State of the Discussion

I should say I know nothing of Hüseyin Doğru— never heard of him before. But the general topic I agree with—ostensibly democratic governments have a new tool for repression.
Normally Christian fundamentalists would be screaming about this— it fits in perfectly with their fears about the mark of the beast. Maybe some are. But since their guy is in power in the US I suppose their concern will be postponed.

Another topic. I know Ian Welsh is not a favorite here. I sometimes think he goes too far or is wrong. . But this piece about the authoritarian use of a cashless economy seems correct to me.
https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-end-of-cash-the-rise-of-the-non-person/

It became all the harder to comment when there were several comments aimed at me that I wasn't completely responding to some of the counterpoint.
I feel you. I only participate in the comments of this blog because in other blogs, there is an often an assumption that everyone is in the same room/time zone and people push the advantage without thinking of that. The way I write comments grows out of that, trying to put down enough for people to chew on, but also trying to slow down the pace of the conversation, at least where I am wading in and why I often suggest that piling on is not really so good.
A bit of unsolicited advice, it's always possible to say something like 'let me put a pin in that, and give me a day or two to reply. Some people may just ignore that and try to get in their licks, but most of the people here would understand that (and would probably think less of the people not accepting that)

Nous—
That’s probably right. I hadn’t even considered LLM’s but maybe.
My theory is that there is a standard form letter for people asking for pressure for a ceasefire, using our aid as leverage. Maybe a different letter for people who support Israel’s position. I hadn’t thought of them using AI, but that just shows I am still stuck in 2023 or so in my thinking.
Supposedly it is more effective to call them in the phone but I have done that and get nervous.
On the solution, I can’t imagine it. People argue about a 1ss vs a 2ss, but it is really hard to picture the two sides in the same country and also really hard to imagine the settlers leaving or agreeing to live under Palestinian rule. No acceptable solution seems realistic for now. Just stopping the slaughter and getting surviving hostages back is about the limit of my imagination here.

I know this is a peculiar thing to note, but as minutiae I believe Russell mistyped a former commenter’s name as “BrickOverBill”, r instead of n, which presumably would have made it past the filter. We’ll see if this comment appears.

Busy yesterday and today see stuff about alien space bats. Huh.
Anyway, thought I would post a reply I got from Schumer’s back in May after I wrote Schumer’s, Gillibrand and Latimer ( my House rep) a ( polite) several paragraph long email asking them to push for a ceasefire. Gillibrand and Latimer didn’t respond. No surprise in the last case and Gillibrand prob thought I was a global jihadist or something. So I gave the Schumer office some credit for a polite response. The response, however, was nonsense. Here it is —
————
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding U.S. aid to Israel and your request for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I share your concerns about the security and well-being of innocent Palestinians.
I've always said that Israel has 4 goals: Radically reduce Hamas' threat, free the hostages, minimize the loss of innocent Palestinian lives and maximize the amount of humanitarian aid to innocent civilians in Gaza.
Like you, I am deeply troubled by the suffering of those who have been caught in the cross fire of this conflict. My heart breaks at the loss of so many civilian lives in Gaza. I am anguished that the Israeli war campaign has killed so many innocent Palestinians. I know that my fellow Jewish Americans feel this same anguish when they see the images of dead and starving children and destroyed homes.
I agree that the current political situation has created horrible living conditions for many Palestinians living in Gaza. That is why I have been supportive of opening up additional humanitarian aid routes to Gaza and increasing U.S. humanitarian aid contributions. Just recently Congress passed H.R. 815, the Emergency National Security Supplemental aid package that includes $9.3 billion dedicated for humanitarian aid, including for innocent civilians in Gaza.
I will continue to support a strong peace process through direct negotiations and look forward to the day when the Israeli and Palestinian governments can work together to achieve a two-state solution. I am committed to doing all that I can to encourage a productive and meaningful dialogue between the two parties.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch with your thoughts and opinions.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

The other player that comes to mind for me right away with this trait is John Paul Jones.
Jones was the glue in Zep. And a brilliant player, definitely the undersung member in that band.
Check it, the bass in this is just a perfect counterpoint to everything else that is going on. Funky, solid, he ties the different sections of the tune together and keeps in moving forward.
And if it's a Zep tune and it isn't a guitar or drums or voice, it's JPJ playing it.
Re: Ringo, you can always tell a young green drummer who doesn't understand how making music with other people works yet, because they don't like Ringo.

A personal hero, on a few levels.
A friend once remarked that the only measure of a drummer's contribution to music was their technical virtuosity. "Yeah?" I asked him. "How many more great songs might have been produced if Ginger Baker were as good at keeping a band full of huge egos together as Ringo was?"

Charles, your link to Grok's discussion of Alien Space Bats in Fiction is the only AI link of yours I've ever found useful or entertaining.
My life is complete... :)

It seems that they - being more robust - needed more high quality calories than our own ancestors and that the really lean times came after not in the ice age. But to my knowlege the youngest Neanderthal finds are in regions our ancestors had not yet reached (Gibraltar), so us wiping them out seems not to have been the primary reason. Slightly lower birth rates (for whatever reason) seem to be the main cause. Grey squirrel against red squirrel?
Of course my favorite explanation is that the Neanderthals were still at getting their Maxim guns working properly when our ancestors overran them with mediocre but nonetheless functional clubs.

Hartmut, sorry, I dropped in and saw your post, but thought one had been freed. I think we put a textblock on He of the oven made of masonry units, so that may be why, though Russell did post the name twice, so I'm not sure.

I've long since resigned myself to the reality that anything and everything that I have ever written on the Internet is available to someone willing to expend the effort to track it down. Including stuff I have long since forgotten, which I wrote when the Internet was new, and the preserve of a very small number of geeks. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
I figure I'm still better off than those today who (apparently compulsively) write every detail of pretty much every they do. I expect it will come back to haunt a significant number of them.
In 50 years or so our culture may have adapted to the Internet. We'll make use of its strengths where appropriate. And kids will be taught, about the time they learn to read and write, how to use it safely and responsibly. Until then, about the best we can do is damage limitation.

About what topics get people's dander up, I'd go to Martin Luther's observation that "Most human affairs come down to depending upon whose ox is gored." The earth being flat is not on the list of most people's oxen, but other topics can end up being more ox-like.

Pro Bono: I see no problem with discussing religious perspectives, so long as we're not expected to follow arguments from scriptural authority.
"Expected" by who? Surely not by the hosts, than whom there is no higher authority in a blog comment section. Also, to "follow" an argument can mean two different things. I can follow an argument that the earth is flat, for instance, without feeling obliged to follow it up with a refutation.
I called myself "emotionally inert" earlier. What that means is: if a god-botherer citing chapter and verse declared in these pages that I am doomed to hell, I would not be offended, frightened, or otherwise annoyed. If I had a bit of time to kill, I might comment back sarcastically or contemptuously -- but only for my own amusement.
Basically, I can't get worked up about much of anything in a blog comments section. "Yo mama wears army boots" may be ad hominem but I figure sensible people hardly expect me to deny it lest I appear to accept it.
Some people (perhaps the "self-defined conservatives" wonkie speaks of) may be more sensitive than I am, of course.
--TP

I think that the diversity--meaning the self-defined conservative voices---lessened because they simply couldn't justify their positions. This is a very smart, well-informed, articulate group of people and the self-defined conservatives found their positions being picked apart, analyzed, scrutinized and rebutted. So they either got nasty or left or moderated. Or redefined "conservative".
I think it is weird but sort of cute that someone has been recording birthdays. Like an odd hobby.
Male, neutered, orange, and about fifteen years old, if anyone is wondering. Birthday unknown.

lj, I wondered whether you'd pick up the manipulation v pulling the strings aspect, but I decided not to go there with you given how distressing the whole thing had become. Ditto various other aspects (e.g. sex v gender). Let's put it behind us, and just all (including me) be mindful that going after people in anger is generally uncalled for, and counter-productive.
On the Stasi like text file, I did realise it could look like that, but I also remembered that when I started on here I kept a table of where people said they lived (i.e. what state), so I could ask about or respond to their local weather issues, or political developments (e.g. asking wj or nous about things in California etc). I stopped years ago, but the impulse made me realise that I should definitely not cast the first stone, even if I had wanted to.

A couple of observations. I'm probably a/the fly in the ointment. I'm happy to discuss things, but I am pretty big on examining unexamined assumptions. I'll try and illustrate this with an example that's on me.
GftNC and I had an exchange on manipulate and draw out. However, I went back to the comment and I said in the very same comment
What I see (after reflection) was that it was becoming evident to me that it was a loser on the internet pretending to be someone else because they couldn't have a proper conversation with adults and admit they were wrong and that the said loser was pulling your strings.
GftNC could say I was wasn't being honest, cause "pulling strings" conjures up the image of a marionette. But I hope that the full quote shows that I'm making the assumption that she wouldn't have started the conversation if she knew she was just being recruited as a foot soldier in the war on cultural Marxism. But she was right to point that out. Hopefully, we won't have to worry about sockpuppets for a while.
Unfortunately, a lot of arguing on the internet takes running off the other side as winning. While that was true for folks like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, not so true now. The whole concept of sealioning springs from this, but it shares a notion with other similar interactions, which is to goad a person taking one side of the argument into blowing up and then taking the moral high ground.
From this, I think that it isn't so much the topic, it is the way the argument is processed. I was looking at the old posts and the big debate was gay marriage, which invited as much feeling back then.
Another thing, I imagine some people were a bit taken aback by Charles' text file of our ages, which seems a bit Stasi-like. In a lot of places, especially if people don't have much of a reason to play nice, there would have been fireworks at the comment giving the age range. 'how the F would you know that?' might have been a response. But I'm pretty pleased that this didn't happen here. I can't speak for others, but the whole thing seemed very Charles-like.

How much diversity are you, personally, willing to tolerate?
Anyone who's willing to engage in reasoned, fact-based, and tolerably polite discussion.
I see no problem with discussing religious perspectives, so long as we're not expected to follow arguments from scriptural authority. And I'm quite willing to read rational arguments for Trumpism, if any exist.

conversations with them tend to devolve into unanswerable arguments from authority. I.e., if "the Bible says" is not part of your epistemology, there isn't really a basis for conversation. It can be kind of a dead end.
Thus my discussion of what constitutes an "authority". I, too, would not be optimistic about a useful conversation with someone whose approach starts and ends with "the Bible [or other scriptures of their choice] says". In the other hand, someone who starts with "I believe that" or "My faith holds that", but then goes on to discuss how that particular tenet has positive impacts for those outside their faith community, or for society at large?** That could be fine.
To take one example, suppose someone starts from"Thou shalt not steal.". Not a whole lot of arguments from people here. But there might be a useful discussion of what, beyond the obvious, constitutes "stealing." Is open pit mining necessarily stealing? How about various stock/bond trading strategies? How about various tax regimes? And, in each case, what's the evidence for how it works out in the real world? In short, it's possible to take a fundamentalist precept and look at it, or at least its impact, objectively.
** And, tiny reality check, I have personal experience of a few such people. No idea how common that view is, but we're not looking at a null set.

Yeah, I can't imagine it working with seriously MAGA types, or religious fundamentalists, essentially because I can't see that either of those groups are concerned with anything that I would call reality. I might be wrong, of course. But, on the definition of "reliable sources", wj, you definitely make an excellent point - that is problematic.
All the other flavors of conservative you name here are pretty much fine with me. I just ask that people keep it out of ad hominem territory, probably in both directions.
Yes, I think I agree.