this thread is in. It says .999... = 1 but I can't find this on the main page or in the Lounge.

I can't find what category this thread is in. It says .999... = 1 but I can't find this on the main page or in the Lounge. — fishfry

We have been pushing the boundaries for a long time. I'm finding the thread via the list of "mentions". I think they are trying to persuade us to move to private discussion or stop. I'll send you my response to this post in that way. If you really want to stop, just tell me. But I think we've just opened up another layer of discussion.

We have been pushing the boundaries for a long time. I'm finding the thread via the list of "mentions". I think they are trying to persuade us to move to private discussion or stop. I'll send you my response to this post in that way. If you really want to stop, just tell me. But I think we've just opened up another layer of discussion. — Ludwig V

Ok I see. Well I'll respond to the PM when I get a chance. We're having an interesting discussion, but I prefer for such discussions to be in the public space. I am on a bit of a mission, which is to slowly and painfully try to get some checkbox liberals and TDS sufferers to, if not see things my way, to at least agree that I have a rational position.

Of course it's a lost cause. In the political threads if you express a thought contrary to their doctrine, they just call you names. It's quite frustrating.

On the other hand, our convo is helping me to at least articulate some of my thoughts. Especially about J6. J6 is an article of faith for the True Believers. That's why I reacted as I did.

On the private thread you referred to the rise of Hitler. But I did say that I see J6 as a Reichstag fire for our time. It's the Democrats making up an insurrection to get their rabid followers to hate the likes of me, their former ally who has dared to think an independent thought.

So I am really primarily motivated to write on this forum for the benefit of my liberal tormentors, the ones who call me names and say I get my ideas from Sean Hannity. It's too stupid to bear. But these people must wake up, for the good of the nation. I might as well do my part, since I was a checkbox liberal myself till 2016. I'd been wavering for a long time ... it's an interesting story, how I came to be a fallen liberal.

So anyway ... the answer is that we should probably wrap it up here ... and I don't know what we should do over there. You're open-minded, you're not the person who needs to hear what I have to say.

I'll sit with this for now.

We're having an interesting discussion, but I prefer for such discussions to be in the public space. — fishfry

I have no objection to the public space. But it seems that this is no longer really a public space.

On the other hand, our convo is helping me to at least articulate some of my thoughts. Especially about J6. J6 is an article of faith for the True Believers. That's why I reacted as I did. — fishfry

Yes, it's helping me in the same way. It's rare to find people who are willing to emerge from their bunkers and actually discuss things. If it has to be in private, so be it.

I have no objection to the public space. But it seems that this is no longer really a public space. — Ludwig V

So have the mods actually hidden this thread? Without saying anything?

Still, I'd rather move our chat back to here. I think of the private messages as more short-term communications.

Yes, it's helping me in the same way. It's rare to find people who are willing to emerge from their bunkers and actually discuss things. If it has to be in private, so be it. — Ludwig V

Yes I think the politics threads are a loss anyway.

OK. I don't feel entirely comfortable about private threads. It's just that I've picked up references and deduced that some people take their discussions to private threads to avoid intrusive or annoying comments, which you can get on public threads.

I found this thread in "All discussions". But it says the last post was 24 days ago. It's way down on page 2. But when I look at your last post in the thread, it says you posted it 11 hours ago. Whatever the reason, pushing it down the list means that fewer people are likely to visit it.

Yes I think the politics threads are a loss anyway. — fishfry

Test. Political discussion so often turns into Punch and Judy. There are several reasons for that. But it is often not helpful but actually harmful.

Real discussion is not possible unless one is willing to endanger oneself, by allowing one's own position (and self-esteem) to be on the table. That applies to all philosophy and possibly even more widely.

You said this on the private thread:-

Compassion to the criminals is anti-compassion to their victims. Compassion for the homeless drug addicts is anti-compassion for the decent citizens who have to live in the city. — fishfry

Yes, I take your point. Really, I do. I don't know how to open up a discussion about this without seeming to trigger the righteous anger, not only of victims, but of many decent citizens as well.
There are issues that need to be recognized, and I hope that you will be able to see them. I do not mean to deny righteous anger, which is expressed in the desire for revenge and to exclude the offender from one's society.
First, there is the familiar problem of the cycle of revenge - the blood feud, continuing a cycle of violence which can even be inherited for generations. It is the result of what is often forgotten, that what we think of as punishment may not be "accepted" by the criminal, who then gets angry and seeks revenge in turn.
Second, there is the issue of proportionate revenge. The traditional "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an early attempt to limit the revenge response, which can easily go way beyond what is reasonable.
Third, handling the revenge response is not the only issue when a crime is committed. There is the question of prevention and the question of what happens after revenge is exacted. This is where the issues arise. But let's pause there and see how far we agree thus far.

Or perhaps I should start another thread?

OK. I don't feel entirely comfortable about private threads. It's just that I've picked up references and deduced that some people take their discussions to private threads to avoid intrusive or annoying comments, which you can get on public threads. — Ludwig V

Evidently nobody can see this anyway. It's weird that the moderators did that without notifying anyone.

I found this thread in "All discussions". But it says the last post was 24 days ago. It's way down on page 2. But when I look at your last post in the thread, it says you posted it 11 hours ago. Whatever the reason, pushing it down the list means that fewer people are likely to visit it. — Ludwig V

Too bad. I can't buy an intelligent conversation in the political threads. It's all partisan nonsense.

Test. Political discussion so often turns into Punch and Judy. There are several reasons for that. But it is often not helpful but actually harmful.

Real discussion is not possible unless one is willing to endanger oneself, by allowing one's own position (and self-esteem) to be on the table. That applies to all philosophy and possibly even more widely. — Ludwig V

I try doing it over there but to no avail. May have to let it all go.

Yes, I take your point. Really, I do. I don't know how to open up a discussion about this without seeming to trigger the righteous anger, not only of victims, but of many decent citizens as well. — Ludwig V

Nobody is reading this.

I'm sure you know about the riots in England over the subject of immigration, relative to that awful killing of three little girls.

I happened to see a picture the other day of Keir Starmer taking the knee during the George Floyd protests. So when liberals are burning down the country, he supports them. And when people get angry that thee children were slaughtered, he comes out four square against the protesters. Never mind the stabbers.

To be fair, the stabber in this case is born in Wales to immigrant parents. But that only makes it worse in some people's eyes. Why let in the foreigners in the first place? Without endorsing that sentiment you can see why people are upset; and threatening to jail the protesters seems to miss the point.

As far as I can see, Starmer is living down to my worst fears about him.

There are issues that need to be recognized, and I hope that you will be able to see them. I do not mean to deny righteous anger, which is expressed in the desire for revenge and to exclude the offender from one's society. — Ludwig V

If you don't deny the righteous anger, Keir Starmer might not be pleased! You are NOT ALLOWED to be angry at the fatal stabbing of three little girls at a Taylor Swift dance class. If you are angry at the stabber, you are a right winger. This is the official policy of your government as far as I can tell.

First, there is the familiar problem of the cycle of revenge - the blood feud, continuing a cycle of violence which can even be inherited for generations. It is the result of what is often forgotten, that what we think of as punishment may not be "accepted" by the criminal, who then gets angry and seeks revenge in turn. — Ludwig V

So why allow people into the country who may harbor ancient ethnic or religious grudges? I'm not arguing that but it's an argument put forth by the protesters. And frankly it's not a bad question.

Second, there is the issue of proportionate revenge. The traditional "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an early attempt to limit the revenge response, which can easily go way beyond what is reasonable. — Ludwig V

Yes well these things do tend to escalate.

Third, handling the revenge response is not the only issue when a crime is committed. There is the question of prevention and the question of what happens after revenge is exacted. This is where the issues arise. But let's pause there and see how far we agree thus far.

Or perhaps I should start another thread? — Ludwig V

Three little girls are stabbed and Starmer wants to put the protesters in jail.

I suppose this should go in the Lounge, at least someone would see it. Doesn't matter. Seems to do me the same amount of good to write it whether anyone reads it or not.

I try doing it over there but to no avail. May have to let it all go. — fishfry

I started on this caper two years ago. I've found that there is some fun and instruction to be found, provided one understands how the game is played and doesn't take it too seriously. But every so often, one finds a more constructive engagement. It doesn't necessarily last forever. So it is important to recognize when one can go no further.

If you don't deny the righteous anger, Keir Starmer might not be pleased! You are NOT ALLOWED to be angry at the fatal stabbing of three little girls at a Taylor Swift dance class. If you are angry at the stabber, you are a right winger. This is the official policy of your government as far as I can tell. — fishfry

OK. There are many environments in which I don't make that point. However, I don't think that one can simply let anger rip. My main reason is pragmatic. It so easily feeds on itself and becomes destructive. It is important to be sure that one has the right target. But the worst effect is that it can so easily provoke a response in kind and a spiral of violence.

Yes well these things do tend to escalate. — fishfry

That's the reason that Governments and similar authorities get so exercised about it. They need to stay in control, and not just because they are taking sides. (Though there is an element of that, of course.)

So why allow people into the country who may harbor ancient ethnic or religious grudges? I'm not arguing that but it's an argument put forth by the protesters. And frankly it's not a bad question. — fishfry

Good question. It is true that it not wise to ask it in many environments. It does have some traction, though it is more complicated than it seems. (This is a different issue, though it is tangled up in the Southport business,)
How would you feel if the UK banned immigration from the USA because there are white supremacists there? Over-reaction, I think. One has to try and weed them out. Same for Muslim fundamentalists. In the UK, there is a lot going on to try to do that - most of it secret, so it is hard to know.

Here's a couple of politically incorrect thoughts of my own.
1. I would not be happy to live in Cairo or Dubai. I've been there, though not lived there. So I would not be happy if those social and religious norms were imported to the UK. Same for many other countries. There is a fear that a substantial minority arriving in the UK will introduce ideas and practices that I don't like. I expect people coming to live here to assimilate.
But there are also ideas and practices in the UK that I don't like. So it's a question of balance - accommodating new ideas and practices and assimilating to what already exists here. It's not a black-and-white question. (Actually new ideas and practices are often harmless or even beneficial. Moreover, societies do better if they are willing to change and adapt.)

2. Then there's the question of economic impact. There is an opinion, here, at least, that immigration drives wages down by increasing the supply of labour. No-one wants to end up with third world conditions in their own country (though they're quite happy to take the benefit of cheap imports). Economists insist that's not the case. I don't know the truth of it, the claim that it makes no difference seems implausible to me. There's also an argument that the UK benefits because immigrants also contribute to the economy. Which is true, so far as it goes.
I don't know the answer, but I'm inclined to think that, again, it's a question of balance. It may seem feeble, so I should emphasize that I'm very happy to rigorously exclude people who are going to deliberately spread disinformation and provoke violence, for the same reason that when UK citizens do those things, they should be repressed.

I started on this caper two years ago. I've found that there is some fun and instruction to be found, provided one understands how the game is played and doesn't take it too seriously. But every so often, one finds a more constructive engagement. It doesn't necessarily last forever. So it is important to recognize when one can go no further. — Ludwig V

I did no understand what you are referring to. I just meant the political threads over at the Lounge.

OK. There are many environments in which I don't make that point. However, I don't think that one can simply let anger rip. My main reason is pragmatic. It so easily feeds on itself and becomes destructive. It is important to be sure that one has the right target. But the worst effect is that it can so easily provoke a response in kind and a spiral of violence. — Ludwig V

I have been following this, it's really blowing up. Starmer is cracking down hard and calling them right wingers, but they're mostly working class folk whose live are being impacted by immigration promoted by the government, despite the will of the people. And the British cops stand down in the face of Muslim protests. There's a photo of Starmer kneeling for George Floyd. The hypocrisy.

They're calling him Tw-Tier Kier. And a lot of people are upset. Three little girls got stabbed and the stabber happened to be a first-generation Brit, and it's sparked a lot of pent-up anger. The government has been unresponsive on the issue of immigration.

I'm hearing talk of a "civil war" in Britain, but I can't tell if this is overblown or not.

That's the reason that Governments and similar authorities get so exercised about it. They need to stay in control, and not just because they are taking sides. (Though there is an element of that, of course.) — Ludwig V

It's the taking sides that's blatant here. Starmer took a knee for the American BLM/Antifa riots, and his police stand down in the face of violent Muslim extremists; then call out the dogs, running courts 24/7 to arrest and convict and imprison anyone who expresses a word of dissent.

I see Starmer blowing this tremendously. The partisan application of justice is a step down a very slippery slope for a nation. We're seeing a lot of it in the US as well.

Good question. It is true that it not wise to ask it in many environments. It does have some traction, though it is more complicated than it seems. (This is a different issue, though it is tangled up in the Southport business,) — Ludwig V

I'm all for ethnic diversity. You know what changes? It's like the first big wave of American immigration from Europe in the early 1900's. They all assimilated. I think what went wrong was people not wanting to assimilate. It's not clear if you can run a nation like that. We're all finding out.

How would you feel if the UK banned immigration from the USA because there are white supremacists there? Over-reaction, I think. One has to try and weed them out. Same for Muslim fundamentalists. In the UK, there is a lot going on to try to do that - most of it secret, so it is hard to know. — Ludwig V

The Muslims have a bad track record. The religion and state are intertwined. They are fundamentally incompatible with western thought. Many integrate very successfully. I'm for human movement. Governments should set and enforce their own laws, not have open borders like the US and western Europe.

We don't even know if the stabber is Muslim. That case is just a flash point for a lot of other issues that have been going on a long time.

Here's a couple of politically incorrect thoughts of my own.
1. I would not be happy to live in Cairo or Dubai. I've been there, though not lived there. So I would not be happy if those social and religious norms were imported to the UK. Same for many other countries. There is a fear that a substantial minority arriving in the UK will introduce ideas and practices that I don't like. I expect people coming to live here to assimilate.
But there are also ideas and practices in the UK that I don't like. So it's a question of balance - accommodating new ideas and practices and assimilating to what already exists here. It's not a black-and-white question. (Actually new ideas and practices are often harmless or even beneficial. Moreover, societies do better if they are willing to change and adapt.) — Ludwig V

Some say that the open-mindedness and acceptance of the West is exactly why they will be conquered by the East. I'm not wise enough to know. But it's a possibility. You see the liberals in cities voting in soft-on-crime prosecutors, then being overwhelmed by the crime they voted for. Islam does no seek to coexist. It seeks to conquer. I believe this is just how it is. Am I wrong?

2. Then there's the question of economic impact. There is an opinion, here, at least, that immigration drives wages down by increasing the supply of labour. No-one wants to end up with third world conditions in their own country (though they're quite happy to take the benefit of cheap imports). Economists insist that's not the case. I don't know the truth of it, the claim that it makes no difference seems implausible to me. There's also an argument that the UK benefits because immigrants also contribute to the economy. Which is true, so far as it goes. — Ludwig V

Cheap labor is always good for business. Cheap labor that can't complain about exploitation, lack of safety, and being cheated, because they are illegal, is even better! There are many powerful interests perfectly happy with the corrupt and immoral system we have now.

But at some point, when you have imported the Third World into your formerly First World country ... how do you think that's going to work out for you?

You have to set some limits, you have to have some laws that you are willing to enforce, you have to try to reduce the corruption and brutality and evil in the system.

I'm for serious immigration reform in the US, whatever that may look like.

I don't know the answer, but I'm inclined to think that, again, it's a question of balance. It may seem feeble, so I should emphasize that I'm very happy to rigorously exclude people who are going to deliberately spread disinformation and provoke violence, for the same reason that when UK citizens do those things, they should be repressed. — Ludwig V

Who exactly are the people who "deliberately spread disinformation and provoke violence?" How do you know who they are? Does Keir Starmer tell you? He kneeled for BLM/Antifa. But didn't BLM/Antifa also deliberately spread disinformation and provoke violence? Twenty people died. There were two billion dollars in property damage. George Floyd was a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. That doesn't make the cop officer of the year. But if all you know is the mainstream account, it's all a lie. The cop was following department protocol. His knee was on Floyd's upper back. Floyd did not die from strangulation, he died of an overdose. The police department threw Chauvin, the cop, under the bus and let him take the fall. Then the liberals unleashed their shock troops on the country.

And Two-tier Keir kneeled.

I did no understand what you are referring to. I just meant the political threads over at the Lounge. — fishfry

OK. I took it that you were referring to all the threads. Sorry.

I happened to see a picture the other day of Keir Starmer taking the knee during the George Floyd protests. So when liberals are burning down the country, he supports them. And when people get angry that thee children were slaughtered, he comes out four square against the protesters. Never mind the stabbers. — fishfry

Are you sure it is not a fake?
Taking the knee is not the same thing as burning down the country. You can't infer from the fact that he takes the knee against racism (or even against what happened to George Floyd), that he doesn't oppose burning down the country.

It's the taking sides that's blatant here. Starmer took a knee for the American BLM/Antifa riots, and his police stand down in the face of violent Muslim extremists; then call out the dogs, running courts 24/7 to arrest and convict and imprison anyone who expresses a word of dissent. — fishfry

I haven't heard/seen any reports of any violent Muslim extremists.

Cheap labor is always good for business. Cheap labor that can't complain about exploitation, lack of safety, and being cheated, because they are illegal, is even better! There are many powerful interests perfectly happy with the corrupt and immoral system we have now. But at some point, when you have imported the Third World into your formerly First World country ... how do you think that's going to work out for you? You have to set some limits, you have to have some laws that you are willing to enforce, you have to try to reduce the corruption and brutality and evil in the system. — fishfry

Yes. I broadly agree with that.

I'm for serious immigration reform in the US, whatever that may look like. — fishfry

The issue is that you can't enforce immigration laws unless most ordinary citizens will help you. Most ordinary people in the UK (and, so far as I can see, the US) will not (or perhaps cannot) help enforce the rules. It does mean something much more like a police state than we are happy to live with. But you can't have it both ways.
I remember, back when UK was in the EU that the middle class (not just the rich) were delighted with the cheap Polish plumbers and builders that they could employ. UK plumbers and builders were somewhat less enthusiastic. Now, plumbing and building are much more expensive and difficult to get done. Again, after COVID there was a serious shortage of HGV drivers which resulted in rapid increases in transportation costs (and delays in supply chains). Manufacturers and customers alike were very unhappy. HGV drivers were too busy making lots of money by driving to tell anyone how happy they were. Nobody thinks about how things affect other people.
You can't expect to tell the world how well you are doing economically and expect people who have no prospects where they are not to come and join in the feast. The root cause of immigration, legal and illegal, is the unequal distribution of wealth across the world. The only way to stop it is to make sure that international trade benefits everyone.

I have been following this, it's really blowing up. Starmer is cracking down hard and calling them right wingers, but they're mostly working class folk whose lives are being impacted by immigration promoted by the government, despite the will of the people. — fishfry

I think it became very clear during the last few days what the people think, don't you?

I'm hearing talk of a "civil war" in Britain, but I can't tell if this is overblown or not. — fishfry

It is indeed grossly over-blown.
I hear a lot about the possibility of civil war in the US. What do you think?

Who exactly are the people who "deliberately spread disinformation and provoke violence?" How do you know who they are? .... Twenty people died. There were two billion dollars in property damage. George Floyd was a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. That doesn't make the cop officer of the year. But if all you know is the mainstream account, it's all a lie. The cop was following department protocol. His knee was on Floyd's upper back. Floyd did not die from strangulation, he died of an overdose. The police department threw Chauvin, the cop, under the bus and let him take the fall. — fishfry

Yes, I know that what happened to George Floyd was contested and I don't really know what the truth of the matter was. How do you know that the mainstream account is all a lie? Everyone lies, not just the Government.

The Muslims have a bad track record. The religion and state are intertwined. They are fundamentally incompatible with western thought. Many integrate very successfully. I'm for human movement. Governments should set and enforce their own laws, not have open borders like the US and western Europe. — fishfry

I agree that things are different in the Middle East. But religion and state are also intertwined in the West. The relationship works differently, that's all.

Some say that the open-mindedness and acceptance of the West is exactly why they will be conquered by the East. I'm not wise enough to know. But it's a possibility. You see the liberals in cities voting in soft-on-crime prosecutors, then being overwhelmed by the crime they voted for. Islam does no seek to coexist. It seeks to conquer. I believe this is just how it is. Am I wrong? — fishfry

I think you are paying to much attention to the fundamentalists - who are a problem, but not an existential threat, I think. The biggest threat is not from Islam, but from Putin and Xi Jinping. Putin is (officially) Christian and Xi Jinping (officially) communist. Both are actually old-fashioned imperialists, just like the West was in the 19th and early 20th century.
I don't know for sure who will win. But I think the West has a very good chance.

Are you sure it is not a fake? — Ludwig V

You joking?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/01/23/keir-starmer-take-knee-culture-wars-blm-rnli-national-trust/

Plus you know things have gotten worse the past few days. Starmer's throwing protesters in prison for long terms. He threw some old guy in prison for a Facebook post. He's threatened to arrest and extradite Americans for exercising our free speech rights. He can't do that, we have the First Amendment here. He's gone mad as far as I can tell. His double-standard with respect to violent Muslim rioting is obvious.

Taking the knee is not the same thing as burning down the country. — Ludwig V

Like Walz burning down Minneapolis?

Anyway the point of the knee is the two-tier justice to rioters. And, the British establishment's ignoring the opposition of Englishmen to rampant uncontrolled immigration the past decade or two.

You can't infer from the fact that he takes the knee against racism (or even against what happened to George Floyd), that he doesn't oppose burning down the country. — Ludwig V

Oh please. Floyd was a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. He took the knee to violent leftist rioters and throws the book at violent rightist rioters. Two-tier.

I haven't heard/seen any reports of any violent Muslim extremists. — Ludwig V

You joking again? I didn't feel like digging out specific news stories, but there are plenty. People aren't complaining about two tier justice in a vaccuum.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/11/uk-two-tier-treats-far-right-attacks-less-harshly-islamist-violence-rusi

The issue is that you can't enforce immigration laws unless most ordinary citizens will help you. — Ludwig V

Trump implemented a Stay in Mexico policy that was effective in cutting down the problem. On his first day in office Biden overturned that and about 40 other Trump immigration policies. Then the last few months of this election year, Biden has tightened the border and cut down on his immigration problem. The government can turn illegal immigration on and off like a faucet. The current hordes coming in, in the US and in England, are a matter of government policy.

Most ordinary people in the UK (and, so far as I can see, the US) will not (or perhaps cannot) help enforce the rules. It does mean something much more like a police state than we are happy to live with. But you can't have it both ways. — Ludwig V

A government can enforce its borders. Biden and both parties in England have chosen not to. It's not a police state to prevent people from entering your country illegally. You don't need "average people" to patrol the border. You simply need to have the border guards do their jobs instead of telling them not to.

I remember, back when UK was in the EU that the middle class (not just the rich) were delighted with the cheap Polish plumbers and builders that they could employ. UK plumbers and builders were somewhat less enthusiastic. Now, plumbing and building are much more expensive and difficult to get done. Again, after COVID there was a serious shortage of HGV drivers which resulted in rapid increases in transportation costs (and delays in supply chains). Manufacturers and customers alike were very unhappy. HGV drivers were too busy making lots of money by driving to tell anyone how happy they were. Nobody thinks about how things affect other people. — Ludwig V

Cheap labor is always popular. But who gets hurt? The people legally here, the natives, who are perhaps in the trades themselves and who can't compete with the cheap labor.

In any event no nation, can import massive hordes of third-world immigrants with no understanding of and no respect for that nation's culture and laws.

You can't expect to tell the world how well you are doing economically and expect people who have no prospects where they are not to come and join in the feast. The root cause of immigration, legal and illegal, is the unequal distribution of wealth across the world. The only way to stop it is to make sure that international trade benefits everyone. — Ludwig V

Yeah yeah root causes. I'm all for addressing root causes. Meanwhile control the border. Because if you don't, you won't be able to suppress enough free speech to stop the tidal wave of resentment that's coming. Didn't the Tories just get swept out because they FAILED to deliver on their promise of controlling immigration?

I think it became very clear during the last few days what the people think, don't you? — Ludwig V

I wouldn't know ... I actually don't know what you're referring to. People who speak out against immigration are being thrown in Starmer's prisons. So clearly we are not hearing people's true feelings.

It is indeed grossly over-blown.
I hear a lot about the possibility of civil war in the US. What do you think? — Ludwig V

I think that's overblown too!!

Yes, I know that what happened to George Floyd was contested and I don't really know what the truth of the matter was. How do you know that the mainstream account is all a lie? Everyone lies, not just the Government. — Ludwig V

Floyd was a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. His police force threw him under the bus. That's supported by the facts.

I agree that things are different in the Middle East. But religion and state are also intertwined in the West. The relationship works differently, that's all. — Ludwig V

We shall see. My understanding is that over the long term, Islamists seek to take over the west. Maybe that's just right wing propaganda.

I think you are paying to much attention to the fundamentalists - who are a problem, but not an existential threat, I think. — Ludwig V

I'll grant you than in the 1970, US and European radical leftists set off a lot of bombs and killed a lot of people, but the rest of us survived.

So, how many Islamic terror bombings are ok with you? They just tried to pull off a terrorist attack at a Taylor Swift concert. Myself, I am not a big fan of Muslim extremism, and on average these days, there's way too much of it.

The biggest threat is not from Islam, but from Putin and Xi Jinping. Putin is (officially) Christian and Xi Jinping (officially) communist. Both are actually old-fashioned imperialists, just like the West was in the 19th and early 20th century. — Ludwig V

The Chinese are not US and British domestic terrorists. And I'm sure you know how Xi handles his Muslims. He puts them in concentration camps in western China. I don't support him in that. I support the plight of the Uyghurs. These are all complicated issues. I don't have to be ignoring Xi just because I'm opposed to Islamic terrorism.

I don't know for sure who will win. But I think the West has a very good chance. — Ludwig V

People have been predicting the fall of the west for about a century now I think. Spengler, the Decline of the West.

He's threatened to arrest and extradite Americans for exercising our free speech rights. He can't do that, we have the First Amendment here. He's gone mad as far as I can tell. His double-standard with respect to violent Muslim rioting is obvious. — fishfry

Sorry, I think you are a bit confused. He can arrest and deport (i.e. send back home) US citizens who misbehave. The UK also has free speech, but bans incitement to riot. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are lucky that he doesn't apply UK law and throw them in jail.
I haven't seen anything about violent Muslim rioting recently - not in the UK, anyway. Obviously, if no Muslims are rioting, he can't throw them in jail.

The current hordes coming in, in the US and in England, are a matter of government policy. — fishfry

Well, you know best about what's going in the USA. In the UK, the Government has been trying to prevent immigration across the Channel for decades. You would think it was easy enough. But they've failed.

You simply need to have the border guards do their jobs instead of telling them not to. — fishfry

People are who prepared to die to get here are very difficult to stop.

Cheap labor is always popular. But who gets hurt? The people legally here, the natives, who are perhaps in the trades themselves and who can't compete with the cheap labor. — fishfry

Who employs the cheap labour? When those people are not prepared to employ them, the incentive will disappear. That's what I meant about lack of public support. People are happy to make a fuss, but not willing to pay a bit more for labour. You can't have it both ways.

People who speak out against immigration are being thrown in Starmer's prisons. So clearly we are not hearing people's true feelings. — fishfry

You're begging the question. The courts think that those people are rioting, and that's not free speech, it's violence. As for people's true feelings, you seem to trust the Telegraph.
Daily Telegraph Southport Counter-demonstrations

Didn't the Tories just get swept out because they FAILED to deliver on their promise of controlling immigration? — fishfry

Yes, but that was just one aspect of their failure to deliver any public services at all. Health, Education, Justice, Defence, not to mention the housing crisis - the list is endless. Obsessed by in-fighting and tax reduction, failed to do their job.

I think that's overblown too!! — fishfry

I'm very glad to hear it.

Floyd was a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. His police force threw him under the bus. That's supported by the facts. — fishfry

I agree it is supported by some of the facts. But surely the police are not supposed to throw people under buses - arrest and fair trial?

We shall see. My understanding is that over the long term, Islamists seek to take over the west. Maybe that's just right wing propaganda. — fishfry

Islam is a missionary religion. It seeks to become the universal religion. The idea of the theocratic Caliphate is an aim that some fundamentalists are committed to. That's true. It's just that I don't think they will succeed. Sadly, they can do a lot of damage while they are trying.

Christianity has the same ambitions. They are not terrorists, of course. Nonetheless, while I respect their right to campaign for their views, I object strongly to their desire to impose their views on me and suppress mine.

So, how many Islamic terror bombings are ok with you? — fishfry

Oh, come on. I think that Islamic fundamentalism is not an existentialist threat to the West. That doesn't mean that terror bombings are ok with me

He puts them in concentration camps in western China. I don't support him in that. I support the plight of the Uyghurs. These are all complicated issues. — fishfry

I agree with you that they are complicated. The desire to suppress IS and similar groups is perfectly reasonable. But the means employed against Uighurs are grossly disproportionate.

You simply need to have the border guards do their jobs instead of telling them not to. — fishfry

You're missing the problem. People who are willing to die to get in to UK or US are very hard to stop. Public opinion won't support extreme measures (which would probably not work anyway)

The Chinese are not US and British domestic terrorists. — fishfry

Strictly speaking, they are not terrorists. But both of them operate in secret in the UK and elsewhere.

I don't have to be ignoring Xi just because I'm opposed to Islamic terrorism. — fishfry

Fair enough.

Sorry, I think you are a bit confused. He can arrest and deport (i.e. send back home) US citizens who misbehave. — Ludwig V

He explicitly threatened non-Brits in their home countries. I am not confused about this, it has been extremely widely reported.

"London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the UK, but on American citizens as well.

“We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News."

https://nypost.com/2024/08/10/media/uk-police-commissioner-threatens-to-extradite-jail-us-citizens-over-online-posts-well-come-after-you/

The UK also has free speech, but bans incitement to riot. — Ludwig V

Some 60 year old was just jailed for a Facebook post. I can't argue with you about British politics, you being there and all, but we seem to have very different information. You can be jailed for just reposting info about riots, not inciting them.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are lucky that he doesn't apply UK law and throw them in jail.
I haven't seen anything about violent Muslim rioting recently - not in the UK, anyway. Obviously, if no Muslims are rioting, he can't throw them in jail. — Ludwig V

Well I've said my piece on this.

Well, you know best about what's going in the USA. In the UK, the Government has been trying to prevent immigration across the Channel for decades. You would think it was easy enough. But they've failed. — Ludwig V

By incompetence or design? Either way, the people seem unhappy about it.

People are who prepared to die to get here are very difficult to stop. — Ludwig V

Who is prepared to die? Impoverished peasants streaming across the US southern border?

Who employs the cheap labour? When those people are not prepared to employ them, the incentive will disappear. That's what I meant about lack of public support. People are happy to make a fuss, but not willing to pay a bit more for labour. You can't have it both ways. — Ludwig V

Agree on that. Lots of people benefit from broken immigration systems on both sides of the pond.

You're begging the question. The courts think that those people are rioting, and that's not free speech, it's violence. As for people's true feelings, you seem to trust the Telegraph.
Daily Telegraph Southport Counter-demonstrations — Ludwig V

The British courts don't have the US First Amendment, which provides legal protection for the most appalling expressions of ideas. I read that Prince Harry has called the First Amendment "bonkers." The US has very strong protections for speech not found in most other democratic nations.

Yes, but that was just one aspect of their failure to deliver any public services at all. Health, Education, Justice, Defence, not to mention the housing crisis - the list is endless. Obsessed by in-fighting and tax reduction, failed to do their job. — Ludwig V

And now you've got Starmer. Good luck! I should talk, right? We're about to have Queen Kamala.

I agree it is supported by some of the facts. But surely the police are not supposed to throw people under buses - arrest and fair trial? — Ludwig V

During the summer of Floyd that's exactly what they did. There was another case of the three Georgia guys thrown in prison for decades for the accidental death of a known burglar.

Islam is a missionary religion. It seeks to become the universal religion. The idea of the theocratic Caliphate is an aim that some fundamentalists are committed to. That's true. It's just that I don't think they will succeed. Sadly, they can do a lot of damage while they are trying. — Ludwig V

Well if Islam seeks to become a universal religion, what happens to your nation when there are enough of them to make a political difference? It's no hypothetical.

Christianity has the same ambitions. They are not terrorists, of course. Nonetheless, while I respect their right to campaign for their views, I object strongly to their desire to impose their views on me and suppress mine. — Ludwig V

Who is suppressing your views?

Oh, come on. I think that Islamic fundamentalism is not an existentialist threat to the West. That doesn't mean that terror bombings are ok with me — Ludwig V

We shall see.

I agree with you that they are complicated. The desire to suppress IS and similar groups is perfectly reasonable. But the means employed against Uighurs are grossly disproportionate. — Ludwig V

I agree.

You're missing the problem. People who are willing to die to get in to UK or US are very hard to stop. Public opinion won't support extreme measures (which would probably not work anyway) — Ludwig V

Nobody's "willing to die," they're just walking across an open border in the US. When Trump had his Remain in Mexico policy, the problem was greatly reduced. These aren't armed hordes "willing to die," what are you talking about? These are illiterate peasants walking across an open border that can be closed if the leadership wills it.

Strictly speaking, they are not terrorists. But both of them operate in secret in the UK and elsewhere. — Ludwig V

Ok. China has its own problems though. I hear they're in demographic collapse.

He explicitly threatened non-Brits in their home countries. I am not confused about this, it has been extremely widely reported. — fishfry

You're right. I was confused. But it is quite simple. If you break British law in Britain and go home, Britain can sue in US courts for extradition, take you to back Britain and try you. If you break US law in the US and go home, US can sue in British courts for extradition, take you to back to the US and try you. Seems fair enough to me. Most countries in the West have the same arrangement - by treaty, i.e. international law.

You can be jailed for just reposting info about riots, not inciting them. — fishfry

Info or Incitement?
There's an interesting question about people who are US citizens in the US posting something to Britain that is within US law but banned in Britain. There's a suggestion that they can be extradited, but I find it very hard to believe.
There's a new law in Britain that if you re-post an illegal post by someone else, you are also guilty of incitement. I agree that's pushing it a bit, but if someone is inciting violence and you join in the incitement, I think there's a case for it - if you can prove it. After all, if you help someone committing a theft, you are also breaking the law. No?
There's a big push in the UK and Europe to get the internet under control. You may not be aware of how much the big internet companies are resented over here. They have a very poor reputation. One has to give them credit for taking the issues seriously, but they don't take effective action. They plead free speech, but no-one believes that. It's about the bottom line and that's not acceptable.

Who is prepared to die? Impoverished peasants streaming across the US southern border? — fishfry

I'm not sure who you trust on this. But Reuters have a pretty good reputation.
Reuters on deaths on US-Mexico border
Certainly, people die in the Channel regularly. BBC on migrant deaths in the Channel
I don't know how many, if any, are illiterate. Why does it matter?

The British courts don't have the US First Amendment, which provides legal protection for the most appalling expressions of ideas. I read that Prince Harry has called the First Amendment "bonkers." The US has very strong protections for speech not found in most other democratic nations. — fishfry

Yes, that's true. The UK does have protection for free speech. Just not as much as in the US. People resent they way the the US internet companies impose your law on us.
However, I really don't care at all what Prince Harry's views are; he has no special knowledge or authority that I'm aware of. I can't understand why people in the US get so excited about our royal family. They are an embarrassment in a supposedly democratic country.

And now you've got Starmer. Good luck! I should talk, right? We're about to have Queen Kamala. — fishfry

Starmer is at least less of a joke than the other lot. Rishi Sunak was better his immediate predecessors, but was undermined by his own party. I have the impression that Trump is still likely to win.

Well if Islam seeks to become a universal religion, what happens to your nation when there are enough of them to make a political difference? It's no hypothetical. — fishfry

Hopefully, by that time, there will be more home-grown imams and fewer radicals imported from back home. There are already a good many of them (home-grown imams) - they just don't get the news coverage. Plus, generations born and brought up here are, on the whole, often atheists or moderates. I think they will settle down. If the other immigrant communities are anything to go by, there'll be a lot of inter-marriage with the general population, anyway.

Who is suppressing your views? — fishfry

Sorry, I wasn't clear. No-one is suppressing my views. Fortunately, I'm pretty much mainstream. I've tried to clarify what I was trying to say and failed, so I'll have to let it go.

Ok. China has its own problems though. I hear they're in demographic collapse. — fishfry

So are many other Western countries, including Britain, not to mention Japan and Korea. There's a lot of argument about the reasons. Most plausible explanation is that that a modern capitalist economy makes it too hard to bring up children. Either you live in poverty with children or you work to make the money for a decent life without children. Not to mention the gloomy outlook for the West. That also is one of the reasons why Britain actually needs immigrants and allows many in, legally.

The USA is not doing well but is not in collapse - yet.
US Census Bureau 2023
US Census Bureau 2021

You're right. I was confused. But it is quite simple. If you break British law in Britain and go home, Britain can sue in US courts for extradition, take you to back Britain and try you. If you break US law in the US and go home, US can sue in British courts for extradition, take you to back to the US and try you. Seems fair enough to me. Most countries in the West have the same arrangement - by treaty, i.e. international law. — Ludwig V

A British official threatened to extradite Americans whose free speech offended him. There is no conceivable way you can spin this. It's disgraceful.

Info or Incitement? — Ludwig V

In Britain a guy was arrested for "anti-establishment rhetoric." If that doesn't bother you, I won't further argue the point.

https://www.allsides.com/news/2024-08-14-1315/general-news-bbc-court-hears-man-arrested-anti-establishment-rhetoric

There's an interesting question about people who are US citizens in the US posting something to Britain that is within US law but banned in Britain. There's a suggestion that they can be extradited, but I find it very hard to believe. — Ludwig V

It's hard to believe they could actually do it; but a British official did threaten it. The British government has gone full fascist. I'm sorry you can't see it. Maybe you're too close.

There's a new law in Britain that if you re-post an illegal post by someone else, you are also guilty of incitement. I agree that's pushing it a bit, but if someone is inciting violence and you join in the incitement, I think there's a case for it - if you can prove it. After all, if you help someone committing a theft, you are also breaking the law. No? — Ludwig V

Anti-establishment rhetoric. As an American accustomed to the robust protections of the First Amendment, I'm appalled. You don't seem very keen on free speech as I understand the term.

There's a big push in the UK and Europe to get the internet under control. You may not be aware of how much the big internet companies are resented over here. They have a very poor reputation. One has to give them credit for taking the issues seriously, but they don't take effective action. They plead free speech, but no-one believes that. It's about the bottom line and that's not acceptable. — Ludwig V

Free speech is under attack everywhere. That's why it's so vitally important to defend it, and to push back on these awful statements and policies of the Starmer regime. I'm sure Europeans have been conditioned to hate and fear free speech, free expression, and free thinking. That's to their own ultimate detriment. Lot of people in the States want the government control the Internet too.

I'm not sure who you trust on this. But Reuters have a pretty good reputation.
Reuters on deaths on US-Mexico border
Certainly, people die in the Channel regularly. BBC on migrant deaths in the Channel
I don't know how many, if any, are illiterate. Why does it matter? — Ludwig V

You're making an obscure and convoluted point. I'm fully aware of the dangers to illegal immigrants. But most just walk across (in the US) and are welcomed by an administration that refuses to enforce its own laws.

Yes, that's true. The UK does have protection for free speech. Just not as much as in the US. People resent they way the the US internet companies impose your law on us.
However, I really don't care at all what Prince Harry's views are; he has no special knowledge or authority that I'm aware of. I can't understand why people in the US get so excited about our royal family. They are an embarrassment in a supposedly democratic country. — Ludwig V

I have a theory about why the Americans love the British Royals. We get to enjoy all the pomp, the circumstance, and the salacious scandals. And we don't have to pay for it!

Starmer is at least less of a joke than the other lot. Rishi Sunak was better his immediate predecessors, but was undermined by his own party. I have the impression that Trump is still likely to win. — Ludwig V

Kam's got the media on her side and a newly energized Democratic party. Trump is old, seems confused and out of sorts lately, and IMO may be suffering a touch of age-related dementia himself. The election could go either way.

Hopefully, by that time, there will be more home-grown imams and fewer radicals imported from back home. — Ludwig V

The second-generation native born Muslims seem to manage to get themselves radicalized anyway.

There are already a good many of them (home-grown imams) - they just don't get the news coverage. Plus, generations born and brought up here are, on the whole, often atheists or moderates. I think they will settle down. If the other immigrant communities are anything to go by, there'll be a lot of inter-marriage with the general population, anyway. — Ludwig V

You are a glass half full guy! I am not so sanguine.

By the way, 100,000 Hamas-loving maniacs are going to riot at the Democratic convention in Chicago this week. Should be something for the world to see.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. No-one is suppressing my views. Fortunately, I'm pretty much mainstream. I've tried to clarify what I was trying to say and failed, so I'll have to let it go.[/quote]

Of course. You have the establishment view. I often take the anti-establishment view. In your country I'd be subject to arrest.

So are many other Western countries, including Britain, not to mention Japan and Korea. There's a lot of argument about the reasons. Most plausible explanation is that that a modern capitalist economy makes it too hard to bring up children. Either you live in poverty with children or you work to make the money for a decent life without children. Not to mention the gloomy outlook for the West. That also is one of the reasons why Britain actually needs immigrants and allows many in, legally.

The USA is not doing well but is not in collapse - yet. — Ludwig V

"There's a lot of ruin in a country."