I think maybe it's Bottas relaxed. All year he has been under immense pressure to do something to keep his Mercedes seat. Now it's all settled, not what he wanted, but still, the release of pressure must be immense. He has had a point to prove all season, and in previous seasons too, but now he can do it without fear of consequences. I'd imagine that's hugely liberating... in much the same way as we see with football teams, they lose all season and are bottom of the table, and then as soon as their relegation is confirmed, they lose all pressure and start playing well.

Certainly the climate crisis is our most pressing concern. It's the thing we need to address right now, as a species, and on behalf of other species. Voting for environmentalists is the best thing you can do.


This is a temporary situation caused by the lag between a reducing death rate and a reducing birth rate. Some countries, most notably Japan, have already reached stage 5 of the demographic transition model. Equilibrium will be achieved everywhere, eventually, as a consequence of improved healthcare and technological advances. But obviously for the moment the global population continues to grow, which acts to worsen the problems with the climate.

In some discussions we reach some common ground, but in this one we are very far apart.


The comment about white heterosexual males is quite telling. This is precisely what I mean when I say that right-wing voters are in favour of entrenched privilege, so long as they are in the privileged group. They don't want others to share the advantages that they have benefitted from, because if everyone has an equal opportunity, they lose their unfair advantage. I am a white, heterosexual male, and I am wholly supportive of feminism and movements such as BLM. I don't think it's fair that some people are subject to mistreatment or don't get a chance, just because of their race or gender or sexual orientation. Everyone should get a fair chance in life, and I will always vote to reduce or remove my advantage in this regard.


Okay. 


... who are usually of working age, and perform crucial jobs to support the economy, often jobs that are unpalatable to the privileged natives. A few years back in the UK we had the Brexit xenophobia referendum. The racists won, and guess what? We now have staffing crises in crucial industries, because there are no immigrant workers willing to slave away for a pittance.


Ouch. This is really your belief? If you were an immigrant entering a country where people thought as you did, then would you feel welcome? You are extremely prejudiced.


When you say "a lot", what does this mean? "Some" out of millions? Are you claiming that this is true of the majority? The logic is BADeckeresque. "Some" people who had the Covid vaccine scalded themselves whilst cooking... therefore nothing.


Here in the UK, and no doubt also in the USA ("build the wall!"), right-wing politicians have exploited normal people for a very long time. And normal people used to vote left-wing, but now, many of them don't. Have you read 1984? The carefully crafted narrative from those in power is that the inequalities are never their fault, it's never bankers and corrupt business leaders taking your money and starving you of opportunity, no, it's always some voiceless minority who can't fight back. Who's making you poor? Why, it's the Mexicans of course! Or the gypsies! The Romanians, Polish, etc. It's not the white guy in the private jet who just gave you a pay cut, no, it's not his fault! Farcical of course, but it works. 


I don't hear that. But then I don't consider myself primarily as part of a white heterosexual male group, exclusive to everything else. I'm not part of any group, other than being human.


It's not, no. It's an attempt — clumsy at times, yes — to right historical and endemic wrongs.


I find this sort of viewpoint to be both fairly common and morally abhorrent. Not to mention without any factual basis.


See above. If someone is taking away your opportunities, then who is most likely to be doing it? The person in power or the person who has no power? Think about it.

As an interesting — to me, at least — aside, my perception of people who vote for right-wing parties (like the Conservative party in the UK) is that they do so specifically because they "have the pathetic notion that they are in this group, or at least favored by them".
I know quite a few people who had a poor upbringing in traditional working-class families and backgrounds, but now vote right-wing. Invariably* this is because they have an inbuilt feeling of inferiority instilled in them from an early age. As an exit plan, they have then each set some arbitrary barometer of success, whether owning a house, or getting an office job rather than manual job, etc... and then once they've reached this point, they feel a desperate need to let everyone know that they've "made it" and are now a success. One way they demonstrate their "wealth" and "achievements" is to vote for parties that favour the elite... because these fools have deluded themselves into believing that pulling themselves up from say the bottom 20% into the bottom 50%, they are suddenly part of, and favoured by, the elitist club of the ultra-rich. And so they continually vote against both their own personal best interests, and the best interests of the majority of society. Another easy way to spot these people is to try to engage them in any sort of political discussion... they will just regurgitate the latest tabloid headlines at you, often word for word.



*invariably amongst the specific people I know and am talking about here.


---


Yeah. And I've not even been drinking.

I'm surprised that most people seem very right-wing. I understand the origins of bitcoin, but I don't understand why it should appeal solely to those on the far right.

Perhaps this is the crux of it. I have always voted for left-wing parties, but I would disagree vehemently with anyone who believes that "the state is the best guarantor of the progress of society". Pure laissez-faire 'ancap' capitalism can't sit well with a left-winger, but capitalist democracy can and often does.
As I've explained in other threads, I believe that capitalist democracy, whilst flawed, is the best system we have. My issue is with how the state behaves. Any absolute, pure system results in authoritarianism. We need a system where there are two opposing forces that work to cancel out each other's excesses. Surely this is a good idea?
A big distinction between myself and a right-winger, when looking at the government - and I suppose I am talking specifically about the UK - is that I don't see a force that is dedicated to holding business back and inhibiting progress, I see instead a bunch of privately-educated elitists (a lot of UK prime ministers went to the same fee-paying school as children) who are destined from birth to rise to power. And when they get there they just perpetuate the us-and-them divide. Corruption and cronyism are rife, meritocracy nonexistent, and the government works primarily to enrich themselves and their millionaire friends, and couldn't care less about the general population.
I vote left not because I want to bring about a Stalinist dystopia, but because I think progress works best when the government works for the people, as a brake against capitalist excesses, rather than as an enabler. Capitalism is great so long as it doesn't go too far. I mean, cartels and monopolies should be prevented, right?
Bitcoin in this context appeals to a leftist because it offers a route by which individuals gain some measure of control, free from the elitist tyranny of the ultra-rich.
A personal perspective, and one I'm willing to acknowledge is a generalisation rather than a universal truth, but I see right-wingers as being motivated purely by self-interest, against equality of opportunity, and in favour of entrenched advantage, and the right-wing conception of bitcoin as being a way to erode what fragile mechanisms exist to give everyone a fair chance in life, and a further way to f**k the undeserving poor.

I'm glad the forum doesn't allow negative merits, or I'd be drowning in them now

--

Edited for spelling. This often happens during a rant

Raducanu vs Fernandez in the women's final, it's difficult to believe.

Not sure who will be the favourite, probably Fernandez slightly, but neither of them were expected to get anything like this far. Raducanu apparently had booked her flights home for the end of the qualifying rounds!

Each has been impressive in a different way. Raducanu has reached the final without dropping a set in her 9 matches so far. But she's had an easier draw... Fernandez has knocked out the #2, #3 and #5 seeds!

Here's a reminder of their respective routes through the tournament:

Yes, that was sort of what I meant. For good or ill*, Trump has reinvented the Republican party. Of course it's partly a coincidence of timing due to the rise of social media giving politicians direct access to voters, but it's in large part due to nature of the man himself. Republicans have watched him for four years disgorging lie after lie, largely without consequence. The 'truth' is malleable as never before, and the party are well aware of this. Cue the various assaults on democracy to which you've alluded. He may have lost the last election, but he retains a stranglehold over the party because of the nature of his success. They've seen just what can be done. And any 'moderate' Republicans who may want to get off this path face a huge challenge. The most feasible way they can oust a demagogue is to replace him with another. Remove Trump but retain Trumpism. It would be a pyrrhic victory, but even that seems unlikely. Like a stubborn stain, Trump will persist.




*it's ill.

Yeah. Try explaining the election results to him. He still doesn't understand.

It could be difficult, though. If your leader came to power as a populist demagogue, then how do you unseat him, even when he's no longer in the White House?
Do you discredit his policies? You can't discredit populist rhetoric using data and complex legal, statistical or other technical arguments. That won't win over the people who voted for him; they have no interest in that sort of dry political stuff.
Once your party is set on the 'soundbites to power' path, the only real way to oust him is bring in someone who has some new soundbites. But even then it's difficult. Those new soundbites? Fake news.

Trump did recommend that everyone inject disinfectant into their bodies. I suppose he's annoyed that Biden can't see that because pouring disinfectant on household surfaces kills viruses, pouring it into your body would also kill the viruses there... but also... sunlight! Let's pour bright light into our bodies to kill the virus! Trump may be a great mob-agitator, but he's little else. His reasoning is as complex as that of a three year-old. Let's hope he doesn't get anywhere in '24.


Beyond satire.

Given all of your past posts, it's quite clear that you don't consider science, evidence or facts to be important. Or the history of viruses and humans. Or reality.


I have thought before that this does give us quite an insight into the freedom-lovin' anti-vaxxer mindset. It's based on selfishness and an utter lack of empathy bordering on solipsism. Their ideal society is one in which they have their own personal freedom to do whatever the hell they like, so long as everyone else acts responsibly. See also the hilarious TV channel 'GB News', where they proudly champion freedom of expression... until one of their own presenters has a volte-face live on air and takes the knee in response to BLM... triggering outrage among viewers, and a deluge of complaints, and the immediate suspension of the presenter who dared to break ranks. 

Broadcaster Guto Harri has quit GB News after he was suspended for taking the knee during a discussion about racism towards England's black footballers. Last week, GB News apologised after the TV journalist made the gesture, which it said breached its standards.

I admit I have lost interest in men's tennis a bit. No matter how well someone plays, you know that Djokovic will beat them. You almost know before the start of the tournament that there is effectively zero chance of anyone else winning the thing. In his last three matches at this tournament he has lost the first set - and yet how much tension and excitement did that bring? Zero. It was always inevitable even from a set down that Djokovic would win. I do hope someone beats him at some stage, just to relieve the monotony. We need another top men's player. No-one else can match him at the moment.

Yes, UK.
She was born in Canada to a Romanian father and Chinese mother, but she has lived in the UK since she was 2 years old.


The thing with Raducanu is no-one really knows what her level is. This is only her second real tournament after Wimbledon a couple of months ago. I don't expect her to win the tournament, but when you watch her play, it's difficult to believe she's 18. A lot of young players can pull out brilliant shots, but her mental attitude and decision-making really stand out, almost like she's burst onto the season as a fully-seasoned and experienced professional, and now, unbelievably today she has become the British number one Not bad for someone who was ranked 366 in the world back in June.

I am of course biased and getting carried away because she's from my country, but Raducanu really looks like she should have a great career, provided she can stay clear of injury.

She's just taken 5 games in a row to win the first set against Bencic, 6-3. One-way traffic at the moment.
Can't believe this is only her second ever grand slam, and she needed 3 rounds of qualifying just to get into the main draw!

Even if she loses today, a phenomenal tournament from her.


--

Edit: Well, she won... 8 matches played so far at the US Open including the qualifying... yet to drop a set 

But of course it gets harder with each round, and she will not be expected to win the semi.

It does appear to be a dilemma... but I'd suggest that many Trump supporters are quite comfortable with cognitive dissonance, and with holding multiple conflicting opinions at once.

Being grateful for things is certainly a good mindset to have, and the opposite of the corrosive sense of entitlement exhibited by some people.
It also helps to build empathy towards those who haven't had the privilege of good opportunities or good luck.

Certain people seem to believe that those who are at the bottom are invariably there because of some inherent moral fault, whereas in reality, far more often than not, people tend to be the victim of circumstance. Certainly we each need to take responsibility for our own actions (or lack of action), but it should be perfectly evident that we are not all dealt the same hand in life, and it is important to acknowledge and be grateful for any privileges we might have.

I think Sabalenka is more likely to win. Of course Fernandez has been defying predictions all the way through the tournament, and she certainly has a chance of winning, but it's a brave prediction to say you're sure that Fernandez will win it.

You could say similar about Raducanu, who has now won 7 games at this tournament (including 3 in qualifying), without dropping a set. But she's not likely to win the whole thing. Both her and Fernandez are likely to lose at some point, and just because a lot of top seeds have gone, it doesn't make it likely that the number 2 seed will also fall.

Now that I've said that, watch me be completely wrong...

I don't think England missing a few players will be an issue. Like a top club team, they have a lot of strength in depth and most of their players can be replaced by others of similar ability. If you're picking three behind the striker and excluding those you've mentioned, you could for example choose: Sterling, Grealish, Mount... and this would be just as good, if not better.

Lewandowski could be key for Poland. If you have a player of that calibre in your side, you always have a chance against anyone.

Appeals to nationalism or patriotism by the media are generally thinly (if at all) veiled appeals to jingoism, xenophobia and racism.
The terms are malleable and meaning is dependent to a large degree on context, but excessive nationalist or patriotic feeling is generally a result of political/media manipulation (subtle or otherwise).

Unconditional support for and pride in one's country, regardless of its actions, isn't a particularly good idea, whatever word you use for it.

Why would you think the vaccines are experimental? All approved vaccines have been through the standard three phase clinical trials, and are fully documented.


I don't know quite what it is you're doing with the vaccine if it involves mutilation and experiments. I would advise instead to take the vaccine in the normal way. It's safer, and is unlikely to result in a visit from the police.

Massive study reveals few differences between men and women's brains - Study by Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science neuroscientists conduct meta-synthesis of three decades of research

I think the word for much of the content of this thread is neurosexism. Quotes from the link below.

Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains


Differences between stereotypical 'male' and 'female' behaviour arise because
because people's personalities and behaviour are obviously moulded to an extent by the society in which they exist.

Any observation that females are inferior is a condemnation of society. Thankfully things are improving all the time, but obviously, as some of the posts in this thread indicate, we still have quite a distance to go...