What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[Federberg]

Can anyone give me a truthful and useful reason why these insincere attention seeking posers shouldn’t become roadkill?

it's not just happening in America mate. We see this with the Just stop Oil folks in London. Isn't it ironic that the same type of people who won't tolerate different views on college campus's think it's ok to do this stuff under the banner of free speech and the right to protest?

 

[Kieran]

it's not just happening in America mate. We see this with the Just stop Oil folks in London. Isn't it ironic that the same type of people who won't tolerate different views on college campus's think it's ok to do this stuff under the banner of free speech and the right to protest?

Exactly. I don’t believe that hardly one single protester is sincere. Greta is the perfect example, and she’s not untypical. Antifa, the Hamas supporters - we have them here in Ireland too. They just want to be seen, and mainly to disrupt, and feel better about themselves.

They should not be allowed to block streets - ambulances, buses and everybody else who has something better to do than these pleasure seekers.

And it should be illegal to disrupt the streets while wearing masks. If you’re honest, show your fucking ugly face…

 

[britbox]

Exactly. I don’t believe that hardly one single protester is sincere. Greta is the perfect example, and she’s not untypical. Antifa, the Hamas supporters - we have them here in Ireland too. They just want to be seen, and mainly to disrupt, and feel better about themselves.

They should not be allowed to block streets - ambulances, buses and everybody else who has something better to do than these pleasure seekers.

And it should be illegal to disrupt the streets while wearing masks. If you’re honest, show your fucking ugly face…

I disagree with this mate - there are plenty who are sincere. Just go and talk to a few of them rather than watching Youtube clips (which tends to represent the extremes and the worst).

 

[Kieran]

I disagree with this mate - there are plenty who are sincere. Just go and talk to a few of them rather than watching Youtube clips (which tends to represent the extremes and the worst).

Yesterday we had a protest in Dublin involving taxi drivers. They drove slowly by the parliament beeping their horns and making noise. They had men in hi-viz jackets which told us they were protesting against Uber. The traffic was slow but they were very careful to move aside and allow normal traffic to carry on as much as possible, in a rush hour. The guys in the hi-viz were friendly, and spoke to anyone who wanted to know what the protest was about. One of them - when I was gesticulating - continued to steer normal traffic while making his way over to say it was against Uber fixed price fares.

I thanked him, saw that they were making a loud point for a limited time, went' to get my car which was blocked in a space on the next street, and the taxis moved to let me get out with the minimum of fuss. They were doing this for everyone.

Contrast this with the useful (useless) idiots who were protesting "for" Palestine (but that could just as easy any other fashionable cause: race, gender, climate, Trump). Masked, blocking streets and pathways, unwilling to engage, unable to defend, and quick to shout out that there's a Zionist trying to disrupt. All on my innocent way across the street to get a coffee, while asking what's it all about. I'm a friendly bloke. I easily engage and ask questions - but these types of "protesters" don't want to engage, they want to disrupt. They're not "protesters", they're agitators and pleasure seekers who will be out again next week, next month, to support another fashionable "cause" that throws shade on simple western norms. They don't want to know about anything that disrupts their certainties.

So I agree with you to an extent: there are activists and protesters who are sincere, and we can see them because they want us to know the details of their worthy cause, they raise awareness and money for cancer, for women's shelters, for sick children from troubled homes, they're volunteers for charities, and so on, and they don't irritate you because they want you to help them, and they don't want their worthwhile cause to be represented by misfits, idiots and revolutionaries.

 

[britbox]

For the most part, I don't think people should obstruct the every day person being able to go about their business - but I'm not sure if you legislate for it, as it's generally the most effective form of protest for publicity and for generating change. The main thing to consider is that some day the position may be reversed - and you might be the protester.

For example, some people on the right might shrug their shoulders when Trump sends a military force into US cities but they'd be as well to think of the precedents being set - and some day they might face the sharp end of the same stick. We could also look at how the Executive order system is being abused - and that was happening long before Trump even took office.

We are in a turbulent period of time - I've suggested watching legislation rather than news... because all so-called "western democracies" have been quietly passing legislation about protests... The powers behind the thrones know mass unrest is coming... it's probably why the frightening concept of removing trial by jury for most crimes in the UK is also being mooted... A lot of things are converging simultaneously. I refuse to believe any of this is random and reactive - people of power know well in advance. There are smart people behind the scenes and stupid ones on the stage.

As for protestors in general - Up until Covid I probably aligned more with you - most protestors were in my old opinion, the great unwashed, ungrateful miserable whingers, never happy with anything... until I became a protestor myself when people were losing their jobs for not getting jabbed. The protest group ranged from nurses, soldiers, anti-vaxxers, alchemists to Hare Krishnas... quite a kaleidoscope of different people with various reasons for being there. Marches of up to 80,000 people hardly got a footnote in the press, and the tiny sliver of media coverage painted everybody as "dangerous anti-vaxxers".

As for the Palestinian protestors - I spoke to a few and there are very legitimate grievances.
My view is that the Israeli governments actions in the Middle East are utterly disgraceful. I'm not talking about Israelis in general - just the government. It's always a good idea to disconnect the people of a nation from their government's actions IMO because they are rarely representative.

 

[Kieran]

For the most part, I don't think people should obstruct the every day person being able to go about their business - but I'm not sure if you legislate for it, as it's generally the most effective form of protest for publicity and for generating change.

We already have legislation regarding what goes on on our roads: when the light goes green, the foot goes down. I would hope that if a mob of enthusiastic dim-bulb students blocked an ambulance with my wife in it on the way to the hospital, I’d be the car in front of the ambulance. And I’d also like to think I’d do the right thing, but there’s problems with this, as we’ve seen in videos.

The main thing to consider is that some day the position may be reversed - and you might be the protester.

We distinguished between a solid cause and a fashion. If they’re closing children hospital wards and putting the funding into trans cosmetics - to use an exaggerated but apt example - then protest there is legit. The “protesters” I’m always complaining about are the Gretas of this world. The modish causes, the angry theatre, students racing through Columbia and Harvard universities chanting against Jews, like it’s a fashion accessory. Then segueing neatly to No Kings, or BLM, or Daddy Is My Mom, or whatever the latest wristband must-have is.

The ones who are anti-western, pro-terrorist, anti-freedom, pro-chaos.

The ones we see every weekend protesting in favour of made up causes, which they don’t really explore in any depth beyond perhaps learning the lyrics that support a genocide of everybody’s least favourite minority.

These “protesters” do not believe in any cause, they’re just permanent “againsters”. They should not be allowed to wear masks while they disrupt, and every now and then it would be welcome if they sat down and discussed and debated their issue.

We are in a turbulent period of time - I've suggested watching legislation rather than news... because all so-called "western democracies" have been quietly passing legislation about protests... The powers behind the thrones know mass unrest is coming... it's probably why the frightening concept of removing trial by jury for most crimes in the UK is also being mooted... A lot of things are converging simultaneously. I refuse to believe any of this is random and reactive - people of power know well in advance. There are smart people behind the scenes and stupid ones on the stage.

That’s a great point, and it’s the stupid ones I’m talking about. They’re like the stuff that blocked the toilet. Every time you go to use it, they’re in there. Blocking it.

As for protestors in general - Up until Covid I probably aligned more with you - most protestors were in my old opinion, the great unwashed, ungrateful miserable whingers, never happy with anything... until I became a protestor myself when people were losing their jobs for not getting jabbed. The protest group ranged from nurses, soldiers, anti-vaxxers, alchemists to Hare Krishnas... quite a kaleidoscope of different people with various reasons for being there. Marches of up to 80,000 people hardly got a footnote in the press, and the tiny sliver of media coverage painted everybody as "dangerous anti-vaxxers".

Yes, that was a good cause, and I agreed with you largely on all of that. And ironically, these protests were either barred or heavily policed, in stark contrast to the “mostly peaceful race riots” where masks suddenly weren’t needed and the news cycle encouraged mayhem and destruction.

There are just causes and then there is politically expedient unrest and destruction.

As for the Palestinian protestors - I spoke to a few and there are very legitimate grievances.
My view is that the Israeli governments actions in the Middle East are utterly disgraceful. I'm not talking about Israelis in general - just the government. It's always a good idea to disconnect the people of a nation from their government's actions IMO because they are rarely representative.

The last line there is the key line. I’ve yet to meet a Hamas supporter who gives two shits about any other war or trouble in the ME, other than the one involving Jewish State…

 

[Federberg]

Say what you want about the French, they've been protesting for generations. It's disruptive to an extent but not to the extent that they get in front of cars and such. There's something slightly different, more performative and entitled about some of these protests we see today. While I largely agree with @britbox about this, I find the protesters who throw things at paintings or physically get in front of traffic are stepping over the line. There's a difference between protesting and what they're doing. There's no need for legislation, the laws are already in place, it's just that governments for some reason only selectively use what's already on the statute. That's the issue I have...

 

[Kieran]

Say what you want about the French, they've been protesting for generations. It's disruptive to an extent but not to the extent that they get in front of cars and such. There's something slightly different, more performative and entitled about some of these protests we see today.

Exactly. They’re not protesting against the people, they’re protesting against the state. The rent-a-mob far left hate both the people and the state.

Meanwhile they live in the most diverse, wealthy, healthy and free countries in history…

 

[Kieran]

This is the psychologist Jonathon Haidt - co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind - giving a typically precise critique of part of the liberal mindset in his book The Righteous Mind. I think he’s quite correct when it comes to this chameleonic notion of “inclusivity..”

 

[mrzz]

This is the psychologist Jonathon Haidt - co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind - giving a typically precise critique of part of the liberal mindset in his book The Righteous Mind. I think he’s quite correct when it comes to this chameleonic notion of “inclusivity..”

View attachment 10363

I read this with a moderate sense of relief. Since I was very young "Imagine" lyrics rubbed me the wrong way, and now I know I am not the only one...

 

[Kieran]

I read this with a moderate sense of relief. Since I was very young "Imagine" lyrics rubbed me the wrong way, and now I know I am not the only one...

Yeah, John Lennon singing “imagine no possessions” on a white grand piano in a big f*ck off gaff in Berkshire was certainly a bit of a reveal. It’s an activist mindset - idealism with no real thought behind it. But it gets lapped up still, as a “Great Song”...

 

[mrzz]

Yeah, John Lennon singing “imagine no possessions” on a white grand piano in a big f*ck off gaff in Berkshire was certainly a bit of a reveal. It’s an activist mindset - idealism with no real thought behind it. But it gets lapped up still, as a “Great Song”...

This line is telling, it is a wonderful example of a world view which is completely flawed. "Possessions", in the lyricist's mind, are always like a big shinny pile of gold, with good old Uncle Scrooge laying on top of it. Or giant luxury yachts, all sorts of things that are frivolous and superfluous. Except that... most people's lives are filled with simpler, more meaningful possessions. A painting made by someone's mother, a backyard full of flowers, a vinyl LP collection, a hard earned house... all of those are "possessions", the ones of the real world. And then comes this guy and says, "oh, no, let us all live my dream..."

 

[Kieran]

This line is telling, it is a wonderful example of a world view which is completely flawed. "Possessions", in the lyricist's mind, are always like a big shinny pile of gold, with good old Uncle Scrooge laying on top of it. Or giant luxury yachts, all sorts of things that are frivolous and superfluous. Except that... most people's lives are filled with simpler, more meaningful possessions. A painting made by someone's mother, a backyard full of flowers, a vinyl LP collection, a hard earned house... all of those are "possessions", the ones of the real world. And then comes this guy and says, "oh, no, let us all live my dream..."

Exactly. Plus, as well, it's not a crime to be a billionaire if your ideas and products push humanity forward - or are just simply popular. Socialism is the politics of envy, and malice. We see the more dunce element of society complain about billionaires, but if we put a cap on human potential - even in their earnings - then we put a cap on human endeavour and achievement. We've placed a limit which, subliminally or otherwise, suggests closed doors which leads to a narrowing of free and open creativity. Likewise, we see this in arts, which are hampered by the DIE initiative. Let creatives be free, let the market decide, and we'll always improve. The proof of this is in socialist countries versus market economies, especially after WW2: in the arts, architecture, and everywhere else, the free society wins....and is the favoured destination for victims of all other social ideologies.

As for the "religions are exclusive" complaint, it's not the Catholic Church which excludes people - it's people who exclude themselves from the Church. There's a difference which is lost on the woman in that book.

And guess what else is exclusive: veganism is exclusive, and vegetarianism, most marriages, and alcoholics anonymous...

 

[Federberg]

@Kieran @mrzz I thought this clip was interesting. Remember our conversation about the energy requirements of AI? Well it looks like new tech is coming really soon that will lead to a paradigm shift. The energy demand might not be what we feared. It's amazing!

 

[Kieran]

@Kieran @mrzz I thought this clip was interesting. Remember our conversation about the energy requirements of AI? Well it looks like new tech is coming really soon that will lead to a paradigm shift. The energy demand might not be what we feared. It's amazing!

That’s fairly incredible, and hopeful actually. Humans are incredible, really, when we think of the problems we create as we progress, and how we then solve them…

 

[mrzz]

@Kieran @mrzz I thought this clip was interesting. Remember our conversation about the energy requirements of AI? Well it looks like new tech is coming really soon that will lead to a paradigm shift. The energy demand might not be what we feared. It's amazing!

From the numbers given on the video, spintronics will make processing units energy efficiency grow from 3 to 10 times, depending on the case. Estimates tend to be optimistic, so lets assume that, on average, CPUs get 5 times more energy efficient. So they will consume 5 times less energy.

This also means that less energy is converted to heat, so less energy will be spent in cooling systems. So lets us say that total energy consumption will decrease by a factor of 10.

That is a giant leap, yes... but... current energy consumption level is already extremely high, and the demand for processing power keeps growing. It is quite easy to imagine that in, say, five to ten years we will be processing data 10 times more than we are now. So, this will, in the end, shift the energy curve some years back. We will still need a huge amount of energy anyway...

 

[Kieran]

From the numbers given on the video, spintronics will make processing units energy efficiency grow from 3 to 10 times, depending on the case. Estimates tend to be optimistic, so lets assume that, on average, CPUs get 5 times more energy efficient. So they will consume 5 times less energy.

This also means that less energy is converted to heat, so less energy will be spent in cooling systems. So lets us say that total energy consumption will decrease by a factor of 10.

That is a giant leap, yes... but... current energy consumption level is already extremely high, and the demand for processing power keeps growing. It is quite easy to imagine that in, say, five to ten years we will be processing data 10 times more than we are now. So, this will, in the end, shift the energy curve some years back. We will still need a huge amount of energy anyway...

Let’s tease this out, and you’ll know the answer, I only have a question: given the rapid progress in all sorts of technology, is it not impossible that the antidote comes hot on the heels of the illness? That we’ll have the ability 10 years from now that we’ll easily be able to cope with gargantuan energy needs? Or are these growths as dangerous and savage as the energy usage they’re trying to fix?

Do you think take a more dystopian view, that we’ll reach too far, too fast, eventually, and pay for it?

 

[mrzz]

Let’s tease this out, and you’ll know the answer, I only have a question: given the rapid progress in all sorts of technology, is it not impossible that the antidote comes hot on the heels of the illness? That we’ll have the ability 10 years from now that we’ll easily be able to cope with gargantuan energy needs? Or are these growths as dangerous and savage as the energy usage they’re trying to fix?

Do you think take a more dystopian view, that we’ll reach too far, too fast, eventually, and pay for it?

It is quite a profound question, actually. I see no reason why energy consumption should not keep growing almost exponentially. But we are good generating energy and I am totally sure we will always find answers (actually, nuclear energy is there already and it could produce way more than we produce now).

But, I cannot stop thinking about the fact that never in history of mankind energy was used in such a scale for completely frivolous things. At some point someone will calculate how much energy is spent correcting the written language of a lazy person who is not able to put a minimal effort in order to learn how to express her/his self a little better. The inefficiency of such a thing is scary. And people will get more lazy and comfortable, and more energy will be spent with activities that humans could very much do in recent past....

 

[Federberg]

It is quite a profound question, actually. I see no reason why energy consumption should not keep growing almost exponentially. But we are good generating energy and I am totally sure we will always find answers (actually, nuclear energy is there already and it could produce way more than we produce now).

But, I cannot stop thinking about the fact that never in history of mankind energy was used in such a scale for completely frivolous things. At some point someone will calculate how much energy is spent correcting the written language of a lazy person who is not able to put a minimal effort in order to learn how to express her/his self a little better. The inefficiency of such a thing is scary. And people will get more lazy and comfortable, and more energy will be spent with activities that humans could very much do in recent past....

All good points. I believe what's likely to happen is that as this technology spreads out it will improve, efficiencies will end up being greater over the longer term, and we may reach a point where the supply of energy exceeds demand for a time, which will lower the cost of energy. That lower cost of energy will encourage more ways to use energy, and a new equilibrium will be achieved. I agree that humanity will always find new ways to use energy it's who we are. Fascinating times! Imagine if this happens while fusion becomes a reality... that would be something!

 

[britbox]

Yeah, John Lennon singing “imagine no possessions” on a white grand piano in a big f*ck off gaff in Berkshire was certainly a bit of a reveal. It’s an activist mindset - idealism with no real thought behind it. But it gets lapped up still, as a “Great Song”...

Indeed - some of these Western socialists forget they live in the richest countries in the world, enjoying the highest standard of living... One thing is always evident - when it comes to taxation and penalising wealthy people - the threshold always starts higher than them - meaning somebody else will always pay the price for their Utopia - never them. If we were to look at this from a global perspective (and why not, seeing they generally hate borders) they might find themselves among the top 5%.

Still, we should always have a social conscience - aspiring to helping those in need. By "in need" I'm not talking about 3 or 4 generations of serial welfare degenerates who have never worked or contributed to wider society.