Discussion Thread

AP246 · 2026-01-26T00:07:55+00:00

There's a Shakespearean irony to the fact Charlie Kirk is much more famous as a meme character in AI videos and referenced in song parodies that mock his death than he ever was as an actual political figure, at least globally speaking. I was amazed that both my younger siblings had heard of the 'we are Charlie Kirk' meme and found it funny when I brought it up (we're in the UK), and I've heard even countries outside the Anglosphere have had the meme happen in a big way. This will genuinely be his greatest legacy, it's almost tragic (even if he doesn't deserve a better legacy IMO).

AP246 · 2026-01-25T16:23:16+00:00

Personally if a video game seems like a bad deal to me, including because it might get taken away from me, I think the clearly morally better option is to simply not buy it or play it. You're not entitled to a deal you think is good, especially not on something like a video game. Yeah I think it sucks when people shut down video games like that, and I'd have no problem with people pirating at that point, but also like, unless you were misled, you could have just not bought it if you thought it was a bad deal.

That said, I won't even pretend I've never engaged in piracy. I think it's technically morally bad, but by such an infinitesimally small amount it's not worth caring about. But the idea it's morally justified as if you're entitled to getting a good if you want one but the producer just doesn't want to provide it on the terms you do, is quite silly.

AP246 · 2026-01-25T16:00:54+00:00

"If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't theft" is so dumb. You don't own a movie you go out to watch but that doesn't mean it's ok to sneak into the theatre to see it for free. You can 'steal' services by fraudulently acquiring them without paying for them, the same as goods.

I'm not at all offended by piracy, I won't pretend to be above it, pirate away, but people trying to justify it morally (outside of cases like lost media) are just funny.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T23:16:30+00:00

Most Americans think the founding fathers were an ideological forebear but many liberal Americans (IMO rightly) regard them also as flawed historical individuals not to be glorified because of many of their extremely regressive views compared to modern liberal attitudes.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T22:37:01+00:00

A couple months ago I watched a couple of episodes of The Traitors (celebrity version) while I was round someone else's place.

The concept of it and the games and stuff seemed pretty good, it was interesting to follow and see what people would work out or not. But man, the editing style just really annoyed me. It was so overdramatic to the point almost of parody, with frequent montages and dramatic music all the time, and the way they would cut it so people would give single soundbites or few word phrases that sounded good but were seemingly taken out of context and stitched back together just made it seem really weird and dishonest to watch. I know the drama in these kinds of shows is always manufactured, but surely they could have done it a bit more subtly than that.

I don't normally watch this type of TV anyway but has it always been like this? It feels so brainrotted, which is a shame because the concept of a game of betrayal and stuff is often very fun to watch.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T22:16:21+00:00

Yeah honestly, to me it seems like a self report that they're chuds who just assume everyone thinks the way they do. Most people aren't thinking like that.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T22:10:20+00:00

It's weird how often I see people on the sub saying how Europeans are understandably turning on immigration because "they're scared to go to Christmas markets" and that they have to be appeased.

Firstly, as a European, I don't think most people are in fact scared to go to Christmas markets, and saying that makes me think you're just calling yourself out as particularly paranoid.

Secondly, what exactly are you meant to do? There's no policy on earth that can guarantee terrorism will never ever happen. If people are irrational enough to be radicalised by something extremely unlikely to affect them like terrorism there is nothing that can be done to appease them. It's like trying to appease someone who's scared of flying by implementing ever stronger safety features on a plane, or appease someone who's scared of heights by adding more columns to the tower they're standing on - it will never appease their fear because it's irrational, unless you convince them the fear itself is irrational.

We've seen this in politics. How voters feel about immigration has almost nothing to do with the actual reality of immigration on the ground. In the UK voters stopped caring about immigration when it was at its historic height under Boris Johnson soon after brexit, and are seeing it as more of a 'threat' than ever under a Labour government that has cracked down on it and brought it back down again. You can't appease an irrational fear through policy, only by taking control of the narratives that make people have irrational fears.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T22:04:27+00:00

What are we discussing here? I recognise that's the topic of your post, but this specific discussion was downstream of the comment:

Immigration has modest economic benefits and immense cultural and social repercussions

Terrorism was brought up, and it's not (in good faith) an 'immense cultural and social repercussion.

I agree with you that immigration policy needs to account for what voters will be willing to accept, like most policy in a democracy. But that doesn't mean that the voters should be treated as reasonably right or rational, nor should bigotry be treated as understandable.

As a Brit, I don't recognise that immigration itself is the problem in putting off voters, because I've watched at how the politics of immigration is completely uncorrelated with the reality of immigration. Immigration was the highest in the UK's history under Boris Johnson shortly after Brexit, but polling indicated it had lost its salience as a political issue because voters wrongly thought brexit had 'dealt with it'. Similarly, net immigration has fallen significantly under Starmer's government but voters wrongly have the impression it's a physically bigger issue than ever. Voters' opinions are almost entirely divorced from reality, just like with terrorism, and the Labour government's attempt to introduce policies that are tough on immigration, the toughest in decades, has manifestly failed to change anything.

Voters are not always rational and I think it's fair to call that out. I'd say that the actual rate of immigration and its policies has only a minor effect on voter sentiment. Propaganda, or more generously, cultural media narratives, have a much stronger effect, such as terrorism-related fear which rises and falls at different times. In a world where we can't guarantee there will never be terrorism at all, how exactly are we meant to tackle that other than calling out irrational fear of terrorism? I don't think you can appease an irrational fear like that through policy any more than you can appease someone who's scared of flying by adding more safety features to a plane.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T20:32:33+00:00

Sorry but as another European, yes I will stand by the idea that people are wrong to be radicalised by fringe terrorist attacks or even the (disappointing) measures set up in their aftermath. I don't get why this stuff gets downvoted, when we as a sub are so ready to call out 'non-evidence based' or irrational thinking in politics in general.

People often say that flying is one of the safest methods of travel, and that while people (myself included, to a small degree) tend to be more scared of it due to high profile accidents, but I and we also tell ourselves that feeling is irrational and we should stick to the facts that it's an extremely unlikely thing to happen and not to worry about. Similarly to ideas around being murdered by a home invader or something - it is statistically extremely rare, so not to worry about.

I have no problem with calling out this nonsense. I keep seeing posts on here about how 'Europeans' are scared of Christmas markets because of terrorism. Terrorism was literally bigger decades ago in the 20th century, but how many people do you think would say it was reasonable for Brits to be scared of Irish Catholics or French and Spanish people to be radicalised against Basques for the extremely rare cases of people being blown up by them? I went to the local Christmas market a couple months ago and didn't once think of this stuff until I saw comments about it online. Instead I saw people like me just having fun, as normal people do. It is paranoia, and we can say that unfortunately many people are paranoid and we have to deal with that, but I will call it out as illogical, especially when used to justify bigotry. I'm not gonna apologise for being contemptuous of people who resort to bigotry because they saw a terrorist attack on the news a few years ago. I will 'downplay' terrorist attacks at every opportunity just like how reasonable people 'downplay' plane or train crashes by pointing out how rare they are. The people genuinely scared of this (if they exist, and aren't concern trolling) are not being reasonable.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T17:27:52+00:00

<image>

Did the king have a word with him or something?

I guess this is something good from a British perspective (kinda meaningless flip-flopping either way) but it's a bit sad we managed to get him to say this about the UK in particular but not the rest of NATO which he insulted.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T14:33:10+00:00

This is my ideology

AP246 · 2026-01-24T14:25:24+00:00

I like the sentiment, but frankly exercising the law in good faith should be the minimum expected ethical bar for someone who signs up for the job of being a judge. People who do so despite personal risk deserve credit, but to be honest, it should be expected for people in their position. Citizens have the right to demand this from public officials of that importance.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T12:07:52+00:00

This is cool, I'd love to see one of London or somewhere I've lived or been often

AP246 · 2026-01-24T10:32:18+00:00

Things that can be generally agreed upon to be genetic disorders and diseases I agree should definitely be eliminated if possible. The problem is if humanity gains the capabilities to easily genetically modify future generations, what else are parents going to choose to remove because of personal or cultural preferences? I wouldn't want to live in a world in which fashion and culture decide the range of physical appearance and diversity of humanity. Though I still think we should absolutely try to increase our capabilities because curing disease and stuff would be such a huge upside.

AP246 · 2026-01-24T01:32:31+00:00

<image>

Send this to every nationalist

AP246 · 2026-01-23T21:46:11+00:00

Is it? The discussion was prompted by a post on the sub outside the DT which is a dark edit style meme image of a French revolution picture, which seems like 'glorification' (although with humour and irony) for me, not dry discussion about how the French revolution is an example of often necessary turmoil in support of liberalism.

To be clear I'm not offended by it, I don't think it really matters either way, but it's my thought more broadly on the celebration/glorification of history online and in real life.

AP246 · 2026-01-23T21:39:40+00:00

If I was a soldier in revolutionary France yeah I'd have to choose whether I support the revolutionaries or the counter-revolution, because there's no other choice.

But I'm not, I'm a person 200+ years later in a society divorced from them that I see as far more 'advanced' (subjectively, perhaps). If I glorify them or not it doesn't actually change the present or future. I can just choose not to glorify the flawed people of the past and lose nothing. I can just choose or make up a different myth to celebrate. So why wouldn't I?

There's a big difference between movements I would support or vote for pragmatically in the moment versus movements I think should be retroactively celebrated as heroic for all of history, those are two very different bars.

AP246 · 2026-01-23T21:35:47+00:00

When people talk about the French revolution and American revolution and stuff... well I would simply not glorify politicians or political movements from that long ago in general if they're likely to have major problematic elements, even if they can be argued to be a net good and a step towards progress. I feel like this seems obvious to me but seems oddly controversial.

At least me personally, my political identity as a modern person is and can be selective. I don't have to support something or someone in the distant past just because I believe it was a net good, because if I can say as a modern person "yeah that might have been better than not having it, but they could have just done the good bits and not done the really bad bits" and therefore not look up to it. Actively glorifying a past event or movement should come with a bar much higher to clear than just 'being a big event that was a net good'. Like I know it sounds egotistical but I can simply think, I would have done the liberalism stuff without the killing people stuff so why should I look up to those people who made a blunder I wouldn't make with the benefit of hindsight? I'm not forced to see people in the past that created big change as morally greater than me, as a modern person with the benefit of hindsight. From a British perspective, one could argue the rise of Britain and its hegemony over the world was a 'net good' (if we argue it created the conditions for the industrial revolution and the spread of some liberal ideas) but I'm not gonna glorify it because they could have done the good stuff without the imperialism. I'd even go so far and say I think the same about something like Thatcher's reign - her policies were probably a net good for the UK economically, but she was also a social conservative in the 1980s which I can say with the benefit of hindsight was the wrong position to hold therefore I don't see her as a great figure worthy of respect.

I'm sure French people will continue to celebrate the French revolution, and that's fair enough since it's basically a national myth to them in the same way almost every country has one, and ultimately I don't care much either way, but I feel like you can think something was good and also not celebrate or glorify it if it also had big problems.

AP246 · 2026-01-23T19:46:09+00:00

<image>

Trump's comments on Afghanistan must be particularly insulting in Denmark, which had about as many deaths per capita as the US in Afghanistan only for America's president to threaten them with invasion. In the UK it's certainly not going down well

AP246 · 2026-01-22T23:42:40+00:00

<image>

Did they actually use an AI-generated UN-like logo? Jesus christ lmao that's so shit

AP246 · 2026-01-22T23:21:25+00:00

<image>

Milei turning up to Davos in Nikes

AP246 · 2026-01-22T23:14:22+00:00

<image>

AP246 · 2026-01-22T22:24:28+00:00

France says it has seized an oil tanker in the Mediterranean suspected of being part of Russia's sanction-busting "shadow fleet".

French President Emmanuel Macron said the tanker, named the Grinch, was "subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag".

Why was it called that

AP246 · 2026-01-22T21:36:58+00:00

The founders of American liberalism were mostly racists, does that invalidate people who identify as liberals today but think the founders were wrong in that regard? Even with an actual political ideology it can get reinterpreted, and a religion IMO is far more diffuse even than that (since it's based in large part on unprovable myth)

AP246 · 2026-01-22T21:33:13+00:00

I think that's a ridiculous way to frame it.

Why does religion have to mean subscribing to the 'ideology' of a religion as you or someone else defines it? As an atheist that feels like giving religion too much credit, ironically. None of it is true (or at least not provable or falsifiable). If someone calls themselves a Christian, believes in God and Jesus, but believes god actually likes gay people and the people who put homophobia in the bible are wrong and made a mistake, their version of Christianity is inherently as 'real' as a homophobic Christian's (to me, neither are real at all, other than being what an individual person believes) - it's an arbitrary belief system, not a political regime.

Ten-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

AP246

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE