comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 48 minutes ago
YouGov: Rishi Sunak’s net favourability has dropped to new low of -15 following his spring statement

Favourable: 36% (-3 from 22-23 Mar)
Unfavourable: 51% (+7%)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the Labour lead looking? Voting intentions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 40% (+1)
CON: 35% (-1)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 7% (+1)
REF: 2% (-2)

via @RedfieldWilton, 20 Mar
Chgs. w/ 13 Mar

Last one I could find from Monday
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster voting intention:

CON: 36% (+2)
LAB: 36% (-3)
LDEM: 12% (-)
GRN: 6% (-)
REF: 3% (+1)

via
@KantarPublic
, 17 - 21 Mar
Chgs. w/ Feb

https://mobile.twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1507056366892072962

Or

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 37% (+1)
CON: 35% (=)
LDM: 10% (+1)
GRN: 7% (-1)
REF: 4% (-1)

via @YouGov, 23-24 Mar

(Changes with 23 Mar)

So why did you ask then you snarky little...

comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 18 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
Just finished Steven Pinker's Rationality. Think it was Inserts recommendation? It flounders a bit near the end, but really good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Think it was Rosso, at least thats whose name i have against it on my reading list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say something like ‘Rosso (probably avoid)’

Adders

Agree with Rationality tailing off a little bit, but I think it’s still potentially quite an important book. I don’t agree with Pinker on everything (more generally), but I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head there.

If you’re short another recommendation, I’m halfway through David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it’s mindblowing. Has (already!) completely changed my ideas on Rousseau vs. Hobbes, on historical views and discussions on inequality, and particularly on what Europe learned (and failed to learn) from the Western Hemisphere when the Americas were ‘discovered’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP David Graeber

I was tempted to give that book a go! How has it changed your mind on Hobbes vs Rousseau?

If you are interested in that kind of area, I would reccomend Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, it ‘reminded’ me that both have been misrepresented somewhat in their state of nature-related thought experiments being extended to represent historically-bound theses; i.e. that Hobbes believed that there was only war, starvation and suffering before modern civilisation; and that Rousseau believed that there was only peace, kinship and “uncorrupted morals”.

Both men *would* have been wrong, of course, and, of course, neither was. I think a younger me had read on this, and this older me had been derailed in being repeatedly delivered, as we are, simplified versions of their theses.

Secondly, that they represent(ed) diametrically opposed schools of thought. (This is what happens when, despite knowing better, we present these philosophical discussions at points in time as A vs B, rather than A and B.) In truth, neither was the idealist they are, in modern times, often made out to be, particularly when measured against some of their contemporaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great summery

Yeah I have been mistaken on this before - as I had a really basic understanding of the two. The more I have got to know, I can see the differences as being more nuanced.

Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything

Seems to have been absolutely hammered by some writers in the 'reception' segment

Would need to read it of course.

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 29 minutes ago
So why did you ask then you snarky little...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve answered your own question 😂

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 29 minutes ago
So why did you ask then you snarky little...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve answered your own question 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kRLvrE5zX6o

comment by NPE. (U22712)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 29 minutes ago
So why did you ask then you snarky little...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve answered your own question 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kRLvrE5zX6o
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quiet you Putney-based trans activist

https://twitter.com/mparrott31/status/1507689051029131267

https://twitter.com/FDefects

v disturbing

UK and US did this

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1507685664598417408

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1507525990200786944

https://twitter.com/dublincomments/status/1507689921494011908

comment by NPE. (U22712)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 18 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
Just finished Steven Pinker's Rationality. Think it was Inserts recommendation? It flounders a bit near the end, but really good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Think it was Rosso, at least thats whose name i have against it on my reading list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say something like ‘Rosso (probably avoid)’

Adders

Agree with Rationality tailing off a little bit, but I think it’s still potentially quite an important book. I don’t agree with Pinker on everything (more generally), but I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head there.

If you’re short another recommendation, I’m halfway through David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it’s mindblowing. Has (already!) completely changed my ideas on Rousseau vs. Hobbes, on historical views and discussions on inequality, and particularly on what Europe learned (and failed to learn) from the Western Hemisphere when the Americas were ‘discovered’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP David Graeber

I was tempted to give that book a go! How has it changed your mind on Hobbes vs Rousseau?

If you are interested in that kind of area, I would reccomend Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, it ‘reminded’ me that both have been misrepresented somewhat in their state of nature-related thought experiments being extended to represent historically-bound theses; i.e. that Hobbes believed that there was only war, starvation and suffering before modern civilisation; and that Rousseau believed that there was only peace, kinship and “uncorrupted morals”.

Both men *would* have been wrong, of course, and, of course, neither was. I think a younger me had read on this, and this older me had been derailed in being repeatedly delivered, as we are, simplified versions of their theses.

Secondly, that they represent(ed) diametrically opposed schools of thought. (This is what happens when, despite knowing better, we present these philosophical discussions at points in time as A vs B, rather than A and B.) In truth, neither was the idealist they are, in modern times, often made out to be, particularly when measured against some of their contemporaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great summery

Yeah I have been mistaken on this before - as I had a really basic understanding of the two. The more I have got to know, I can see the differences as being more nuanced.

Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything

Seems to have been absolutely hammered by some writers in the 'reception' segment

Would need to read it of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldnt pay attention the reception section of wikipedia

Sat nav told me so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGOKI-1Sl0

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by NPE. (U22712)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 29 minutes ago
So why did you ask then you snarky little...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve answered your own question 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kRLvrE5zX6o
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quiet you Putney-based trans activist
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ouch

Dutch dockers refusing to load freight today onto @POferries ferry Pride of Rotterdam after vicious sacking of 800 British sea workers #Solidarity https://t.co/chkklgMMyo

comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by NPE. (U22712)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 18 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
Just finished Steven Pinker's Rationality. Think it was Inserts recommendation? It flounders a bit near the end, but really good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Think it was Rosso, at least thats whose name i have against it on my reading list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say something like ‘Rosso (probably avoid)’

Adders

Agree with Rationality tailing off a little bit, but I think it’s still potentially quite an important book. I don’t agree with Pinker on everything (more generally), but I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head there.

If you’re short another recommendation, I’m halfway through David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it’s mindblowing. Has (already!) completely changed my ideas on Rousseau vs. Hobbes, on historical views and discussions on inequality, and particularly on what Europe learned (and failed to learn) from the Western Hemisphere when the Americas were ‘discovered’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP David Graeber

I was tempted to give that book a go! How has it changed your mind on Hobbes vs Rousseau?

If you are interested in that kind of area, I would reccomend Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, it ‘reminded’ me that both have been misrepresented somewhat in their state of nature-related thought experiments being extended to represent historically-bound theses; i.e. that Hobbes believed that there was only war, starvation and suffering before modern civilisation; and that Rousseau believed that there was only peace, kinship and “uncorrupted morals”.

Both men *would* have been wrong, of course, and, of course, neither was. I think a younger me had read on this, and this older me had been derailed in being repeatedly delivered, as we are, simplified versions of their theses.

Secondly, that they represent(ed) diametrically opposed schools of thought. (This is what happens when, despite knowing better, we present these philosophical discussions at points in time as A vs B, rather than A and B.) In truth, neither was the idealist they are, in modern times, often made out to be, particularly when measured against some of their contemporaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great summery

Yeah I have been mistaken on this before - as I had a really basic understanding of the two. The more I have got to know, I can see the differences as being more nuanced.

Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything

Seems to have been absolutely hammered by some writers in the 'reception' segment

Would need to read it of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldnt pay attention the reception section of wikipedia

Sat nav told me so
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. SatNav is being rinsed today lol

comment by NPE. (U22712)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by NPE. (U22712)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 18 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
Just finished Steven Pinker's Rationality. Think it was Inserts recommendation? It flounders a bit near the end, but really good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Think it was Rosso, at least thats whose name i have against it on my reading list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say something like ‘Rosso (probably avoid)’

Adders

Agree with Rationality tailing off a little bit, but I think it’s still potentially quite an important book. I don’t agree with Pinker on everything (more generally), but I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head there.

If you’re short another recommendation, I’m halfway through David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, and it’s mindblowing. Has (already!) completely changed my ideas on Rousseau vs. Hobbes, on historical views and discussions on inequality, and particularly on what Europe learned (and failed to learn) from the Western Hemisphere when the Americas were ‘discovered’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP David Graeber

I was tempted to give that book a go! How has it changed your mind on Hobbes vs Rousseau?

If you are interested in that kind of area, I would reccomend Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, it ‘reminded’ me that both have been misrepresented somewhat in their state of nature-related thought experiments being extended to represent historically-bound theses; i.e. that Hobbes believed that there was only war, starvation and suffering before modern civilisation; and that Rousseau believed that there was only peace, kinship and “uncorrupted morals”.

Both men *would* have been wrong, of course, and, of course, neither was. I think a younger me had read on this, and this older me had been derailed in being repeatedly delivered, as we are, simplified versions of their theses.

Secondly, that they represent(ed) diametrically opposed schools of thought. (This is what happens when, despite knowing better, we present these philosophical discussions at points in time as A vs B, rather than A and B.) In truth, neither was the idealist they are, in modern times, often made out to be, particularly when measured against some of their contemporaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great summery

Yeah I have been mistaken on this before - as I had a really basic understanding of the two. The more I have got to know, I can see the differences as being more nuanced.

Humankind by Rutger Bregman is quite problematic with discussing the two, particularly with Hobbes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything

Seems to have been absolutely hammered by some writers in the 'reception' segment

Would need to read it of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldnt pay attention the reception section of wikipedia

Sat nav told me so
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. SatNav is being rinsed today lol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue rinse?

Well he is a Tory and an old woman...

comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 47 seconds ago
Well he is a Tory and an old woman...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how old SatNav is. Nor do I know SatNav's preferred pronouns.

comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 23 minutes ago
Well he is a Tory and an old woman...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

An old woman with a beard

comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 47 seconds ago
Well he is a Tory and an old woman...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how old SatNav is. Nor do I know SatNav's preferred pronouns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It/it

comment by NPE. (U22712)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 23 minutes ago
Well he is a Tory and an old woman...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

An old woman with a beard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh the images that conjures up!

comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by NPE. (U22712)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 23 minutes ago
Well he is a Tory and an old woman...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

An old woman with a beard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh the images that conjures up!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank fek WWSPD isn't on to provide links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5skiiRHnpo

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/26/us-release-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-diseases

What could go wrong

66,000