In British English, a "beamer" is usually a car made by Bayerische Motoren-Werke. It can also be a high full toss at cricket, or, but I've not heard this usage for some time, a big smile.
When Sánchez said "La posición del Gobierno de España se resume en cuatro palabras: 'No a la guerra'" he wasn't seeking to tell us how many words there are in 'No a la guerra'. He might have said "en pocas palabras" but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier.
If one translates it as "...in four words: 'no to war'" the thought induced in the reader is first that the count is wrong, second (in a reader with some familiarity with romance languages) that there must have been a definite article in the Spanish. That is not the message Sánchez intended.
One should translate to give the message, not literally word by word.
I've hesitated, as a man, to say anything about this...
I disagree with several things said or quoted on this thread:
of course men want to rape! It’s just most men can’t rape because...
I don't want to rape. Nothing to do with morality, or what I can get away with, or self respect. I just don't want to. I could be wrong, but I think most man are the same.
it’s not about sex...
It's not exclusively about sex. But it's a biological fact that, for a man, rape has to be partly about sex.
It occurs when someone (the rapist) feels the need to demonstrate his power and status.
I don't think that's true of Epstein's associates - those men had widely acknowledged power and status. Nor can it be true in the Pelicot case, where the rapes were largely secret, and the victim was unconscious. __
But I agree with a lot of the rest. It's an ugly fact that, as the Pelicot case shows, not a few men do want to rape. And yes, patriarchal attitudes to women make it much easier for those men to tell themselves that their rapes don't count as rape.
If that's right, the question addressed by this thread is how to stop those men who want to rape, but are not sociopathic, from feeling entitled to do what they want.
Left-antisemitism arises mostly from anti-Zionism - when an anti-Zionist goes too far in associating Jewish ethnicity with the State of Israel. It can also come from an association of Jews with (unpopular) investment banking. (See also Zhdanov's coded phrase "rootless cosmopolitan".)
Right-antisemitism is quite different. The right is generally sympathetic towards Israel's killing Palestinians, whom it thinks of as browner than Jewish Israelis. But domestically, in the USA, it sees Jews as less American than white gentiles. The extremists are sympathetic to Hitler's ideas about 'Aryanization', denying, or even supporting, the holocaust. But they've got no special objection to Jewish financiers, unless (George Soros) they're openly leftist.
The left tends to see antisemitism from its side as little more than a careless overstepping of boundaries - that's the perspective of Jeremy Corbyn, in the UK. Whereas the right thinks that the only antisemitism that matters is showing insufficient support for Israel.
When commentators on each side speak of antisemitism, there's not that much in common in their meanings.
The whole of the UK, even Farage, is furious with Trump over his remarks about the rest of NATO:
"We've never needed them, we have never really asked anything of them. They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines"
457 British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, and many more were injured.
This is the only time NATO's Article five collective defence provisions have been invoked.
Trump stayed 9000 miles away from the front lines in Vietnam, having persuaded a friendly podiatrist to diagnose him with bone spurs in his heels.
I've always thought that Plato's arguments by analogy are tosh. But it never occurred to me that they could be censored for not being sufficiently fascist.
The second point looks implausible, given that he walked round her car and stood in front of it. But it would be a tiny lie compared with all the others.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland? Other than by declining to hand over the whole island.
I just watched a video of an ICE agent shooting dead a woman in her car, in Minnesota.
Then I read a statement about the shooting from President Trump, who claims that he's watched the video and it shows that she "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer who seems to have shot her in self defense".
The video is readily available online. It clearly shows that the Officer was in no danger of being hit by her slow-moving vehicle. He fires three shots, one of them through the very corner of her windscreen - the bullet-hole is on video - the others through the side window, which appears to have been open.
Who are the Rs going to believe? Their president, or their eyes?
Controlling Venezuela is aimed at making money - he hopes to be paid to bestow oil rights. Kidnapping Maduro is to encourage foreign presidents to toady to him and to bribe him.
Greenland is a greatness project - he wants his legacy to include expanding the territory of the United States
In reality, Venezuela doesn't traffic significant amounts of illegal drugs to the USA - look at the map. The US doesn't need to own Greenland to meet its security needs: Denmark has always co-operated with the US. But facts about his purported justifications are irrelevant to him, because those justifications are not his real reasons.
Yes, the summary conveys the import but not the tone of the article, which was in some ways positive about Truss, with obvious reservations. Stears will have chosen his words carefully.
This podcast appears to be an attempt to monetize the extraordinary political appeal of her spectacularly short premiership. I wouldn't say she's less deserving than all of the people who've got rich out of right-wing politics.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “A little language practice”
In British English, a "beamer" is usually a car made by Bayerische Motoren-Werke. It can also be a high full toss at cricket, or, but I've not heard this usage for some time, a big smile.
"
Would anyone here argue for that?
Yes, I would.
I would have changed “four words” to “three words” in the translation.
"
Not right.
When Sánchez said "La posición del Gobierno de España se resume en cuatro palabras: 'No a la guerra'" he wasn't seeking to tell us how many words there are in 'No a la guerra'. He might have said "en pocas palabras" but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier.
If one translates it as "...in four words: 'no to war'" the thought induced in the reader is first that the count is wrong, second (in a reader with some familiarity with romance languages) that there must have been a definite article in the Spanish. That is not the message Sánchez intended.
One should translate to give the message, not literally word by word.
"
"Pro patria mori" (in Latin) is usually translated "To die for one's country".
"
In French, it's compulsory to use an article in that sort of construction - "non à la guerre". cf. "vive la France". I guess that Spanish is similar.
I would have changed "four words" to "three words" in the translation.
On “Yuja Wang, networking, transactionality and that guy”
Perhaps this post by Lebrecht has something to do with it.
On “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
...just a few days after Jan 20 2017...
Prediction is easy, especially when it's about the past.
On “Perpwalk Imperial”
I've hesitated, as a man, to say anything about this...
I disagree with several things said or quoted on this thread:
of course men want to rape! It’s just most men can’t rape because...
I don't want to rape. Nothing to do with morality, or what I can get away with, or self respect. I just don't want to. I could be wrong, but I think most man are the same.
it’s not about sex...
It's not exclusively about sex. But it's a biological fact that, for a man, rape has to be partly about sex.
It occurs when someone (the rapist) feels the need to demonstrate his power and status.
I don't think that's true of Epstein's associates - those men had widely acknowledged power and status. Nor can it be true in the Pelicot case, where the rapes were largely secret, and the victim was unconscious.
__
But I agree with a lot of the rest. It's an ugly fact that, as the Pelicot case shows, not a few men do want to rape. And yes, patriarchal attitudes to women make it much easier for those men to tell themselves that their rapes don't count as rape.
If that's right, the question addressed by this thread is how to stop those men who want to rape, but are not sociopathic, from feeling entitled to do what they want.
On “Open Thread”
The Economist has stayed the course much better than some other major publications that have drifted from journalism to viewpoint advocacy.
I put it to you that this just means you agree with the viewpoint they advocate.
On “Moral insanity”
An observation about left and right antisemitism:
Left-antisemitism arises mostly from anti-Zionism - when an anti-Zionist goes too far in associating Jewish ethnicity with the State of Israel. It can also come from an association of Jews with (unpopular) investment banking. (See also Zhdanov's coded phrase "rootless cosmopolitan".)
Right-antisemitism is quite different. The right is generally sympathetic towards Israel's killing Palestinians, whom it thinks of as browner than Jewish Israelis. But domestically, in the USA, it sees Jews as less American than white gentiles. The extremists are sympathetic to Hitler's ideas about 'Aryanization', denying, or even supporting, the holocaust. But they've got no special objection to Jewish financiers, unless (George Soros) they're openly leftist.
The left tends to see antisemitism from its side as little more than a careless overstepping of boundaries - that's the perspective of Jeremy Corbyn, in the UK. Whereas the right thinks that the only antisemitism that matters is showing insufficient support for Israel.
When commentators on each side speak of antisemitism, there's not that much in common in their meanings.
"
What GftNC said.
On “Carney’s speech”
The whole of the UK, even Farage, is furious with Trump over his remarks about the rest of NATO:
"We've never needed them, we have never really asked anything of them. They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines"
457 British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, and many more were injured.
This is the only time NATO's Article five collective defence provisions have been invoked.
Trump stayed 9000 miles away from the front lines in Vietnam, having persuaded a friendly podiatrist to diagnose him with bone spurs in his heels.
On “An open thread”
I've always thought that Plato's arguments by analogy are tosh. But it never occurred to me that they could be censored for not being sufficiently fascist.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
The second point looks implausible, given that he walked round her car and stood in front of it. But it would be a tiny lie compared with all the others.
"
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland? Other than by declining to hand over the whole island.
"
I just watched a video of an ICE agent shooting dead a woman in her car, in Minnesota.
Then I read a statement about the shooting from President Trump, who claims that he's watched the video and it shows that she "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer who seems to have shot her in self defense".
The video is readily available online. It clearly shows that the Officer was in no danger of being hit by her slow-moving vehicle. He fires three shots, one of them through the very corner of her windscreen - the bullet-hole is on video - the others through the side window, which appears to have been open.
Who are the Rs going to believe? Their president, or their eyes?
"
Trump wants four things:
Controlling Venezuela is aimed at making money - he hopes to be paid to bestow oil rights. Kidnapping Maduro is to encourage foreign presidents to toady to him and to bribe him.
Greenland is a greatness project - he wants his legacy to include expanding the territory of the United States
In reality, Venezuela doesn't traffic significant amounts of illegal drugs to the USA - look at the map. The US doesn't need to own Greenland to meet its security needs: Denmark has always co-operated with the US. But facts about his purported justifications are irrelevant to him, because those justifications are not his real reasons.
On “An inscrutable Merry Christmas”
I'm having a delightful day with my children and my father. It's warm for the time of year here also. Merry Christmas all.
On “Weekend Music Thread music thread #09 In Russia, Christmas music sings you!”
A comment I made yesterday has got lost. Too much Cyrillic, perhaps.
"
I've tried to follow what she says (at 9-11 seconds). It's
"Цифры на термометре, Оксана, говорят на улицу не ногой"
"The numbers on the thermometer, Oksana, say 'don't step outside'"
However, she's speaking fast and there's no pause where I've put the second comma. "Оксана" could be something else.
"
Оксана is a common female name in Ukraine. The diminutive Оксанка is used to refer pejoratively to a generic Ukrainian woman.
Wiktionary says it derives from the Greek ξενία, meaning 'hospitality', from ξένος, 'foreign', c.f. English 'xeno-'.
I can't speak authoritatively, but I've found no support online for an association with 'thermometer'.
On ““We’re now poorer than Mississippi. It’s like Huckleberry Finn without the steamboats.””
Degree classifications went private decades ago. But I suppose she would have let it be known if hers were creditable.
Getting into Oxbridge is an achievement in itself,
"
Yes, the summary conveys the import but not the tone of the article, which was in some ways positive about Truss, with obvious reservations. Stears will have chosen his words carefully.
"
I think that's an AI summary of commentary on what Stears wrote, which was phrased more academically than that.
"
Truss was against Brexit before she was for it.
This podcast appears to be an attempt to monetize the extraordinary political appeal of her spectacularly short premiership. I wouldn't say she's less deserving than all of the people who've got rich out of right-wing politics.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.