[Bones McCoy]

People who like war should be made to smoke a whole packet.

US aircraft "should stop in the first safe country".

[Oboogie]

Autocutie on Sky News almost wetting herself over Trump saying Starmer 'isn't Churchill'. Palpable glee.

Of course Starmer isn't Churchill, we don't need a Churchill, we're not at war.

[Spoonman]

Autocutie on Sky News almost wetting herself over Trump saying Starmer 'isn't Churchill'. Palpable glee.

Of course Starmer isn't Churchill, we don't need a Churchill, we're not at war.

Won't happen 'cos he's diplomatic, but I'd love to see Starmer reply along the lines of "Well I'm not exactly dealing with FDR or JFK myself".

[Tubby Isaacs]

Public opinion seems to be on Starmer's side.

Only on the second question.

I can't believe those figures for the first question. Are people really saying Britain should just sit there and wait for more attacks?

[Oboogie]

Autocutie on Sky News almost wetting herself over Trump saying Starmer 'isn't Churchill'. Palpable glee.

Of course Starmer isn't Churchill, we don't need a Churchill, we're not at war.

Won't happen 'cos he's diplomatic, but I'd love to see Starmer reply along the lines of "Well I'm not exactly dealing with FDR or JFK myself".

He isn't even dealing with Nixon!

[davidjay]

Of course Starmer isn't Churchill, we don't need a Churchill, we're not at war.

Won't happen 'cos he's diplomatic, but I'd love to see Starmer reply along the lines of "Well I'm not exactly dealing with FDR or JFK myself".

He isn't even dealing with Nixon!

He's possibly dealing with Gerald Ford.

[AOB]

And all because the fucking Americans decided to (re)elect as their president the very worst human being on the planet.

Fatalism, anyone ?

Stupidity maybe?

Is Racism Just a Form of Stupidity?

Longitudinal studies provide some of the most convincing evidence. One such study looked at general intelligence in 10- and 11-year-old kids, and then re-studied those kids as adults two decades later—and found a clear connection between low intelligence and subsequent racism and sexism. Similarly, higher intelligence in childhood has been shown to predict less racism in adulthood. These analyses strongly suggest that low intelligence actually leads to hateful attitudes later on.

I remember finding out in primary school that the average IQ, including adults, was only 100. I remember being really shocked because I knew what mine was as my parents plus a couple of other kids parents had been told by the school as we'd done quite well. So I rationalised that to average only 100 that means there must surely be a hell of a lot of thick people knocking about, scoring way under 100. And as an adult I found out the price society pays for this. Sub 100s are more likely to get played like a fiddle by money obsessed meglomaniacs. The right wing have the bulk of the thickos vote, plus the greedy, selfish element of the plus 100s. This means they will always have the upper hand, so sound bites and propaganda are a stronger tool than asking or expecting people to use critical thinking every election day. How many Trump or Farage supporters even so much as Google to check what they've said is correct, never mind thinking for themselves "is that really true?"

[soulboy]

Has anybody spared a thought for the real victims?

"War on the motorist" incoming, along with calls for another "temporary" cut in fuel duty.

[Bones McCoy]

And all because the fucking Americans decided to (re)elect as their president the very worst human being on the planet.

Fatalism, anyone ?

Stupidity maybe?

Is Racism Just a Form of Stupidity?

Longitudinal studies provide some of the most convincing evidence. One such study looked at general intelligence in 10- and 11-year-old kids, and then re-studied those kids as adults two decades later—and found a clear connection between low intelligence and subsequent racism and sexism. Similarly, higher intelligence in childhood has been shown to predict less racism in adulthood. These analyses strongly suggest that low intelligence actually leads to hateful attitudes later on.

I remember finding out in primary school that the average IQ, including adults, was only 100. I remember being really shocked because I knew what mine was as my parents plus a couple of other kids parents had been told by the school as we'd done quite well. So I rationalised that to average only 100 that means there must surely be a hell of a lot of thick people knocking about, scoring way under 100. And as an adult I found out the price society pays for this. Sub 100s are more likely to get played like a fiddle by money obsessed meglomaniacs. The right wing have the bulk of the thickos vote, plus the greedy, selfish element of the plus 100s. This means they will always have the upper hand, so sound bites and propaganda are a stronger tool than asking or expecting people to use critical thinking every election day. How many Trump or Farage supporters even so much as Google to check what they've said is correct, never mind thinking for themselves "is that really true?"

There's a real concern for the present and future:

The agricultural age and industrial age provided plenty of jobs for the less academic types.
You didn't need to read to work on a farm, just follow orders.
Early mills and factories were slightly more demanding, but still had plenty of unskilled repetitive work.

The modern high tech and service oriented economy has close to zero opportunities for intellctually limited folks.
Even the common "Just let them do ...." from the Hartley Brewer types aren't feasible.
* Learn a trade - you'll require an HND through apprenticeship, and later face the management challenges of self-employment.
* Stack shelves in a supermarket - the job now requires decent tech literacy and the personal skills to deal with customers.
* Warehouse work - are they serious, one of the remaining danger to life work environments. People and machinery working in proximity and heavy kit stacked high.

[Youngian]

I thought it was skilled white collar work under threat from AI. Whereas even the latest somersaulting Chinese demonstration robot can't even be deployed to empty bins.

[Bones McCoy]

I thought it was skilled white collar work under threat from AI. Whereas even the latest somersaulting Chinese demonstration robot can't even be deployed to empty bins.

Even bins have been made complex:
* Emptying the right colourbin into the right lorry (why don't they colour code the lorries).
* Identifying current "paid service" tokens on chargeable service bins.
* Spotting when somebody's half filled a bin with building rubble, or other forbidden stuff.

Every simple job has become increasingly complex, often in non-core functions.
Needing to check your calendar daily to see whether your shifts have been switched.
Pick up emergency calls out of hours, and find your own shift replacements if you're sick.

Work has become far more precarious, and complex.
Guess who comes out a loser at every stage?
The "Benny off of Crossroads" characters.
It's a social disaster.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The agricultural age and industrial age provided plenty of jobs for the less academic types.
You didn't need to read to work on a farm, just follow orders.
Early mills and factories were slightly more demanding, but still had plenty of unskilled repetitive work.

The modern high tech and service oriented economy has close to zero opportunities for intellctually limited folks.
Even the common "Just let them do ...." from the Hartley Brewer types aren't feasible.
* Learn a trade - you'll require an HND through apprenticeship, and later face the management challenges of self-employment.
* Stack shelves in a supermarket - the job now requires decent tech literacy and the personal skills to deal with customers.
* Warehouse work - are they serious, one of the remaining danger to life work environments. People and machinery working in proximity and heavy kit stacked high.

Indeed, the erosion of tertiary phase employment is one key to popular dissatisfaction, but also conversely the growing idea in the UK and USA that intelligence is immaterial, beginning with concepts of equality but misplaced; after all, not everyone can run like Usain Bolt, so why do we believe that everyone is as intelligent as Prof Brian Cox? Or at least intelligent enough to challenge him - feels trumping actual knowledge?

Dunning Fucking Kruger.

[Andy McDandy]

Yes - the idea that not knowing everything is the same as knowing hardly anything, or what my dad used to call "and who scored the goal?". The idea being that it didn't matter if you had a huge breadth of knowledge over many disciplines and areas of interest; people would home in on what you didn't know and use that as proof of your fallibility.

[Oboogie]

Yes - the idea that not knowing everything is the same as knowing hardly anything, or what my dad used to call "and who scored the goal?". The idea being that it didn't matter if you had a huge breadth of knowledge over many disciplines and areas of interest; people would home in on what you didn't know and use that as proof of your fallibility.

It's tactic commonly deployed when people realise that they're arguing with someone who knows the topic better than they do - change the subject to their area of expertise.
The example I'll never forget was a FB EDLer who, finding that I was running rings round him by pointing out the illogicality of racism, out the blue asked me if I could lift an HGV wheel ( he named a specific one which I gather is very heavy).
Turns out he does HGV breakdown/recovery for living. When I said I didn't know because I'd never tried, he retorted - "See, you don't know everything!" and blocked me before I could explain the difference between knowledge and physical strength.

His name was Ginge, I wonder what happened to him...he's probably leading a Reform council somewhere.

[davidjay]

Yes - the idea that not knowing everything is the same as knowing hardly anything, or what my dad used to call "and who scored the goal?". The idea being that it didn't matter if you had a huge breadth of knowledge over many disciplines and areas of interest; people would home in on what you didn't know and use that as proof of your fallibility.

It's tactic commonly deployed when people realise that they're arguing with someone who knows the topic better than they do - change the subject to their area of expertise.
The example I'll never forget was a FB EDLer who, finding that I was running rings round him by pointing out the illogicality of racism, out the blue asked me if I could lift an HGV wheel ( he named a specific one which I gather is very heavy).
Turns out he does HGV breakdown/recovery for living. When I said I didn't know because I'd never tried, he retorted - "See, you don't know everything!" and blocked me before I could explain the difference between knowledge and physical strength.

His name was Ginge, I wonder what happened to him...he's probably leading a Reform council somewhere.

It'll involve flags and roundabouts.