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

Are you saying that US law should apply in the UK? How is that not imperialism?

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

Actuallly, it does
[quote=News report]the posts were alleged to contain anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric.[/quote]
They don't give details (no doubt for fear of being accused of spreading the words more widely), so I can't sort out what's going on. Anti-Muslim is a problem. Anti-establishment is not. It's interesting that the headlines all mention "anti-establishment" and don't mention "anti-muslim". That does puzzle me.

It's hard to believe they could actually do it; but a British official did threaten it. — fishfry

I don't think they could do it either.

The British government has gone full fascist. I'm sorry you can't see it. Maybe you're too close — fishfry

Perhaps I am. My parents fought WW2. So I think I have a real understanding of what full fascism is. Believe me, this isn't it.

You don't seem very keen on free speech as I understand the term. — fishfry

Perhaps we just have different ideas about free speech. You have yours. I have mine. Why is that a problem? I don't think anyone thinks there should be no restrictions at all. Even the US has libel laws, doesn't it?

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. — fishfry

Sadly, from my point of view, US citizens have been conditioned to hate and fear sensible controls to minimize the harm that some people will inflict on them by exploiting their freedoms - not only in free speech, but also in the matter of gun control. There may be detriments to control, but there are detriments to unlimited freedom. It's a choice. Nothing is pure benefit.

Lot of people in the States want the government control the Internet too. — fishfry

And have they been conditioned as well? Or just making a different choice from you?

Lot of people in the States want the government control the Internet too. — fishfry

And have they been conditioned as well? Or just making a different choice from you?

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. — fishfry

Perhaps. So long as you are aware. The problem is that many people aren't as concerned about immigration as you are. So, to enforce immigration restrictions, you would need a police state. Indeed, I rather think that you would not be happy about that.
By the way, why are you so keen on freedom of speech and so much against freedom of movement?

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! — fishfry

I suppose that works. But they are actually very boring people.

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. — fishfry

It's true. Kam has managed to revive the Democrats, and now it's more of an actual race. I did wonder, in all the fuss about Biden, whether the issue might come back to bite Trump.

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

There's not that many of them. There will be fewer in the third generation.

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. — fishfry

Ever since that business started off, I've been astonished how Israel has mismanaged the propaganda war. They started off with the moral high ground and have surrendered it almost completely.

You have the establishment view. .... In your country I'd be subject to arrest. — fishfry

Sometimes I agree with the mainstream (that's less pejorative than "establishment"), but not always. No, you would not be subject to arrest in this country on the basis of anything you have said to me.

Are you saying that US law should apply in the UK? How is that not imperialism? — Ludwig V

The emerging globalist government is cracking down on free speech. You and I are not on the same side of this issue. Perhaps we can agree to disagree. I'll go with the First amendment to the US Constitution. I'm burnt out on this topic, my apologies.

They don't give details (no doubt for fear of being accused of spreading the words more widely), so I can't sort out what's going on. Anti-Muslim is a problem. Anti-establishment is not. It's interesting that the headlines all mention "anti-establishment" and don't mention "anti-muslim". That does puzzle me. — Ludwig V

Your government is way over the line these days. But like I say, I have my hands full fighting off the censors in the US. Hoping for the best for our British cousins. I hear Starmer is letting hardened criminals out to make room for the posters of mean tweets.

Perhaps I am. My parents fought WW2. So I think I have a real understanding of what full fascism is. Believe me, this isn't it. — Ludwig V

Well authoritarianism doesn't always look like jackboots.

Perhaps we just have different ideas about free speech. You have yours. I have mine. Why is that a problem? I don't think anyone thinks there should be no restrictions at all. Even the US has libel laws, doesn't it? — Ludwig V

Americans have extremely wide latitude for free expression. For the moment, anyway.

Sadly, from my point of view, US citizens have been conditioned to hate and fear sensible controls to minimize the harm that some people will inflict on them by exploiting their freedoms - not only in free speech, but also in the matter of gun control. There may be detriments to control, but there are detriments to unlimited freedom. It's a choice. Nothing is pure benefit. — Ludwig V

Well your side is going to soon crush my side. I have no doubt that bad days are ahead. You might call them good days. No unapproved thoughts.

Oh yeah there was that woman arrested for silently praying. That case got dismissed. But still ... arrested for what is in your thoughts?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo

I think we should drop this. You know the kind of scurrilous literature I read. Since we talked last I've got 20 articles about the repression of speech in England. I won't bore you with them.

And have they been conditioned as well? Or just making a different choice from you? — Ludwig V

Actively trying to destroy free speech. I say that's bad.

And have they been conditioned as well? Or just making a different choice from you? — Ludwig V

Bad choices.

Jonathan Turley just wrote a book about all this.

https://www.amazon.com/Indispensable-Right-Free-Speech-Rage/dp/1668047047

Perhaps. So long as you are aware. The problem is that many people aren't as concerned about immigration as you are. So, to enforce immigration restrictions, you would need a police state. Indeed, I rather think that you would not be happy about that. — Ludwig V

Not so. Trump's Remain in Mexico policy was keeping a lid on the problem. You don't need a police state to simply defend your own border and enforce the laws already on the books.

I believe it was Milton Friedman who said you can't have both open borders and a welfare state. That's the mistake the US government is making.

By the way, why are you so keen on freedom of speech and so much against freedom of movement? — Ludwig V

I can live with open borders as long as nobody gets government services. But that's not workable, because people get sick and need health care. Kids need education. It's a thorny problem.

But your question is analogous to asking, "Since you're against bank robbery, why are you against bank withdrawals." I'm fine with legal immigration.

I suppose that works. But they are actually very boring people. — Ludwig V

I don't spend much time following the Royals, but they're in the news and hard to miss. Meghan and Harry and all that. England's gift to the US.

It's true. Kam has managed to revive the Democrats, and now it's more of an actual race. I did wonder, in all the fuss about Biden, whether the issue might come back to bite Trump. — Ludwig V

So far Kam still hasn't announced any actual policy stances, nor sat for an interview or press conference. She might get away with it. Trump looks tired and out of it these days.

There's not that many of them. There will be fewer in the third generation. — Ludwig V

One can only hope.

Ever since that business started off, I've been astonished how Israel has mismanaged the propaganda war. They started off with the moral high ground and have surrendered it almost completely. — Ludwig V

Agree. Even their friends are upset with them now. It's a tough situation. And very volatile if Iran and Israel go to war.

Sometimes I agree with the mainstream (that's less pejorative than "establishment"), but not always. No, you would not be subject to arrest in this country on the basis of anything you have said to me. — Ludwig V

I hope your buddy Starmer is as open-minded :-)

ps -- This just came across the wire. The head of Telegram was just arrested in France, for a "lack of moderation" on the platform. Europe is cracking down on free speech. I think that's very bad. You are not so unhappy. As a philosopher how can you support crackdowns on free speech? Didn't Socrates run afoul of the Starmer types? "Corrupting the youth." Exactly the kind of vague charge the Eurocrats are using to suppress free expression.

Pardon the scurrilous right wing site link, it's factual info that I'm sure is replicated elsewhere.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2024/08/24/justice-europe-style-telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-arrested-due-to-lack-of-moderation-on-platform/

ps -- I'll stipulate that he's charged with all kinds of awful things. The French must think they have a case. Interesting to keep an eye on this one. Another article:

https://nypost.com/2024/08/24/world-news/telegram-founder-pavel-durov-arrested-at-paris-airport-report/

"Law enforcement believe that Telegram’s lack of moderation and the tools it offers, such as cryptocurrencies, make it complicit in global drug trafficking, pedophilia and fraud. "

Yeah the prosecutor's press conferences always make people seem awful. We'll see what they can actually bring to trial. I don't know the guy, not defending anything he may or may not have actually done. If he's enabling illegal activities, that's different than if he's only enabling free speech. We'll have to wait and see.

Evidently he screwed up by landing in France.

The emerging globalist government is cracking down on free speech. You and I are not on the same side of this issue. Perhaps we can agree to disagree. I'll go with the First amendment to the US Constitution. I'm burnt out on this topic, my apologies. — fishfry

OK.

Well authoritarianism doesn't always look like jackboots. — fishfry

True. But fascism does.

But still ... arrested for what is in your thoughts? — fishfry

I don't know about that case. I agree it looks bad. But on the principle, the difference between murder and manslaughter is your intention i.e. what is in your thoughts.

I think we should drop this. You know the kind of scurrilous literature I read. Since we talked last I've got 20 articles about the repression of speech in England. I won't bore you with them. — fishfry

Fair enough. I don't expect us to agree about much. I'm quite happy to understand what you think and find out what we agree about. After that, agreement to disagree is fine, and certainly much better than exchanging abuse.

Actively trying to destroy free speech. I say that's bad. Bad choices. — fishfry

You seem to resent any restrictions on free speech. The classic question here is whether you have no objection to someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre or stadium when they know darn well that there is no fire. (Thus causing mass panic and distress, injury and death) Nobody doesn't limit free speech. The only question is what limitations are appropriate.

Not so. Trump's Remain in Mexico policy was keeping a lid on the problem. You don't need a police state to simply defend your own border and enforce the laws already on the books. — fishfry

I gather that the numbers were down and have gone up since. I don't know why.

I can live with open borders as long as nobody gets government services. But that's not workable, because people get sick and need health care. Kids need education. It's a thorny problem.. — fishfry

It is indeed.

I believe it was Milton Friedman who said you can't have both open borders and a welfare state. That's the mistake the US government is making. — fishfry

That's what I call the honey-pot effect. That's a thorny problem too.

But your question is analogous to asking, "Since you're against bank robbery, why are you against bank withdrawals." I'm fine with legal immigration. — fishfry

What if you disagree with the existing laws about immigration? People who have a problem with immigration want restrictive laws as well. Most people expect some level of control. The really thorny argument is how much control should there be. (At one point, the law in the UK did not allow any immigration at all. It didn't work very well.)

I may be exaggerating about the police state, but how would you feel about employers having to get government approval before offering anyone a job? Or hospitals having to check your status with the government before treating or even examining you? Or hotels, landlords and restaurants contacting the police before letting you have a room? Schools asking permission before they take on your child? Have a look at what China is doing on the surveillance front.

Your government is way over the line these days. But like I say, I have my hands full fighting off the censors in the US. Hoping for the best for our British cousins. I hear Starmer is letting hardened criminals out to make room for the posters of mean tweets. — fishfry

Whose line is it over? Yours? But you are not living here and you are not a citizen. The job of the UK government in the UK is to keep in line those who are way over the UK lines (by law). That's what they are doing.

I don't spend much time following the Royals, but they're in the news and hard to miss. Meghan and Harry and all that. England's gift to the US. — fishfry

There's a paradox. In the UK, there is practically no coverage at all of what they are doing at the moment. They are invisible.

So far Kam still hasn't announced any actual policy stances, nor sat for an interview or press conference. She might get away with it. Trump looks tired and out of it these days. — fishfry

She does seem to have got the Democrates back in contention. She seems to have worked out that joy and confidence are more attractive than fear. It's a brilliant move against Trump.
I'm also wondering if his age is catching up with him, and whether it will create difficulties for him when it comes to voting. That would be ironic. There's a rather old-fashioned phrase in English English "hoist with his own petard" it means roughly "blown up by his own grenade". Very satisfying.

One can only hope. — fishfry

Well it will help if, in the mean time, we do not treat as terrorists people who are not terrorists. Islamic terrorists are a tiny minority of Islamic people. The vast majority of them disapprove of them. Other Islamic people have suffered from them as well, you know.

I hope your buddy Starmer is as open-minded :-) — fishfry

I'm sure he will, and if he doesn't, there are plenty of his supporters and officials who will sit on his head.

Well your side is going to soon crush my side. I have no doubt that bad days are ahead. You might call them good days. No unapproved thoughts. — fishfry

On the contrary, I'm seriously worried that the whole world is moving to the right. The dictators (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and all the small fry) think things are going their way. They recently had a global conference to swop tactics and sympathy - somewhere in S. America, I think. The UK, I believe, was represented by Nigel Farage! Talk about the emerging global government. It's quite likely to be a right-wing government.

This just came across the wire. The head of Telegram was just arrested in France, for a "lack of moderation" on the platform. Europe is cracking down on free speech. I think that's very bad. — fishfry

The question is whether Telegram is facilitating free speech (good) or facilitating criminal activities (bad). I think that if he couldn't help the bad people taking advantage of Telegram. But he could at least try to prevent them or at least help police and prosecutors nail them.

Didn't Socrates run afoul of the Starmer types? — fishfry

Not really, though politics played a big part. Prosecutions in Athens were only brought by private citizens; there was no such thing as Government legal action. It was a very different world. The real problem that many of his followers were right wing. But there's no evidence that he agreed with them and some evidence that he believed in the Athenian constitution, which the right wing opposed.

If he's enabling illegal activities, that's different than if he's only enabling free speech. — fishfry

There's something we agree on.

I find it hard to believe that he didn't realize he was liable to arrest if he went to France. What were his people doing? It looks as if he and they just assumed that because he was OK in the USA, he must be OK in France. That's the kind of attitude that seriously annoys the rest of the world.

I gather that the numbers were down and have gone up since. I don't know why — Ludwig V

Surge the border

This might be a clue. I am enjoying the discussion by the two of you. Better by far than what is found on the visible pages.

This might be a clue. I am enjoying the discussion by the two of you. Better by far than what is found on the visible pages. — jgill

Well, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. I've looked at some of the clips, none of which I trust because they are clips and context is always important.
It looks much like what goes on here. More and more people come. The policies make precious little difference. Politicians spend their time bickering and trying to invent quick fixes. No-one really cares about the problem.
I'm glad you are enjoying our conversation. We are trying to demonstrate a better way.

True. But fascism does. — Ludwig V

Oh no, that's the point. Mussolini defined fascism as the merger of state and corporate power. That's exactly what happened when the US government pressured the social media companies to censor and suppress speech. That's exactly what fascism is. No jackboots. Just the state and corporate power crushing the freedom of the individual. It's rampant these days. Very dangerous. Because it comes dressed as benevolence. "We just want to keep you safe from misinformation." Soft fascism if you like.

I don't know about that case. I agree it looks bad. But on the principle, the difference between murder and manslaughter is your intention i.e. what is in your thoughts. — Ludwig V

We talking about the Telegram guy? Brand new story, he just got arrested lately. One account said "... he’s now jailed, and facing 20 years for the heinous crime of “allowing people to speak privately to one another in a manner the EU cannot readily surveil.”

I find that concerning. We'll see how this plays out.

Fair enough. I don't expect us to agree about much. — Ludwig V

But we sure can yak!

I'm quite happy to understand what you think and find out what we agree about. After that, agreement to disagree is fine, and certainly much better than exchanging abuse. — Ludwig V

I don't like online abuse. Or like that great Rolling Stones line ... "I went down to the demonstration, to get my fair share of abuse." Love that line.

You seem to resent any restrictions on free speech. — Ludwig V

Resent? Not sure what you mean. I support the First amendment. One of the best things about the US. I believe freedom of expression is one of the most basic and vital of all human rights. It's under attack all over the so-called liberal west. I find that troubling. I see no resentment there. I see the defining political issue of our time. The freedom of the individual to say what's on their mind.

The classic question here is whether you have no objection to someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre or stadium when they know darn well that there is no fire. (Thus causing mass panic and distress, injury and death) Nobody doesn't limit free speech. The only question is what limitations are appropriate.[/quote]

I hope you know, and as a professional philosopher you should know, that this is a bad example, was never a principle of law, and isn't about what you think it is. Even Wikipedia has a decent writeup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Another good writeup:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-fire-crowded-theater-speech-regulation/621151/

You are wrong to use that example. It's totally weak and incorrect argument. It does not mean what people think it means. It's not illegal. It was never illegal. The legal ruling in which it appeared has long been overturned.

In the US, direct incitement to violence or unlawful action is illegal. Just about anything else, no matter how vile, is legal. Of course that is under attack these days.

That's what I call the honey-pot effect. That's a thorny problem too. — Ludwig V

Thorny enough that Brits are rioting. Americans haven't gotten to that point yet. America's a big place, you can drop in ten million foreigners and the disturbances will still be local.

What if you disagree with the existing laws about immigration? People who have a problem with immigration want restrictive laws as well. Most people expect some level of control. The really thorny argument is how much control should there be. (At one point, the law in the UK did not allow any immigration at all. It didn't work very well.) — Ludwig V

The Biden-Harris administration had an open border. They tightened it up this election year when it became a political problem.

No nation can have an open border when the people coming in are by and large illiterate peasants with few work skills and massive social needs.

I may be exaggerating about the police state, but how would you feel about employers having to get government approval before offering anyone a job? — Ludwig V

Counterintuitively, I'm a libertarian on that. I believe in the free exchange of labor. But Mexico is not exporting brain surgeons. They're exporting illiterate peasants. You have much the same problem in your country, along with a certain degree of anti-western religious feeling. Not by all, but by some. You did hear about that stabbing in Germany. At the "diversity" festival no less. God is a joker.

Or hospitals having to check your status with the government before treating or even examining you? Or hotels, landlords and restaurants contacting the police before letting you have a room? Schools asking permission before they take on your child? Have a look at what China is doing on the surveillance front. — Ludwig V

No, I disagree with all of that. I don't claim to have the answers. I'm pro-freedom. If you abolished the welfare state I'd be for open borders. Some happy medium. Fewer social services in order to discourage people from showing up who can't support themselves. With that proviso, I'd let everyone in who can make a contribution. That's actually my belief, not that I'm certain it would work.

Whose line is it over? Yours? — Ludwig V

Not yours? People thrown in prison for tweets the government doesn't like?

But you are not living here and you are not a citizen. The job of the UK government in the UK is to keep in line those who are way over the UK lines (by law). That's what they are doing. — Ludwig V

Not that benign from what I hear. We'll have to see how it plays out. You know the censors never stop with the people YOU don't like. When they came for the trade unionists I said nothing, etc.

There's a paradox. In the UK, there is practically no coverage at all of what they are doing at the moment. They are invisible. — Ludwig V

Is that right? It's all Meghan and Harry all the time over here. Probably because the New York Post is all over it. Another scurrilous right wing gossip rag I read every day.

She does seem to have got the Democrates back in contention. She seems to have worked out that joy and confidence are more attractive than fear. It's a brilliant move against Trump. — Ludwig V

For sure she's a big upgrade over senescent Biden. She can stay up past 4pm and whip up a crowd. We'll see how long she can get by without ever having a press conference or an interview. She can read a teleprompter very well, but she's often a disaster when speaking extemporaneously.

I'm also wondering if his age is catching up with him, and whether it will create difficulties for him when it comes to voting. That would be ironic. There's a rather old-fashioned phrase in English English "hoist with his own petard" it means roughly "blown up by his own grenade". Very satisfying. — Ludwig V

Trump is old and seems tired and out of it. No question. He's 78, nobody should be running for president at that age. And whether you think the lawfare and impeachments and Russiagate have been justified or not, he's been under enormous stress for eight years. Most humans would have long since been broken.

But yes he is the old and feeble one now.

Well it will help if, in the mean time, we do not treat as terrorists people who are not terrorists. Islamic terrorists are a tiny minority of Islamic people. The vast majority of them disapprove of them. Other Islamic people have suffered from them as well, you know. — Ludwig V

I agree. Then again there's that German stabber. Islamic terrorists have taken credit. People don't ike that kind of thing and it only takes 1% to ruin it for the rest. Not very fair to the 99% of hard working, loyal, peaceful Muslims in Europe.

I'm sure he will, and if he doesn't, there are plenty of his supporters and officials who will sit on his head. — Ludwig V

I see no checks on his power at the moment.

On the contrary, I'm seriously worried that the whole world is moving to the right. The dictators (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and all the small fry) think things are going their way. They recently had a global conference to swop tactics and sympathy - somewhere in S. America, I think. The UK, I believe, was represented by Nigel Farage! Talk about the emerging global government. It's quite likely to be a right-wing government. — Ludwig V

I like Nigel. He's fighting the emerging globalist government, as is Trump. The globalists talk like leftists and rule like ... well, fascists. Without jackboots.

The question is whether Telegram is facilitating free speech (good) or facilitating criminal activities (bad). I think that if he couldn't help the bad people taking advantage of Telegram. But he could at least try to prevent them or at least help police and prosecutors nail them. — Ludwig V

Comes down to what responsibility platforms have. Being litigated all over the world at the moment.

Not really, though politics played a big part. Prosecutions in Athens were only brought by private citizens; there was no such thing as Government legal action. It was a very different world. The real problem that many of his followers were right wing. But there's no evidence that he agreed with them and some evidence that he believed in the Athenian constitution, which the right wing opposed. — Ludwig V

I don't really know much about it. I heard he got a bad deal. Still, corrupting the youth. That's the kind of charges agains Telegram and other social media companies. "Disinformation." Who decides what that is?

— Ludwig V

Ok!

I find it hard to believe that he didn't realize he was liable to arrest if he went to France. What were his people doing? It looks as if he and they just assumed that because he was OK in the USA, he must be OK in France. That's the kind of attitude that seriously annoys the rest of the world. — Ludwig V

Nobody can figure out why he landed his private plane in France. Perhaps he expected to get arrested and wants the legal fight. Personally I spent a night in jail once and did not like it. I wouldn't go to jail to prove a point.

These quotations are not in the order they came in your messages. I hope that doesn't make anything difficult to follow.

Mussolini defined fascism as the merger of state and corporate power. — fishfry

Point taken. If Government and Corporations are collaborating, normal people don't stand a chance.

Comes down to what responsibility platforms have. Being litigated all over the world at the moment. — fishfry

There was a landmark case in the US about this. The difference is that platforms (internet, phone, slowmail and, I think, couriers) are not responsible for the content of what they carry, only for delivering it. But Government can intercept and read them. Newspapers and publishers in general (broadcasters as well) do have responsibility for the material they publish; I think the difference is that they have editorial control over it, i.e. pick and choose what they publish. The point about platforms is that they don't pick and choose. The internet providers won the case, and have been dodging the small print about Government access ever since.

I like Nigel. He's fighting the emerging globalist government, as is Trump. — fishfry

Nigel is indeed very likeable when you first meet him. When you get to know him better - not that I know him, but I have followed him and had him pushed in my face for quite a while - you may well decide that he is a sleaze-bag. I doubt if he seriously cares about anyone but himself.

I see no checks on his power at the moment. — fishfry

Checks on the power of the Prime Minister in the UK are mostly behind the scenes.

When they came for the trade unionists I said nothing, etc. — fishfry

I'm very mindful of that.

People thrown in prison for tweets the government doesn't like? — fishfry

That would be worrying. But people setting up a meeting with the intention of rioting - those I worry less about.

Some happy medium. Fewer social services in order to discourage people from showing up who can't support themselves. With that proviso, I'd let everyone in who can make a contribution. — fishfry

Happy medium is exactly right - but also the problem. You do know, don't you, that illiterate people can also make a contribution? Not sure that reducing welfare for everyone in order to discourage immigrants would play very well in politics.

Then again there's that German stabber. Islamic terrorists have taken credit. — fishfry

IS have claimed responsibility for events that they had no hand in. On the grounds that anyone who does something they approve of is a supporter. I'm not sure where that issue has got to now.

God is a joker. — fishfry

Yes, indeed. It's not a popular theology, but the ancient Greeks believed it and the Vikings had a special god, Loki, for mischief. They reckoned that one of the primary functions of human beings is to provide amusement for the gods. Not a bad idea. Conventional heaven seems rather boring.

In the US, direct incitement to violence or unlawful action is illegal. Just about anything else, no matter how vile, is legal. — fishfry

I'm not surprised. But once you have conceded that, it's just a question of what and where. Not that it's an easy question.

I hope you know, and as a professional philosopher you should know, that this is a bad example, was never a principle of law, — fishfry

Well, I was never talking about the law as such. I didn't know about the Supreme Court. My intention was to use a cliche as a quick way of making a point.

there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge.

This was more what I was gesturing at, but more as a moral criticism that a matter of legal action.

Still others have categorized hate speech in a similar way.

I do have a problem about restricting that. Freedom of speech includes the right to give offence.

I don't like online abuse. — fishfry

And I agree with that. It's not contradictory. The reconciliation is that it seems only natural that if someone insults and abuses me, I would want to deck them, but that would be to lose the argument, so instead I would try to make them shut up. In a democracy, if that's the will of the people, I won't object.

Point taken. If Government and Corporations are collaborating, normal people don't stand a chance.[/quote]

Mark Zuckerberg was in the news today, sending a letter to Congress admitting that he was pressured by the government to help cover up the Hunter Biden laptop, which probably swung the 2020 election to Biden. He said he regretted being part of that cover up. Too little too late but better than nothing.

The Internet, which we all naively thought would be a tool of our liberation, instead turns out to be the instrument of our enslavement. China's social credit system on steroids, coming to a gulag near you.

Oh well you'd probably just say I "resent" that boot stomping on my face, forever. I should just get with the program and love Big Brother. I have no other choice anyway.

There was a landmark case in the US about this. The difference is that platforms (internet, phone, slowmail and, I think, couriers) are not responsible for the content of what they carry, only for delivering it. — Ludwig V

Right. Section 230.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

But Government can intercept and read them. Newspapers and publishers in general (broadcasters as well) do have responsibility for the material they publish; I think the difference is that they have editorial control over it, i.e. pick and choose what they publish. The point about platforms is that they don't pick and choose. The internet providers won the case, and have been dodging the small print about Government access ever since. — Ludwig V

Right. But it's tricky. Nobody, not even freedom-loving and rule-resenting me, thinks online platforms should be allowed to carry criminal material.

You know the reason I'm a little triggered by you saying I resent rules is because it's true. I've always been this way, always a rebel against authority.

Nigel is indeed very likeable when you first meet him. When you get to know him better - not that I know him, but I have followed him and had him pushed in my face for quite a while - you may well decide that he is a sleaze-bag. I doubt if he seriously cares about anyone but himself. — Ludwig V

I admit to being taken in by his superficial charm. Plus the UK is getting pretty stabby lately and the public is not happy when the only people going to prison are the ones calling attention to it.
I see no checks on his power at the moment.

I'm very mindful of that.[/quote

They say the Telegram case is a warning to Elon Musk, that he's next. The powers that be don't like free speech.
— Ludwig V

That would be worrying. But people setting up a meeting with the intention of rioting - those I worry less about. — Ludwig V

I'm not talking about people actually inciting riots. There are old ladies being tossed in jail for much much less.

And again -- in the US, the ruling class cheered on the Floyd riots and threw the J6'ers in solitary. So it's two-tier policing again.

Happy medium is exactly right - but also the problem. You do know, don't you, that illiterate people can also make a contribution? Not sure that reducing welfare for everyone in order to discourage immigrants would play very well in politics. — Ludwig V

Milton Friedman said you can't have open borders and a welfare state. That's the point I'm making.

In fact in the abstract, I'm an open-borders type. I say let everyone go where they like, but don't give anyone handouts. Then the productive people would gravitated to to the most free-market jurisdictions.

But of course that's not practical, because when people show up you can't just let them starve in the streets. So my solution is purely theoretical and idealistic. In real life, I'm just glad I'm not a big-city mayor, I'd have no idea what to do.

IS have claimed responsibility for events that they had no hand in. On the grounds that anyone who does something they approve of is a supporter. I'm not sure where that issue has got to now. — Ludwig V

Yes true. But the stabber was an Islamic refugee. And the German people are unhappy, hence their own anti-immigrant movement.

You know I like immigrants. If the government would impose some order on the system, it wouldn't be creating a right wing backlash. I don't like racist hooligans. But we have to try to grapple with the government policies that they are reacting too.

Yes, indeed. It's not a popular theology, but the ancient Greeks believed it and the Vikings had a special god, Loki, for mischief. They reckoned that one of the primary functions of human beings is to provide amusement for the gods. Not a bad idea. Conventional heaven seems rather boring. — Ludwig V

Yes definitely. God has a sense of humor.

I'm not surprised. But once you have conceded that, it's just a question of what and where. Not that it's an easy question. — Ludwig V

Pretty vile speech is affirmed over and over again by the US Supreme Court. It's a principle not often supported any more even in the US.

Well, I was never talking about the law as such. I didn't know about the Supreme Court. My intention was to use a cliche as a quick way of making a point. — Ludwig V

Yes sorry hope I didn't overreact. I did happen to read about the fire in a crowded theater example, and it turns out it was never against the law, and it was only kind of a sidebar issue to some legal case that's long since been overturned anyway. So everyone uses the example incorrectly.

What you can't do is incite everyone to murder the theater manager. That's a direct incitement to violence.

there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge. — Ludwig V

Yes I'm sure they'd throw the book at someone for doing that. So maybe it is illegal after all. I have no idea.

This was more what I was gesturing at, but more as a moral criticism that a matter of legal action.
Still others have categorized hate speech in a similar way.
I do have a problem about restricting that. Freedom of speech includes the right to give offence. — Ludwig V

Yes right. Just don't let Two-teir Keir hear you say that :-)

And believe me, with Harris and the Dems a pretty good chance to get elected, free speech will be over in the US soon enough.

And I agree with that. It's not contradictory. The reconciliation is that it seems only natural that if someone insults and abuses me, I would want to deck them, but that would be to lose the argument, so instead I would try to make them shut up. In a democracy, if that's the will of the people, I won't object. — Ludwig V

I'm thinking of online mostly. I'm on Quora a lot arguing about the JFK assassination, and people just get vile about the most trivial differences of opinion. And sometimes I do the same thing. I'm trying to be nicer and more civil online. Been at it for about 24 hours now :-)

the public is not happy when the only people going to prison are the ones calling attention to it. — fishfry

Some of the public are quite likely not happy. Others are more bothered by the rioting and are perfectly happy. Starmer has read the mood perfectly.

So everyone uses the example incorrectly. — fishfry

Yes. I won't use it again. And I'm all ready to slap down anyone who tries to.

Yes right. Just don't let Two-teir Keir hear you say that :-) — fishfry

I don't think he cares much what I think, and anyway, I don't think he's listening. But you never know. Everything leaks in the end. But I do choose carefully about who I raise it with.

And again -- in the US, the ruling class cheered on the Floyd riots and threw the J6'ers in solitary. So it's two-tier policing again. — fishfry

I can see your point. The problem is that whether you cheer on the rioters depends on whether you agree with them. You and I don't have to be impartial, so that's ok. Law enforcement does. But it's nigh on impossible, but I think most of them do try.
I do think it is hilarious to hear Trump bleating on about how all the prosecutions against him are political. I don't know whether or how much they are influenced by political considerations. The thing is, he wants to make all prosecutions political, by appointing people who agree with him politically to, for example, the Supreme Court and throughout the legal system. What matters is whether he is guilty or not - the fair trial. He does the same thing about elections. If he likes the result, he accepts it. If he doesn't he decides that the ballot was rigged. His losing the election is not evidence that the ballot was rigged. He's not the only one, but he's the most prominent one.

You know I like immigrants. If the government would impose some order on the system, it wouldn't be creating a right wing backlash. I don't like racist hooligans. But we have to try to grapple with the government policies that they are reacting too. — fishfry

I agree with all of that. The liberals focus too much on the individuals and the hard-liners too much on the numbers. There's a real need to balance and consensus.

Right. But it's tricky. Nobody, not even freedom-loving and rule-resenting me, thinks online platforms should be allowed to carry criminal material.
You know the reason I'm a little triggered by you saying I resent rules is because it's true. I've always been this way, always a rebel against authority. — fishfry

Where would we be without rebels against authority? But choose your issues.

I'm on Quora a lot arguing about the JFK assassination, and people just get vile about the most trivial differences of opinion. — fishfry

You do like the contentious topics. Yes, some people are very trigger-happy. I find "Let's agree to disagree" followed by ignoring them works quite well.
I've seen a bit of Quora (and Reddit). They look a bit too much like snake-pits for me.

And sometimes I do the same thing. — fishfry

Don't we all? But sometimes there is a deeper issue - the arrogance of the opinion or its wilful blindness, for example, rather than its content.

I'm trying to be nicer and more civil online. Been at it for about 24 hours now :-) — fishfry

The first day is the hardest. The hard thing is to disagree nicely - especially with sensitive people. But if you can, you might actually persuade the other side to move a bit.

Some of the public are quite likely not happy. Others are more bothered by the rioting and are perfectly happy. Starmer has read the mood perfectly. — Ludwig V

"If you object to stabbing six year old girls to death, you just might be a right winger."

Yes. I won't use it again. And I'm all ready to slap down anyone who tries to.[/erquote]

LOL. I think I overreacted.
— Ludwig V

I don't think he cares much what I think, — Ludwig V

Not today. Today, he's putting people in jail who express ideas you don't express. So you let me know when an authoritarian regime has ever known when to stop. As he was consolidating power, Stalin killed his most fervent supporters. Hitler did the same.

and anyway, I don't think he's listening. — Ludwig V

What makes you think that? All digital communicates get stored. Nobody looks at them till your friend's friend's friend's friend whom the government doesn't like, steps out of line. Then they roll up the whole chain. Like I say. Find me an authoritarian regime that ever knew when to stop.

But you never know. Everything leaks in the end. But I do choose carefully about who I raise it with. — Ludwig V

Doesn't matter. Some friend of a friend might say something the government doesn't like. Your argument here is, "Who cares if someone else goes to jail for saying something the government doesn't like. They won't do that to me." History has not been kind to that argument.

I can see your point. The problem is that whether you cheer on the rioters depends on whether you agree with them. You and I don't have to be impartial, so that's ok. Law enforcement does. But it's nigh on impossible, but I think most of them do try. — Ludwig V

I don't want to keep discussing this. Floyd versus J6 is just as blatant an example as you can find. Two billion dollars in property damage and twenty dead; versus a few old ladies wandering aimlessly around the Capitol building. Many MANY completely nonviolent J6 protesters have been in solitary confinement for three years. This is an outrage; and a bigger outrage is that it's not generally recognized as such.

I do think it is hilarious to hear Trump bleating on about how all the prosecutions against him are political. — Ludwig V

I absolutely and without reservation share his bleats. Even liberal legal scholars have been outraged by the New York 34-felony case. It's a legal travesty, the kind of thing you see in banana republics.

I don't know whether or how much they are influenced by political considerations. — Ludwig V

100%. None of those cases would ever have been brought if Trump weren't Trump.

The thing is, he wants to make all prosecutions political, by appointing people who agree with him politically to, for example, the Supreme Court and throughout the legal system. — Ludwig V

Bullshit. You're just spouting leftist propaganda. It's not worth my time to have these arguments.

What matters is whether he is guilty or not - the fair trial. — Ludwig V

Stop. Please. Just stop.

He does the same thing about elections. If he likes the result, he accepts it. If he doesn't he decides that the ballot was rigged. His losing the election is not evidence that the ballot was rigged. He's not the only one, but he's the most prominent one. — Ludwig V

Man I've been hearing this leftist claptrap since 2016. Enough already. I don't begrudge you your beliefs. I do choose not to engage with them.

I agree with all of that. The liberals focus too much on the individuals and the hard-liners too much on the numbers. There's a real need to balance and consensus. — Ludwig V

Ok whatever.

Where would we be without rebels against authority? But choose your issues. — Ludwig V

I am. Today, these ain't them.

You do like the contentious topics. Yes, some people are very trigger-happy. I find "Let's agree to disagree" followed by ignoring them works quite well.
I've seen a bit of Quora (and Reddit). They look a bit too much like snake-pits for me. — Ludwig V

I like the math and computer sections of Reddit. Quora is a pale shadow of its former self.

Don't we all? But sometimes there is a deeper issue - the arrogance of the opinion or its wilful blindness, for example, rather than its content. — Ludwig V

I would say you have much willful blindness about the Democrats' corruption of the justice system to go after Trump. But then I'd be arguing this tedious subject again.

The first day is the hardest. The hard thing is to disagree nicely - especially with sensitive people. But if you can, you might actually persuade the other side to move a bit. — Ludwig V

I have never persuaded anyone of anything in decades online :-)

I saw this today.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/26/violent-offenders-increasingly-let-off-with-apology/?ICID=continue_without_subscribing_reg_first

It's about how the Brits let stabbers go if they apologize to their victims. Meanwhile, old ladies who say the wrong thing online go right to prison.

Maybe it's all lies. How would I know, right?

Not today. Today, he's putting people in jail who express ideas you don't express. So you let me know when an authoritarian regime has ever known when to stop. As he was consolidating power, Stalin killed his most fervent supporters. Hitler did the same. — fishfry

All digital communicates get stored. Nobody looks at them till your friend's friend's friend's friend whom the government doesn't like, steps out of line. Then they roll up the whole chain. Like I say. Find me an authoritarian regime that ever knew when to stop. — fishfry

History has not been kind to that argument. — fishfry

Yes. I do worry about that argument. But since Stalin was on the left and Hitler on the right, it seems like there's no safety anywhere. Any more than there is against the possibility of all-out nuclear war (or indeed against the reality of climate change) These things are hard to predict.

I absolutely and without reservation share his bleats. Even liberal legal scholars have been outraged by the New York 34-felony case. It's a legal travesty, the kind of thing you see in banana republics. — fishfry

Yes. I expressed myself badly. Perhaps I was in a bad temper. My point was that most people are sore losers and it's very hard to tell when a protest like that is valid.

I saw this today. — fishfry

I'm afraid the Telegraph has been tracking my viewing of its articles. There's a limit on free views of them and I've hit it. But I do know that there was a case like that and there was a lot of reporting of it. I don't pretend to know the rights and wrongs.

Man I've been hearing this leftist claptrap since 2016. Enough already. I don't begrudge you your beliefs. I do choose not to engage with them. — fishfry

I have never persuaded anyone of anything in decades online :-) — fishfry

Maybe it's all lies. How would I know, right? — fishfry

I rather think you have a bad day. I'm sorry about that.

Yes. I do worry about that argument. But since Stalin was on the left and Hitler on the right, it seems like there's no safety anywhere. — Ludwig V

There's safety in free speech and a limited, Constitutional republic. Me and Thomas Jefferson against the world.

Any more than there is against the possibility of all-out nuclear war (or indeed against the reality of climate change) These things are hard to predict. — Ludwig V

Sigh. I probably shouldn't reduce your esteem for me any more than I already have, but I'm not much of a climate fanatic, either. The question is whether we should wreck our economy and throw billions into poverty to effect a hypothetical fraction of a percent change in the average global temperature, which is ridiculously hard to measure anyway.

The air and water are a lot cleaner than in the 1970s, so I'm all for the environment. I love the environment. Just not the radical environmentalists.

Besides, the Obamas own beach front property in two states (Massachusetts and Hawaii), so clearly they're not too concerned with the rise of the oceans. Besides, warmer temps are GOOD for life and colder temps are BAD for life. So a lot of what passes for environmentalism these days is ass backward.

The world is stumbling into nuclear war. US foreign policy is a bloody disaster.

Yes. I expressed myself badly. Perhaps I was in a bad temper. My point was that most people are sore losers and it's very hard to tell when a protest like that is valid. — Ludwig V

The lawfare against Trump is wholly illegitimate and many liberal legal minds have so opined.

I am a disillusioned liberal. Still a registered Democrat. I'm just horrified by what's become of my former fellow liberals and Democrats. Some of them see it and most of them don't.

I'm afraid the Telegraph has been tracking my viewing of its articles. There's a limit on free views of them and I've hit it. But I do know that there was a case like that and there was a lot of reporting of it. I don't pretend to know the rights and wrongs. — Ludwig V

I don't either. We'll all find out how this plays out in the next few years. No question that the liberal governments of the West have decided to throw open their borders to hordes of people who don't share their traditional values.

You know Christopher Lasch's book. The Revolt of the Elites? The idea (I haven't read the book -- I no longer read books, only Wiki pages and articles in scurrilous right wing rags) is that rather than the people revolting against the elites, these days the elites are revolting against the people. Hard to argue with that thesis, we see it all around us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Elites

I rather think you have a bad day. I'm sorry about that. — Ludwig V

LOL. For a while I was trying to engage over in the political threads in the Lounge, but it's just a bunch of mindless checkbox liberals throwing insults. So I gave up. I am a little burnt out on the standard liberal talking points against Trump. Heck I don't even like him much, he's old and tired and bitter. But he's all we've got against the continuation of what's been going on.

Apologies for getting triggered :-)

There's safety in free speech and a limited, Constitutional republic. Me and Thomas Jefferson against the world. — fishfry

There is, indeed. It may not be perfect, but some arrangement like that is all there is.

Sigh. I probably shouldn't reduce your esteem for me any more than I already have — fishfry

Don't be ridiculous.

I'm not much of a climate fanatic, either. The question is whether we should wreck our economy and throw billions into poverty to effect a hypothetical fraction of a percent change in the average global temperature, which is ridiculously hard to measure anyway. — fishfry

It was always obvious that dealing with climate change would be a mess, and that it might well be ineffective. We can probably organize some response after the event. There will be some mitigation, but nothing less that world-wide panic will trigger serious attempts at mitigation and that won't happen until serious climate change has kicked in. As usual, the poorer countries will suffer most, and much of their population will leave, looking for somewhere safer to live. There'll be a lot of trouble.

The air and water are a lot cleaner than in the 1970s, so I'm all for the environment. I love the environment. Just not the radical environmentalists. — fishfry

Fair enough. We can achieve things. It's just that it takes a disproportionate amount of shouting and shoving to make things happen. It helps when people can see the effects themselves. (see above)

Besides, warmer temps are GOOD for life and colder temps are BAD for life. — fishfry

Yes. Temperate. So too hot and too cold are both problems and climate change will cause more of both. But the temperate north and south of the world will be less badly affected than the equator and tropics - apart from the effects of sea level rise and the increase in extreme weather events.

You know Christopher Lasch's book. The Revolt of the Elites? — fishfry

No. I looked at the wikipedia article. It seems quite plausible. But I'm very difficult to convert. I'm going to be reading "Techofeudalism" soon, in a futile attempt to keep up to date.

I don't know about you, of course, but I was liberal when liberals were a minority and thought to be insane. Then things starting going our way. Splendid - until I realized that younger generations would want to push everything further. I've gone some way with them, but not all the way. Much of what they are pushing for now seems to be dubious, at best. They don't remember what it was like to be what it is to be an oppressed minority, so they feel no need to compromise and make room for different views. But hey! no-one listens to doubts and compromises any more.

But he's all we've got against the continuation of what's been going on. — fishfry

Now that Biden has gone, the context has changed. He looks different in a different context. I think you'll find that the right wing will get some of what it wants - not all. That's what's happened to liberalism. Life has to go on and forces compromises. Remember, liberals are as fearful as conservatives.

There is, indeed. It may not be perfect, but some arrangement like that is all there is. — Ludwig V

You are agreeing that free speech is a virtue then. Yet you don't seem too bothered by the globalist war on free speech.

Don't be ridiculous. — Ludwig V

It's a great heresy to be against the environmentalists these days. But of course IMO one can be against the environmentalists yet for the environment. That would be me.

It was always obvious that dealing with climate change would be a mess, and that it might well be ineffective. We can probably organize some response after the event. There will be some mitigation, but nothing less that world-wide panic will trigger serious attempts at mitigation and that won't happen until serious climate change has kicked in. As usual, the poorer countries will suffer most, and much of their population will leave, looking for somewhere safer to live. There'll be a lot of trouble. — Ludwig V

The poor countries suffer from radical environmentalism. When you raise the cost of energy, the limousine liberals aren't affected. The poor are. And the third world suffers the most.

Fair enough. We can achieve things. It's just that it takes a disproportionate amount of shouting and shoving to make things happen. It helps when people can see the effects themselves. (see above) — Ludwig V

The effects are virtue signaling among the first world elite; and terrible suffering in the third world, out of sight. This is my point. I oppose the environmentalists.

Yes. Temperate. So too hot and too cold are both problems and climate change will cause more of both. But the temperate north and south of the world will be less badly affected than the equator and tropics - apart from the effects of sea level rise and the increase in extreme weather events. — Ludwig V

I don't know how we got here but environmentalism isn't one of my favorite conversational topics. I know what I think and I don't bother to talk about it much.

No. I looked at the wikipedia article. It seems quite plausible. But I'm very difficult to convert. I'm going to be reading "Techofeudalism" soon, in a futile attempt to keep up to date. — Ludwig V

I shall read the Wiki page :-)

I don't know about you, of course, but I was liberal when liberals were a minority and thought to be insane. Then things starting going our way. Splendid - until I realized that younger generations would want to push everything further. I've gone some way with them, but not all the way. Much of what they are pushing for now seems to be dubious, at best. They don't remember what it was like to be what it is to be an oppressed minority, so they feel no need to compromise and make room for different views. But hey! no-one listens to doubts and compromises any more. — Ludwig V

Right. But most longtime liberals haven't noticed. They've gone from gay rights (good) to transing the kids (bad) without missing a beat.

Now that Biden has gone, the context has changed. He looks different in a different context. I think you'll find that the right wing will get some of what it wants - not all. That's what's happened to liberalism. Life has to go on and forces compromises. Remember, liberals are as fearful as conservatives. — Ludwig V

Liberals are stupid and mean these days.

Did you see the Kamala "interview?" If the Democrats get away with this the country is doomed. Not just policy-wise. But that Americans would have validated the four year Biden swindle, propping up a senile candidate who campaigned from his basement; and then swapping in the historically unpopular Harris, hiding her from the press while her fans swooned. It's very bad if they get away with this. And honestly, not too much better if Trump wins. He's past his prime for sure.

You are agreeing that free speech is a virtue then. Yet you don't seem too bothered by the globalist war on free speech. — fishfry

That's not quite fair. I do agree that free speech is a Good Thing. So I am bothered by Putin and Xi Jinping. But I don't think that criminals should be allowed free access to their victims

It's a great heresy to be against the environmentalists these days. But of course IMO one can be against the environmentalists yet for the environment. That would be me. — fishfry

The song but not the singer. I don't disapprove of some enivironmentalists, but I do get bored with them.

The effects are virtue signaling among the first world elite; and terrible suffering in the third world, out of sight. This is my point. I oppose the environmentalists. — fishfry

The truly depressing thing is that the poor are screwed by climate change and by the attempts to reduce it.

I don't know how we got here but environmentalism isn't one of my favorite conversational topics. I know what I think and I don't bother to talk about it much. — fishfry

I'll shut up about it then (after this reply!)

Right. But most longtime liberals haven't noticed. They've gone from gay rights (good) to transing the kids (bad) without missing a beat. — fishfry

Well, not to go on about it, I can accept that there is some work around trans people to be done. But the recent publicity has been provoked by some thoroughly objectionable trans people (and some "trans" people). My partner has some acquaintance in those circles and tells me that many trans people just want a quiet life and are horrified by them.

Did you see the Kamala "interview?" If the Democrats get away with this the country is doomed. Not just policy-wise. But that Americans would have validated the four year Biden swindle, propping up a senile candidate who campaigned from his basement; and then swapping in the historically unpopular Harris, hiding her from the press while her fans swooned. It's very bad if they get away with this. And honestly, not too much better if Trump wins. He's past his prime for sure. — fishfry

The really basic question is why there is no decent candidate on either side. All the people who might have make a good shot at an impossible job seem to have taken a back seat.

The really basic question is why there is no decent candidate on either side — Ludwig V

Driving the other day a car revs up behind me while I am going a little over the speed limit, then barrels around me into the oncoming lane on a curve. I wonder if the answer to your question has something to do with a general lack of patience. Everything has to be done as quickly as possible it seems. Patience is no longer a virtue. Just a thought.

Maybe. Impatience is a big driver of the way that debates go. The media (or their readers) do not have the patience for going slowly and paying attention to detail. Everything has to be a slogan - three words - preferably monosyllables and no more than two syllables.

My theory is that the people who might make a fist of the job are reluctant to take it one. One of the things that has changed in the last 3 or 4 decades is that the media scrutiny is much more effective and much, much noisier.

That's not quite fair. I do agree that free speech is a Good Thing. So I am bothered by Putin and Xi Jinping. But I don't think that criminals should be allowed free access to their victims — Ludwig V

Recent developments in the West are very concerning. Robert Reich, Clinton's Secretary of Labor, just called for "reining in" Elon Musk.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-wealth-power

Famous law professor Erwin Chemerinsky just published a book calling for dumping the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/sep/01/erwin-chemerinsky-no-democracy-lasts-forever

There are many other examples. You talk about Putin and Xi but you don't seem concerned about the creeping -- actually now galloping -- authoritarianism and censorship in the west. I'm very concerned; you much less so. So I don't think my point was unfair. For a Brit to ignore these issues lately I find very strange. They're putting people in jail in your country for very anodyne online comments.

The song but not the singer. I don't disapprove of some enivironmentalists, but I do get bored with them. — Ludwig V

With you there.

The truly depressing thing is that the poor are screwed by climate change and by the attempts to reduce it. — Ludwig V

My very point. Environmentalism is elite virtue signaling.

Well, not to go on about it, I can accept that there is some work around trans people to be done. But the recent publicity has been provoked by some thoroughly objectionable trans people (and some "trans" people). My partner has some acquaintance in those circles and tells me that many trans people just want a quiet life and are horrified by them. — Ludwig V

Well yes, of course. It's always the extremists who make the news.

But doctors are doing double mastectomies on perfectly healthy 12 year old girls. That's something tht needs to be pushed back on.

The really basic question is why there is no decent candidate on either side. All the people who might have make a good shot at an impossible job seem to have taken a back seat. — Ludwig V

Longstanding problem. Bush-Kerry. Trump-Clinton. Trump-Biden. Trump-Harris. etc.

I'm kind of running out of steam on this site. Might need to wrap this up soon.

Recent developments in the West are very concerning. Robert Reich, Clinton's Secretary of Labor, just called for "reining in" Elon Musk. — fishfry

Why does that concern you? Everybody who has power has an opposition. The opposition always thinks that those with power should be "reined in" or crushed. (Actually, if you think about it, that's really a very mild comment compared with what some people say). Most people with power are either "reined in" by the opposition or their own failures. I've no idea whether Musk will be reined or crash and burn. At the moment, it's impossible to tell which it is to be. The sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned. There'll only be another like him afterwards.

There are many other examples. You talk about Putin and Xi but you don't seem concerned about the creeping -- actually now galloping -- authoritarianism and censorship in the west. I'm very concerned; you much less so. So I don't think my point was unfair. For a Brit to ignore these issues lately I find very strange. They're putting people in jail in your country for very anodyne online comments. — fishfry

It depends what you think is anodyne. Compared to the way that some people carry on (without being thrown in jail), it probably is anodyne. But most people's comments are just hot air - unpleasant, but not harmful. Look at the consequences.
There was a famous speech in the 60's by a Conservative politician named Enoch Powell, in which he drew everyone's attention to the flood of immigration into Britain, painted a terrible picture of the abolition of the "British way of life" and announced that there would be "rivers of blood" in the end. Was he reporting? Or was he inciting? I don't know what his motivation was, but I know what happened as a result. It wasn't rivers of blood, but it did involve bloodshed and it was very ugly.
You may have seen the reports of the report released about the fire in Grenfell Tower. Everybody is very shocked and horrified. In a way, so am I. But I have known it was coming ever since the then Government relaxed the building regulations. It was only ever a matter of when and where. It was obvious. It was also always obvious that when it happened most people involved would say it was not their fault, even though it is obvious that they all contributed. No clean hands.
There has never been a golden age when there was no censorship, no authoritarian squelching of opposition. It was ever so, it will always be so.
I'm a somewhat old-fashioned middle-of-the-road liberal and I felt more comfortable 20 or 30 years ago. I grew up in the post-WW2 consensus/settlement. It was never what it seemed to be and it fell apart anyway. (If you want a date, it was the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 that did it.) Once that has happened to you, you never, ever buy in to anything else with the same innocent, deluded conviction.

I'm kind of running out of steam on this site. Might need to wrap this up soon. — fishfry

If you do decide not to continue, that's fair enough. I wouldn't want to (couldn't) detain you if you have better things to do. So long as you aren't leaving for the same reason that you left the Lounge. Better to let me know when you make your decision, so's I know what's going on. If and when I make the same decision, I will let you know. OK?

Why does that concern you? — Ludwig V

I'm beyond explaining this. Let's agree to disagree.

Everybody who has power has an opposition. The opposition always thinks that those with power should be "reined in" or crushed. (Actually, if you think about it, that's really a very mild comment compared with what some people say). Most people with power are either "reined in" by the opposition or their own failures. — Ludwig V

Eminently sensible and moderate.

I've no idea whether Musk will be reined or crash and burn. At the moment, it's impossible to tell which it is to be. The sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned. There'll only be another like him afterwards. — Ludwig V

You're trolling me now. I'm kind of done here. I can always tell when I'm at the point when I have nothing else to say without repeating myself.

It depends what you think is anodyne. Compared to the way that some people carry on (without being thrown in jail), it probably is anodyne. But most people's comments are just hot air - unpleasant, but not harmful. Look at the consequences. — Ludwig V

Then why is Starmer throwing pensioners in jail for remarks that are unpleasant but not harmful? But like I say, I'm repeating myself.

There was a famous speech in the 60's by a Conservative politician named Enoch Powell, in which he drew everyone's attention to the flood of immigration into Britain, painted a terrible picture of the abolition of the "British way of life" and announced that there would be "rivers of blood" in the end. Was he reporting? Or was he inciting? I don't know what his motivation was, but I know what happened as a result. It wasn't rivers of blood, but it did involve bloodshed and it was very ugly. — Ludwig V

Yes I remember Enoch Powell. Don't recall the incident you're referencing.

You may have seen the reports of the report released about the fire in Grenfell Tower. Everybody is very shocked and horrified. In a way, so am I. But I have known it was coming ever since the then Government relaxed the building regulations. It was only ever a matter of when and where. It was obvious. It was also always obvious that when it happened most people involved would say it was not their fault, even though it is obvious that they all contributed. No clean hands. — Ludwig V

Now we're into building regulations? Not following. The US infrastructure is likewise decrepit. Gotta fund the wars, you know.

There has never been a golden age when there was no censorship, no authoritarian squelching of opposition. It was ever so, it will always be so. — Ludwig V

Ok. I can't respond with anything I haven't said before. You are justifying evil by saying there's always been evil. Fine.

I'm a somewhat old-fashioned middle-of-the-road liberal and I felt more comfortable 20 or 30 years ago. I grew up in the post-WW2 consensus/settlement. It was never what it seemed to be and it fell apart anyway. (If you want a date, it was the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 that did it.) Once that has happened to you, you never, ever buy in to anything else with the same innocent, deluded conviction. — Ludwig V

I'm a big fan of Maggie as you might imagine. Though I wasn't at the time. Both she and Reagan look much better in retrospect. I used to be a liberal too. Something happened over the years.

If you do decide not to continue, that's fair enough. I wouldn't want to (couldn't) detain you if you have better things to do. So long as you aren't leaving for the same reason that you left the Lounge. — Ludwig V

Well ... they're a lost cause over there.

In this case, I just see that I haven't said anything new in quite some time.

Better to let me know when you make your decision, so's I know what's going on. If and when I make the same decision, I will let you know. OK? — Ludwig V

Well ... I guess I'm done. But I've never had a long private convo like this. You could post something on the public area, at least that way we'd get some fresh meat once in a while.

I literally can't think of anything to say that I haven't already. Kamala came out today railing against Elon Musk's freedom of speech. What should I do, say I object and plan to vote against her? Doesn't matter anyway, I vote in California which will go for her by millions of votes. My vote literally doesn't count.

So I guess I'm done. More for lack of anything new to say than any other reason. Appreciate the chat. But I hope we can engage in public where others can jump in. I think it's weird that the moderators buried this chat.

ps -- I haven't anything better to do!! LOL. Am I leaving too soon for your taste? I don't mean to be short. I just haven't got anything else to say. Maybe my concerns about the creeping authoritarianism of the globalists is misplaced. I can sum it up in a cartoon I saw the other day.

You're trolling me now. — fishfry

Not intentionally. If I've upset you, I apologize.

You could post something on the public area, at least that way we'd get some fresh meat once in a while. — fishfry

Yes, that would be good. But maybe other people prefer something noisier - more exciting.

I used to be a liberal too. Something happened over the years. — fishfry

That's what happened to me.

My vote literally doesn't count. — fishfry

True. I still vote, but my expectations are low. It's more of a ritual than anything real. And yet...

Now we're into building regulations? — fishfry

It's just that I'm so angry about the total mess and the expectation it won't be solved.

I can sum it up in a cartoon I saw the other day. — fishfry

Here's my most depressing thought. Tyranny and freedom are not opposites. What's tyranny to you is freedom to someone else. What's freedom to you is tyranny to someone else. Oversimplified, I know - there's always compromise. Which is not a solution, just a way of making do.

You are justifying evil by saying there's always been evil. Fine. — fishfry

NOT justifying, I'm trying to work out how to live with omnipresent evil, without indulging in cop-out evasions - blaming Government or Capital or Original Sin. I think I'm closest to Voltaire's "Candide"? Or Kurt Vonnegut's "so it goes" - or perhaps Hamlet's "The rest is silence". Yet obstinately and stupidly, life goes on. It's better than the alternative, I suppose.

I haven't anything better to do!! LOL. Am I leaving too soon for your taste? I don't mean to be short. I just haven't got anything else to say. — fishfry

You've been saying that for a while now. I'm in the same boat. So now we're talking about the fact that neither of us has anything else to say. Absurd, and yet, here we are.

Not intentionally. If I've upset you, I apologize. — Ludwig V

No worries, I no longer remember.

I did happen to run across something yesterday. The British government put out a big report on the Grenfell disaster.

The Spectator put out a summary blaming the incident on "complacency."

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-vital-lesson-that-must-be-learnt-from-the-grenfell-inquiry/

Spiked-Online noted that the reason the tower burned was that it was wrapped in flammable cladding that had been installed for environmental reasons. In other words the building itself would not have burned but for the cladding that had been wrapped around it as insulation. And now the government is busy removing the flammable cladding from other buildings.

So the loss of life was attributable to liberal do-gooding. Needless to say the official report did not make this point. Thought I'd pass this on.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/05/why-was-grenfell-covered-in-cladding-climate-targets/

I did happen to run across something yesterday. The British government put out a big report on the Grenfell disaster. — fishfry

Yes. There's been a lot about it in the media in advance.

The Spectator put out a summary blaming the incident on "complacency." — fishfry

H'm. The author says that's his view, that's true. But if only it was just complacency. There was a lot worse than that. Gaming the already lax building regulations - next door to fraud. Ignoring tenants complaints. And on and on. But thanks for the link.

Spiked-Online noted that the reason the tower burned was that it was wrapped in flammable cladding that had been installed for environmental reasons. In other words the building itself would not have burned but for the cladding that had been wrapped around it as insulation. — fishfry

If you look a bit closer, it was partly for environmental reasons and partly for economic reasons. Insulation saves money. When they talk about sustainability in these contexts, they often don't distinguish between something that pays back in the long term and something that is needed for climate control. Insulation ticks both boxes, so it can be hard to discern which they mean. But I would bet it was not climate control what was uppermost in their minds.

And now the government is busy removing the flammable cladding from other buildings. — fishfry

If only it was. Progress is glacially slow because everybody is arguing about who should pay. The Government thinks that the industry should pay; the industry thinks the Government should pay. Meanwhile, the companies that designed and manufactured the cladding and sold it on the basis that it wasn't flammable are in deep trouble, but paying to put right what they've done would almost certainly bankrupt them - i.e. they can't pay. Some landlords of long-lease flats (their tenants are responsible for maintenance) are trying to make their lease-holders pay.
The police will take until the end of next year to decide whether there will be any criminal prosecutions and nobody will accept liability until that's settled. Then there may be civil suits for damages, which will take more years. Don't hold your breath. (Yes, some building have been done, but very few compared to the number affected.) Government (both parties - the seeds of this were sown in the 1980's under Thatcher and subsequent governments never put it right), the Local Council, the building industry generally, the companies that manufactured, sold, and installed the stuff, and even the fire brigade are all blamed in the report.
The fire itself was spectacularly awful. 72 people died, which is surprisingly low - thanks to the fire service. But the aftermath - if you don't laugh, you'll have to cry. No-one seems to have a shred of decency - always excepting the tenants.

So the loss of life was attributable to liberal do-gooding. Needless to say the official report did not make this point. Thought I'd pass this on. — fishfry

Oh, please! If there had been any do-gooding at all involved, it wouldn't have happened. It was greed and laziness. Complacency, if you like, in that Government trusted the builders to do the right thing.

Thanks for the opportunity for a good rant. I hope I haven't bored you.

Oh, please! If there had been any do-gooding at all involved, it wouldn't have happened. It was greed and laziness. Complacency, if you like, in that Government trusted the builders to do the right thing. — Ludwig V

It's a general theme of mine that environmental do-gooding generally results in disaster and misery.

Thanks for the opportunity for a good rant. I hope I haven't bored you. — Ludwig V

Your response was interesting. Clearly you're getting more and better info about his tragedy over where you are. I have to depend on my alt-right sources.

It's a general theme of mine that environmental do-gooding generally results in disaster and misery. — fishfry

Well, change usually brings disaster and misery to the most vulnerable people, and the rich are mostly not the most vulnerable, so you're not wrong. Some environmental do-gooders claim to be trying not to inflict any additional disaster and misery on the poor and vulnerable and claim also to be succeeding to at least some extent. But of course many people approach the whole business on the basis that it's a profit opportunity and act on their priorities. (Did you notice all the reports a while ago about how China has more or less cornered the market for rare metals, and looks like dominating the market for electric cars - which it makes with power from coal?) That's my the-glass-has-a-drop-of-whisky-left message for today.

Your response was interesting. Clearly you're getting more and better info about his tragedy over where you are. I have to depend on my alt-right sources. — fishfry

Well, it did happen here. The full report is over 1,500 pages long. Only fanatics and people paid to read it will plough through that. But I haven't heard a single complaint that it is prejudiced, thought the government is trying to defend itself the best way it can - it makes things easier for the politicians that every government since Thatcher is blamed. The commission's own summary is probably more than you want, but it is at Grenfell tower report executive summary and recommendations
The Telegraph is Conservative aligned. The (London) Times and Financial Times are not too bad, but are Conservative-leaning. The Guardian is liberal. The Independent is not reckoned to be aligned to a political party, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a view. All of them are reasonably reliable. The BBC tries hard to be impartial so everyone thinks it is opposed to them, which is a good sign, I think. I tend to use that. My reaction was based on their reports. Here's their outline:-

* The inquiry's chairman says that all deaths in the fire were avoidable
* The inquiry blames "decades of failures" from governments, firms and the fire service for the disaster that unfolded in west London
* Grenfell residents were badly let down by those responsible for fire safety and there was a "failure on the part of the council"
* Manufacturers of cladding products – which were "by far the largest contributor" to the fire – are found to have engaged in "systematic dishonesty"
* The report also says that "incompetent" companies involved in the 2011 refurbishment of the tower – Studio E and Harley Facades – bear "significant" responsibility for the disaster
* The report said there was a "chronic lack of leadership" and an "attitude of complacency" at the London Fire Brigade
* The victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster were killed by toxic gases, not the fire itself. — BBC News at 17:06 BST 4th Sept

There's also a lot of comment on the slow progress of remediation - seven years after the actual fire. 4,630 residential buildings are involved. 29% have completed remediation. 20% have started remediation. 50% have not started remediation. Tens of thousands of tenants. That puts all the stuff about it not ever happening again into perspective, don't you think?

There doesn't seem to be anything about the races for the Senate and the House. But isn't it just as important as the Presidency? I have the impression that unless the President and Congress are the same party, the President is pretty much hog-tied. What's happening there? Is it as tight as the Presidency?

There doesn't seem to be anything about the races for the Senate and the House. But isn't it just as important as the Presidency? — Ludwig V

I'll intrude if you don't mind. The answer is yes, indeed. Here in southern Colorado our representative to the House, Two Gun Lauren Boebert, has moved north into another district. We do have a decent Republican candidate, but I have seen and heard nothing about him. The Democrat running is more in the old fashioned mold and will receive a lot of conservative votes I suspect. Nevertheless it will be one less Repub in the House - and the ratio is tight.

Issues involving new allocations of money begin in the House, so control there is critical.

and I, apart from a mathematical background, align on political matters it seems to me. I am still a registered Democrat, but it has been awhile since I have thought of myself as one.

There doesn't seem to be anything about the races for the Senate and the House. But isn't it just as important as the Presidency? I have the impression that unless the President and Congress are the same party, the President is pretty much hog-tied. What's happening there? Is it as tight as the Presidency? — Ludwig V

Pretty tight in both houses. In general, the US economy does better when the opposition party controls Congress. The government can get into less mischief that way.

I'll pass on the details of the tower tragedy. Just thought it was interesting that a root cause was environmental do-gooderism, implemented badly or not.

I am still a registered Democrat, but it has been awhile since I have thought of myself as one. — jgill

Same here. It's the Dems who changed, not me.