|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 29 2025 07:48 WombaT wrote:
You’re conflating a lot of different things here, and there’s too much to unpack in any reasonable short post.
I will say that burglaries are rather difficult to solve without some kind of smoking gun, or something easily traceable.
It is, however, extremely easy in most cases to arrest someone for social media activity, the receipts are right there.
There seems to be this perception that the police aren’t solving burglaries because they’re too busy chasing up Tweets, but I don’t think it’s really the case.
Issue here is that you looking at the trees, but dont see the forest. This are not the problems separated by decades, they are actually ongoing. Obviously people see those en masse and stop believing that law is working, you can also hardly blame them.
'It is, however, extremely easy in most cases to arrest someone for social media activity, the receipts are right there."
Wouldnt be the simplest solution then to cut social media monitoring policemen to 10% and reassign remaining ones to different departments? Rather than
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-social-media-migrant-immigration-b2796646.html
assign elite unit of detectives to this?
Also in what world one gets suspended sentence for child rape and another 31 months in prison for a tweet?
On July 29 2025 08:21 KwarK wrote:
Razyda you’re not ever going to recover from “Britain is so weird, they have a whole day celebrating Guy Fawkes even though he tried to blow up parliament” in my eyes so I wouldn’t bother trying.
Kwark dont take me wrong, I like you, but end of the day you are random person on the internet, I am not bothered.
Also that you?
On November 09 2024 07:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 05:33 Impervious wrote:On November 09 2024 05:02 Liquid`Drone wrote:Universal or public health care isn't a panacea for all health problems or obesity, obviously. It's not like the US is the only country in the world with the problem that people are overweight, and frankly, there are probably other explanations outside the health care system - specifically - that cause the difference in degree. Cities being designed for driving instead of walking seems like a pretty big one: They found that adults who live in walkable neighborhoods were 1.5 times more likely to engage in adequate levels of physical activity, and 0.76 times less likely to have obesity, compared to adults living in neighborhoods with low walkability.The other major one is food. Looking solely at caloric intake, the US is #2 on the list for 2018, food energy intake per capita by country, and couple that with the sedentiary lifestyle, and yea, no shocker. The difference - as alluded to by several other posters - is that a country which pays for the health care of its inhabitants - where health care thus is an expenditure, and not a source of profit - is greatly incentivized to try to make some efforts towards preventing health issues rather than treating them, as that is a much less costly way of doing it. Meanwhile a profit-driven system will have actors involved who benefit from the population being unhealthy. Now, I'll be honest and say that I don't have intricate data on this, and the following is more of a 'it is my impression that' - coupled with 'I'm too lazy to really study it in depth at the moment but damn this is kinda interesting to me' - but it is my impression that the big american health care companies will in at least some instances have shareholders/parent companies (I don't even know the terminology of this stuff tbh) who are also involved in, for example, the beverage industry, who have lobbied against, for example, sugar taxes. Kinda like how the opioid epidemic has been driven by profit-based health care benefiting from people being addicted to opiates, a profit-based health care system has perverse incentives to have an unhealthy population, and without being all conspiratorial, lobbyism in the US seems like a pretty tangled somewhat clandestine web of different actors who don't always have the best interests of the public in mind. So it's complicated, and it's not that 'public health care' by itself solves everything - but a profit-based system does, kinda by default, offer some perverse incentives compared to one run by the government. And while the competition inherent to capitalism can sometimes produce great results (hey, I'll admit that even as a self-described socialist), the combination of a) profit-driven b) impossible to opt out of and c) naturally monopolistic (in many cases your option of hospitals to go for treatment is 1) tends to create situations where capitalism at the very least requires some pretty strict regulation. Whereas if health care is government funded, the approach to health care will logically drive itself more towards a holistic solution of all sorts of prevention-based incentives or disincentives because these are less costly than treating health care problems is - for example through adding sin taxes, or building bike lanes and publicly available exercising options, or mandating/incentivizing work places to offer some exercise options during working hours. Blackrock. Vanguard. State Street. They seem to have their fingers in everything..... Those are brokerages. They don’t own everything, they hold everything on behalf of other people. The money isn’t theirs. The idea that brokerages are secretly buying up the world as part of a secret plan always infuriated me. They’re publicly buying up the world on the instructions of US retirees who have requested that the brokerage buy assets for them. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a 401k. Take off the mask and you’ll find it was you all along.
I would expect you to know better than anyone on this forum, that they for all the means and purposes actually do own everything (I do agree though that "secretly" is infuriating) given that they keep voting rights. Like, you know, make up of BoD which is responsible for hiring and firing senior executives for example. While they made some progress, here is BlackRock saying this:
"As of March 31, 2025, $2.7 trillion of BlackRock’s $6.2 trillion total index equity AUM are eligible to participate in BlackRock Voting Choice"
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/about-us/investment-stewardship/blackrock-voting-choice
they are apparently leading here, and I bet you that people who leave it to funds are around 60% to 90%.
I am rather surprised that you werent aware of this  .
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
Someone getting a suspended sentence for rape has nothing to do with the police.
I’m totally fine with someone going to prison for saying on a public platform:
Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fg hotels full of the bs for all I care… if that makes me racist, so be it
Play stupid games…
You seem to be missing my point, if a crime is basically impossible to solve, it doesn’t matter how many resources you throw at it.
Say I go on holiday, I don’t have some sort of door camera or whatever. My house gets burgled when I’m away. The items stolen are just regular items, not something like a car with a reg plate that you could track. I’m in the suburbs, so unlike the town centre there’s not shitloads of CCTV in surrounding areas that you could maybe track a burglar’s movements with.
I go to the police, realistically meant to do there?
I recall a Reddit thread where someone complained about the police not at least coming to their house and having a chat with them. ‘They maybe can’t solve it, but they should at least make it look like they’re trying, I’d feel more confident in the police’ was the OP’s angle.
Well I mean, it might make you feel better, but it’s a complete waste of resources. People seem to think we’re living in like CSI Miami or whatever and police can somehow crack the case that has zero evidence going.
If a doctor tells you, hey it’s tough news but you’ve incurable cancer you just accept it. If the police tell you they can’t solve your crime, they’re useless and not trying.
|
On July 29 2025 10:53 WombaT wrote:Someone getting a suspended sentence for rape has nothing to do with the police. I’m totally fine with someone going to prison for saying on a public platform: Show nested quote +Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fg hotels full of the bs for all I care… if that makes me racist, so be it Play stupid games… You seem to be missing my point, if a crime is basically impossible to solve, it doesn’t matter how many resources you throw at it. Say I go on holiday, I don’t have some sort of door camera or whatever. My house gets burgled when I’m away. The items stolen are just regular items, not something like a car with a reg plate that you could track. I’m in the suburbs, so unlike the town centre there’s not shitloads of CCTV in surrounding areas that you could maybe track a burglar’s movements with. I go to the police, realistically meant to do there? I recall a Reddit thread where someone complained about the police not at least coming to their house and having a chat with them. ‘They maybe can’t solve it, but they should at least make it look like they’re trying, I’d feel more confident in the police’ was the OP’s angle. Well I mean, it might make you feel better, but it’s a complete waste of resources. People seem to think we’re living in like CSI Miami or whatever and police can somehow crack the case that has zero evidence going. If a doctor tells you, hey it’s tough news but you’ve incurable cancer you just accept it. If the police tell you they can’t solve your crime, they’re useless and not trying.
No Wombat, you missing my point. You see al this as separate instances. Public see pattern.
"Someone getting a suspended sentence for rape has nothing to do with the police. " issue is law not police. Look at you, you skimmed over child rapist.
"Someone getting a suspended sentence for rape has nothing to do with the police.
I’m totally fine with someone going to prison for saying on a public platform
Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fg hotels full of the bs for all I care… if that makes me racist, so be it "
So one has nothing to do with police, but other you see no problem with?
Wombat sorry, but you walking into this one: Which one you think is worse: child rape, or tweet you disagree with? (remember rape dude was found guilty)
On July 29 2025 09:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 08:52 WombaT wrote:On July 29 2025 08:21 KwarK wrote:
Razyda you’re not ever going to recover from “Britain is so weird, they have a whole day celebrating Guy Fawkes even though he tried to blow up parliament” in my eyes so I wouldn’t bother trying. People are allowed to be wrong on occasion to be fair On occasion, but that’s really not the scenario we’re seeing play out here. That proclamation was very much on brand for him.
And yet I called Trump win soon after Kamala was appointed, I also called MAGA fracture over Epstein. Yeah seems somewhat on brand . I'l make it easy for you, quote me on this to prove me wrong:
On July 29 2025 07:21 Razyda wrote:
I can also tell you: It is going to get worse.
|
United States43232 Posts
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
Yes dude, the judiciary handing down a lenient sentence has nothing to do with the police.
I didn’t skim over anything, the initial conversation was specifically about the police, and I responded thus.
The public can see all the patterns they like, they can still be wrong.
The problem with these patterns is it’s ’I read a story somewhere’, and the stories that gain most traction are the most egregious examples of some injustice.
And it’s generally from the very same media that threw shitloads of ‘the Poles are coming to ruin everything’ when Poland became an EU member. If memory serves you are Polish. If it were me I’d give a wide berth to voices who historically tried to pull such things.
|
On July 29 2025 11:36 WombaT wrote:
Yes dude, the judiciary handing down a lenient sentence has nothing to do with the police.
I didn’t skim over anything, the initial conversation was specifically about the police, and I responded thus.
The public can see all the patterns they like, they can still be wrong.
The problem with these patterns is it’s ’I read a story somewhere’, and the stories that gain most traction are the most egregious examples of some injustice.
And it’s generally from the very same media that threw shitloads of ‘the Poles are coming to ruin everything’ when Poland became an EU member. If memory serves you are Polish. If it were me I’d give a wide berth to voices who historically tried to pull such things.
You seem mad?
And incorrect: "Yes dude, the judiciary handing down a lenient sentence has nothing to do with the police. " Issue I raised was about Law not Police.
"And it’s generally from the very same media that threw shitloads of ‘the Poles are coming to ruin everything’ when Poland became an EU member. If memory serves you are Polish. If it were me I’d give a wide berth to voices who historically tried to pull such things. "
See, this is advantage I have. I am an immigrant ( and yes Polish and proud of it) and when I came to UK I worked 80+ hours a week at normal wage (as in no 150% per hour). As it happens I spoke with a lot of English people, who, honestly, just didnt know whats going on. They thought that they are going to just do bare minimum and progress in position and wage. Wombat that was not close, they werent even in the competition.
|
As much as we wanna say things like “we all wish the police would catch every lawbreaker yadda yadda” I think the tolerance towards crime is one of the biggest left/right divides of our era. You can post the same video of some petty crime like shoplifting and on a right-wing site they will cheer for the shoplifter to get nabbed and on the left-wing site they will cheer for the guy to escape the bobbies after nicking some cornettos.
On a right wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that helps the police subdue someone and put them in handcuffs. On a left-wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that opens the door to the back of a police car and lets the person inside flee because ACAB and he was probably innocent anyway.
Also I totally don’t blame the police. The police are definitely not doing their job but that’s only because their job has been made pointless because anyone they arrest is back on the streets the next day anyway. Also when you demonize the police you shouldn’t be surprised when they no longer want to stick their necks out to catch bad guys.
Also to the “statistics say crime is down” crowd: the major newspaper in my city tried to use crime stats to claim the local drug store only had 3 incidences of shoplifting per month and therefore shoplifting was not that serious. A news camera crew from a different outlet went to film at the store and they witnessed 3 instances of shoplifting in the 20 minutes they were there. When statistics and public sentiment begin to diverge its also possible that the statistics are bullshit. You can cling to your stats all you want but they didn’t start locking up the sweets at Tesco behind plexiglass for no reason.
|
On July 29 2025 12:58 BlackJack wrote:
As much as we wanna say things like “we all wish the police would catch every lawbreaker yadda yadda” I think the tolerance towards crime is one of the biggest left/right divides of our era. You can post the same video of some petty crime like shoplifting and on a right-wing site they will cheer for the shoplifter to get nabbed and on the left-wing site they will cheer for the guy to escape the bobbies after nicking some cornettos.
On a right wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that helps the police subdue someone and put them in handcuffs. On a left-wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that opens the door to the back of a police car and lets the person inside flee because ACAB and he was probably innocent anyway.
Also I totally don’t blame the police. The police are definitely not doing their job but that’s only because their job has been made pointless because anyone they arrest is back on the streets the next day anyway. Also when you demonize the police you shouldn’t be surprised when they no longer want to stick their necks out to catch bad guys.
I think there a certain degree of truth to your statement regarding how people see small crime. But far from as extreme as you make it out to be here. I would be left leaning on pretty much every single topic but would not act according to your statements.
Where I think the real divide is and has historically been is in what is moral. If a person is starving and stealing is the only way to get food I think that person deserves help, not jail. I do not think that the person continuing to steal is a good outcome, I also don't think putting them into jail is a good outcome. People in jails are expensive and it is often a large punishment not fitting the crime, as far as possible we should try to solve issues in other ways.
I am also a bit odd for being on the left side and being fine with the death penalty. But if you implement too strict punishments overall that instead means there is no deterrence past a certain point. To me it is an economical problem, you can jail somebody for 30 years and they will be a retiree once they leave prison. That money could have gotten an asylum seeker into society once a year, improving society instead. In a scenario with infinite money I am against the death penalty.
|
On July 29 2025 06:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 04:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 29 2025 00:55 WombaT wrote:
Impactful sure, but what do you do about it?
If people feel they’re living in almost a post-apocalyptic hellscape, when actually it’s amongst the safest and least crime-ridden times to have ever existed, how do you swing that around?
Let’s say there’s a hypothetical SC2 patch that by most reasonable metrics, is the most balanced state the game has ever been in. How do you placate the person who feels it’s the worst patch ever, and not as balanced as patches from the good old days, patches that were objectively way worse for balance? I don't know if you've read "Sapiens: a brief history of mankind". Arguably one of the best pop-science books about society. Actual historians and anthropologists tend to hate this book. E.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20200213152130/https://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari's_'Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind'/
That happens with every popular science book. It's hard to dumb down a subject enough for a layman and keep it accurate enough for the nerds. If I showed one of my lectures that's aimed at the public to my colleagues there would be endless arguing about how correct something is.
|
On July 29 2025 15:13 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 06:38 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2025 04:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 29 2025 00:55 WombaT wrote:
Impactful sure, but what do you do about it?
If people feel they’re living in almost a post-apocalyptic hellscape, when actually it’s amongst the safest and least crime-ridden times to have ever existed, how do you swing that around?
Let’s say there’s a hypothetical SC2 patch that by most reasonable metrics, is the most balanced state the game has ever been in. How do you placate the person who feels it’s the worst patch ever, and not as balanced as patches from the good old days, patches that were objectively way worse for balance? I don't know if you've read "Sapiens: a brief history of mankind". Arguably one of the best pop-science books about society. Actual historians and anthropologists tend to hate this book. E.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20200213152130/https://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari's_'Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind'/ That happens with every popular science book. It's hard to dumb down a subject enough for a layman and keep it accurate enough for the nerds. If I showed one of my lectures that's aimed at the public to my colleagues there would be endless arguing about how correct something is.
I think if they renamed it Sapiens: a brief history of mankind in Europe it would have much less backlash.
On the point of dumbing down, it is actually useful a lot of the time. Even when inaccurate, having a simple model to start from and add in the needed complexity for that specific case makes it easier for my limited human brain.
|
On July 29 2025 04:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 00:55 WombaT wrote:
Impactful sure, but what do you do about it?
If people feel they’re living in almost a post-apocalyptic hellscape, when actually it’s amongst the safest and least crime-ridden times to have ever existed, how do you swing that around?
Let’s say there’s a hypothetical SC2 patch that by most reasonable metrics, is the most balanced state the game has ever been in. How do you placate the person who feels it’s the worst patch ever, and not as balanced as patches from the good old days, patches that were objectively way worse for balance? It's not really the same question (actual state of society versus the perceived state of society) but I will bite. I'm not sure you will like the answer. It's a two part solution so bear with me. I don't know if you've read "Sapiens: a brief history of mankind". Arguably one of the best pop-science books about society. It's basic tenant is that the tiers are civilisation is essentially built on social constructs made to trick us into working together. Essentially if you get more people to feel like a "group" (like saying we are a tribe, not just 10 different villages) you win because you have more men willing to die for the group. The biggest we have made it thus far is religion/nation states and ideologies and ideas like capitalism or currency (but they are a bit iffy). Related to this is that people feel safer around people who they view as their own group (regardless of if they actually are or not, it's a feeling it's not related to reality). The other aspect is that human beings like to stay informed of our society (it was crucial for our survival) and we overprioritze bad news. Like probably x10 or more. This is just how we work psychologically. We are also really bad at judging how things impact us. The brain does not handle statistics or things like relative risk. So we might read up about shootings in different cities and it makes us feel unsafe. This is really bad for us because the media wants to sell things and we click articles with "scary stuff" so we hear about every pedophile in the entire country and our brain will not accept the information that it's now half as common as 50 years ago. In the past this wasn't a problem because old media like tv, radio and the papers also had pretty limited access to information from across the world and a pretty uniform idea on what to write about. In short they gave you the news but with a pretty hefty slant towards whatever the editor wanted. At some basic level most news sources also wanted to prevent panic and often also shape the citizens. Propaganda in other words. It works well, massive control of media in rural areas with elderly population (so they don't have other sources) is a large part of both Erdogan's and Orbans success. So essentially you need to do 2 things 1) make everyone belong to the same group. 2) make people read less shit that makes them scared. The way to do this is by massive amounts of propaganda and some repression. We have tried the "multi-culti" approach before and it didn't work (we repressed people that believe "others" won't belong but we didn't really push people into something). The alternative for creating a homogenous population is unthinkable so if no one has a better idea it's back to the old concept of nation states again.
Massive propaganda to promote a national identity and the feeling that everyone is "in" that group, some repression of what we don't want. That means repression of racism and intolerance but also some repression of religions and cultural ideas. Essentially you are a scotsman first, british after that, maybe a fan of your local football team after that and in fourth and fifth place you are a muslim with pakistani roots. Use propaganda to beat that into everyone (this goes for racists to obviously). Great, now you have one big happy group. The other aspect is probably some specialised form of censorship. We don't deal with media (especially not social media) particularly well. I believe laws that govern how news can be shown would help immensely. Don't censor the news themselves but have laws that state that you cannot show news about crime on the front page unless it's local. If you want news on national crime you have to click a link, if you want international crime you also have to click a link. If you can't filter this you simply can't show these kinds of reports on the front page. I think it would help a lot and as a side benefit it would really bring back local reporting.
To the bolded, i think you are just wrong. We are in the process of shedding the idea of nation states all together, the "conservative" backlash we currently see is exactly that, backlash. The world has become smaller and smaller and to more and more people the notion of where they are from are becoming more unimportant than ever. This is a trend because the more interconnected societies are the more the borders disappear. The notion that the EU has failed because the racists have not been oppressed enough is just strange to me. Europe suddenly believes that Ukraine should be apart of its federation, 30 years ago people would have said Poland isn ot fit to be a part of it because....slavs.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On July 29 2025 12:58 BlackJack wrote:
As much as we wanna say things like “we all wish the police would catch every lawbreaker yadda yadda” I think the tolerance towards crime is one of the biggest left/right divides of our era. You can post the same video of some petty crime like shoplifting and on a right-wing site they will cheer for the shoplifter to get nabbed and on the left-wing site they will cheer for the guy to escape the bobbies after nicking some cornettos.
On a right wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that helps the police subdue someone and put them in handcuffs. On a left-wing site a Good Samaritan is someone that opens the door to the back of a police car and lets the person inside flee because ACAB and he was probably innocent anyway.
Also I totally don’t blame the police. The police are definitely not doing their job but that’s only because their job has been made pointless because anyone they arrest is back on the streets the next day anyway. Also when you demonize the police you shouldn’t be surprised when they no longer want to stick their necks out to catch bad guys.
Also to the “statistics say crime is down” crowd: the major newspaper in my city tried to use crime stats to claim the local drug store only had 3 incidences of shoplifting per month and therefore shoplifting was not that serious. A news camera crew from a different outlet went to film at the store and they witnessed 3 instances of shoplifting in the 20 minutes they were there. When statistics and public sentiment begin to diverge its also possible that the statistics are bullshit. You can cling to your stats all you want but they didn’t start locking up the sweets at Tesco behind plexiglass for no reason.
I don’t think it’s nearly as extreme as that, in general. Such things do exist of course. There is undoubtedly a difference, would be silly to deny that but it’s not quite that pronounced outside of outliers.
Having worked in Tesco for 17 years now, I’ve not been in a store where we lock sweets behind plexiglass. I would assume some individual stores in particularly crime-ridden areas have done this.
I think your post is a neat encapsulation of basically every issue I have with modern media, and especially social media. It’s a drip feed of stories to fit a certain narrative, and hey we’re in the global village, but it ends up grossly distorting things by cherry-picking and feeding in similar kinds of stories.
Your points on San Francisco may be entirely valid, but you end up getting fed stuff that forms a perception that like the UK is going down such a path, when in general it isn’t.
There is hostility to the police in Northern Ireland, but that’s basically centred around issues of national identity and fairness of policing and resource allocation to be equivalent to both communities. In the wider UK, people don’t necessarily love the police, but they don’t hate them. The relationship is nowhere near as antagonistic as it is in the States.
@Yurie, I’m pretty fucking left but I too am abstractly in favour of the death penalty. My objection is a purely practical one where you get the wrong guy or gal.
|
On July 29 2025 15:13 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 06:38 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2025 04:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 29 2025 00:55 WombaT wrote:
Impactful sure, but what do you do about it?
If people feel they’re living in almost a post-apocalyptic hellscape, when actually it’s amongst the safest and least crime-ridden times to have ever existed, how do you swing that around?
Let’s say there’s a hypothetical SC2 patch that by most reasonable metrics, is the most balanced state the game has ever been in. How do you placate the person who feels it’s the worst patch ever, and not as balanced as patches from the good old days, patches that were objectively way worse for balance? I don't know if you've read "Sapiens: a brief history of mankind". Arguably one of the best pop-science books about society. Actual historians and anthropologists tend to hate this book. E.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20200213152130/https://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari's_'Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind'/ That happens with every popular science book. It's hard to dumb down a subject enough for a layman and keep it accurate enough for the nerds. If I showed one of my lectures that's aimed at the public to my colleagues there would be endless arguing about how correct something is.
These aren't minor nitpicks for nerds to battle over, there are some pretty crippling flaws in Harari's central thesis.
When actual experts in the relevant fields are saying stuff like he "not only knows very little about tribal societies but seems to have read almost nothing on the literature on state formation either", you should be wary about using it as a major source for your political beliefs.
|
On July 30 2025 02:17 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2025 15:13 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 29 2025 06:38 LightSpectra wrote:On July 29 2025 04:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On July 29 2025 00:55 WombaT wrote:
Impactful sure, but what do you do about it?
If people feel they’re living in almost a post-apocalyptic hellscape, when actually it’s amongst the safest and least crime-ridden times to have ever existed, how do you swing that around?
Let’s say there’s a hypothetical SC2 patch that by most reasonable metrics, is the most balanced state the game has ever been in. How do you placate the person who feels it’s the worst patch ever, and not as balanced as patches from the good old days, patches that were objectively way worse for balance? I don't know if you've read "Sapiens: a brief history of mankind". Arguably one of the best pop-science books about society. Actual historians and anthropologists tend to hate this book. E.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20200213152130/https://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari's_'Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind'/ That happens with every popular science book. It's hard to dumb down a subject enough for a layman and keep it accurate enough for the nerds. If I showed one of my lectures that's aimed at the public to my colleagues there would be endless arguing about how correct something is. These aren't minor nitpicks for nerds to battle over, there are some pretty crippling flaws in Harari's central thesis. When actual experts in the relevant fields are saying stuff like he "not only knows very little about tribal societies but seems to have read almost nothing on the literature on state formation either", you should be wary about using it as a major source for your political beliefs.
Does he get the major things right or does he get them wrong? Did he get the things I specifically mentioned wrong?
It's like you ask your student about when he cited an article in his work, is this a good article?
And he doesn't know. And you inform him that by any major way of classifying articles it's a shit article. So he goes, I better change it to a better one then.
And your like, nah my dude, you use for a citation on the methods on how to grow a mixed species anaerobic biofilm and that part is correct so it's perfectly fine.
I honestly don't care what you or some other anthropology people think about it or other popular science books to be honest. It's not science, it's never going to be science. It's not going to be close to science if it's one of the book that manages to be popular. It might be better or worse depending on the scope and the scope of this book is the entire history of the human race. Yeah it might be oversimplification. Yeah it might be an author drawing some conclusions that doesn't hold up about tribes (because the audience likes "it could have been like this" instead of "we don't know" every single paragraph.
Is it western centered? I live in Europe so it's fine by me.
I'm honestly laughing about the position that it's bad to read pop science book. Everyone knows they aren't perfect but give me the guy who reads 100 pop-sci books in his life because he enjoys that instead of the guy who spent that time watching premier league football every single day if I want a somewhat informed answer. The main takeaway of the books are to open your mind to new ideas anyway.
So yeah, a bunch of nerds being salty about not managing to write an international bestseller doesn't exactly make me apologize. And poor science can still be right.
If you want to nitpick my posts and play that game go fetch me a couple of academic sources for what I wrote that counter my position and I'll consider it.
|
Odd that Labour recently allowed 16 and 17 year olds the vote and next thing they do is restrict and censor the internet for that age group.Can't see it being a vote winner there.
Anyway, currently four of the top 5 downloaded apps in UK are VPNs.Whats the govts plan for that.
|
On July 30 2025 15:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Odd that Labour recently allowed 16 and 17 year olds the vote and next thing they do is restrict and censor the internet for that age group.Can't see it being a vote winner there.
Anyway, currently four of the top 5 downloaded apps in UK are VPNs.Whats the govts plan for that.
Ban VPNs of course.
|
Russian Federation612 Posts
On July 30 2025 15:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Odd that Labour recently allowed 16 and 17 year olds the vote and next thing they do is restrict and censor the internet for that age group.Can't see it being a vote winner there.
Anyway, currently four of the top 5 downloaded apps in UK are VPNs.Whats the govts plan for that.
I can give you a potential roadmap on that =)
|
On July 30 2025 15:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Odd that Labour recently allowed 16 and 17 year olds the vote and next thing they do is restrict and censor the internet for that age group.Can't see it being a vote winner there.
Anyway, currently four of the top 5 downloaded apps in UK are VPNs.Whats the govts plan for that.
They obviously wont ban VPNs, because it is basically staple in corporations, for security reasons. What will happen. they will restrict them, and ability to switch regions will be probably one of the first things to go.
|
Yes I had seen them saying they are not looking to ban VPNs.Within a couple of years it may be harder to bypass it via VPN as other countries are bringing in similar rules.
The Australian version they are currently planning on bringing in by this December requires age verification for social media, YouTube, even search engines like Google (For logged in users only, unlogged users still pick up the results but they are apparently blurred out).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
