What's amazing, and telling, is that you think my 'sacrifice people' comment only applies to Americans

Eventually, I decided that the stupid comments on Yanquis and Kikes twat the Mad Mullahs (that link to an arch preserves the now-deleteed comments) weren't worth my while moderating; so all the stupid ones are gone. Do feel free to tell me what a terrible mistake that was; but do it here, not there.

Sorry if I broke one of your worlds today. I suggest not fixing it.

Phil has left a new comment (05/11/2025, 21:43) on the post 'Grokipedia

Last century. A book review. "Even more disturbing are Ms. Murray's failures to grapple with the social consequences of virtual reality and the blurring of lines between fantasy and fact that it nurtures. She is cheerful about ''the consensual hallucination'' shared by people in MUD's and the possibility of one day playing the role, in cyberspace, of a favorite television character's next-door neighbor. As technology develops, she contends, ''we will slowly get used to living in a fantasy environment.''

For Ms. Murray, this is a wonderful thing. For others, it is a form of escapism, escapism that can foster a retreat from the problems and pleasures of the real world."

Some forms of politics are retreats from the problems of the real world. Want a world where the climate never changes, just pick the right "Right" politics.

Want a world where economic problems can be solved by splitting off from a trading block? Just pick the right "Right" Brexit politics.

Want a world where the NY Times is a cheerleader for AI until the NY Times discovers some are "right wing"? Easy, just make up some facts about the NY Times, and don't bother to listen to others or think about the issues. Sorry if I broke one of your worlds today. I suggest not fixing it.

05/11/2025, 21:55

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/18/books/the-art-of-storytelling-transformed-by-hackers.html?unlocked_article_code=1.y08.PT01.ivF_zgSWHgkw&smid=url-share

05/11/2025, 22:23:

Oh, and one more. Chatbots are a form of artificial stupidity enabled by technology.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opinion/technology-has-destroyed-reality.html?unlocked_article_code=1.y08.OXK3.7WLcYsiAD7Uu&smid=url-share

"This is our real, existing digital world: nothing more than hourly waves of feverish and toxic agitation, played out over stale mainstream channels that discourage innovation and experimentation, drown in excruciating advertisements and drain people’s attention and souls.

An unpopular truth cannot survive online in such a world, because traction is privileged over veracity. And to artificially stupid automatons and algorithms, reality is defined as brute quantity, by ranking, ratings and elimination.

The truth doesn’t fit into that mold.

The truth is a piece of work with unruly and messy details that nevertheless require attention and never fully add up. It is usually much too complicated to be entertaining, and it may not be to everyone’s liking at all. It may not make things easier or more efficient — quite the opposite, in fact. If truth is not a marketable item, like clean environments or livable neighborhoods, the platforms that manage digital communication seem to show little interest in maintaining it, letting broken news propagate.

As a result, fake reports, digital rumors and conspiracy theories have moved from fringe to mainstream. They have also created a new reality. As I write this, a mob is marching through the East German town of Chemnitz, yelling anti-migrant slogans and chasing nonwhite people. They are not brandishing pitchforks; they are more likely to wield cellphones."

Welcome to Spam Club. And since you're new, a reminder that the first rule of Spam Club is that discussions about it take place here.

You seem to have degenerated into a mix of insults and spam.

This is so, so sad

Peter H said...

I have read Stoat for far, far too long. In the early days William was a decent, liberal, 'Green'. Stoat was a good read with science and data explained for his readers - it was almost a UK Rabbit Run. Now he is (and this is so, so sad) an apologist for mass killers and a victim blamer. He never criticises Israels actions, he simply blames Palestinians. I fear he may become a climate change denier. How I wish Eli still posted, there was a man after my own heart.

Welcome to Spam Club. And since you're new, a reminder that the first rule of Spam Club is that discussions about it take place here.

Your comment crosses the line from reasonable critical commentary to personal insult; I insist on better from commentators.

It seems that you're saying it's ok to keep killing civilians

Fri 4 Jul, 02:13: Nathan has left a new comment on the post 'Reflections on recent events in the Middle East':

"I think you're still desperate to find excuses for not considering surrender."

It seems that you're saying it's ok to keep killing civilians, until Hamas surrenders. 

Fri 4 Jul, 10:48: Granite has left a new comment on the post 'Reflections on recent events in the Middle East':

Hamas will never surrender bc Israel needs hamas. I mean Israel DID allow oct 7th to happen on purpose. Further, how is it Israel can pinpoint Iran’s leaders with such accuracy, but hamas remains elusive?

OP sounds like a believer or partisan.

Fri 4 Jul, 23:41: Nathan has left a new comment on the post 'Reflections on recent events in the Middle East':

https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/poll-overwhelming-majority-of-jewish-israelis-share-genocidal-belief-there-are-no-innocent-people-in-gaza/

As usual, you may feel free to discuss moderation decisions over here.

Racist people are often unaware

Nathan said...

Racist people are often unaware. And if you want to avoid being called racist, don't use racist terminology. It's not wild or illogical to call out racism, when racist terms are used. It is by definition racist.
Don't pretend you understand my emotions, you have never met me.

Can I ask, what proof you would need of genocide, and how do you know it isn't happening.
At what point does it become genocide?

At what point do you think enough has been done?

21/06/2025, 07:43 

Nathan said...

Why doesn't this logic: "it would be reasonable to not be prepared to leave it as a risk."
Extend to genocide?

21/06/2025, 07:45

You seem to share the view as with other right wing idealogues...

Nathan has left a new comment on the post 'Polling Pales':

 "Unfortunately their opinions - at least as expressed by this poll - do not point towards anything peaceful"

Perhaps you have a very narrow point of view. I am sure they would love to live in peace, like anyone else.
You should also consider the demographics of the area. I would think the polling is not very representative of the majority, given more than 40% are under 18.

Also, given the specific nature of the question (regarding the relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia) you are extrapolating a long way to hatred and 'not anything peaceful'

But given your appreciation of the complexity of this conflict and your reference to jerks like Richard Hanania it's not surprising.

How you can consider what Israel is doing as contributing to peace I cannot understand. You seem to share the view (as with other right wing idealogues) that as soon as someone is labelled terrorist you can murder your way to success. It's just messed up.

WMC: You'll need to think a bit about why this got spammed before posting more. If you have questions, you should ask them here.

And another:

Nathan has left a new comment on the post 'Polling Pales':

"It does seem that these people are motivated by hatred"
This is racism. You need to work on this.
Stop promoting racist ideas

You're a lazy racist who indulges in victim blaming

 Nathan has left a new comment on the post 'The parable of the Antheap and the Anteater':

Your appeasement of genocide is ugly.
You're a lazy racist who indulges in victim blaming.
How dare you blame children for Hamas.

How can you say people deserve to die because they won't repudiate terrorism.
What sort of logic is this??

Who are you, that you can blame people for the faults of others and say they deserve to be starved to death.

Nathan has left a new comment on the post 'The parable of the Antheap and the Anteater':

So how many were there?

These are the numbers

"At least 112 people died and 760 were injured on Thursday when desperate crowds gathered to collect flour."

You live in some sort of fucked up fantasy land, where quibbling about exact numbers makes for rational discussion.

As we say in Australia: You're a dickhead, pull your head in

Any point of view that accepts starving people to death deliberately as a fair outcome is pretty fucked up

Nathan has left a new comment on the post 'The parable of the Antheap and the Anteater':

"The people who do need such courage are the Palestinians, and sadly they appear to either lack it, or worse lack the desire to repudiate Hamas, or the dead hand of their history."

I am amazed by your lack of campassioon, unwillingness to acknowledge history and your blatant racism when discussing this issue.

Your racism needs to be called out, especially as you use it to justify the actions of the Israelis.

Here's some classic examples:

Arabs hate Jews... Racist and not-provable

Arabs can't form stable Governemnts... Racist and obviously wrong

Muslim Faith leaders cannot comment on morality.... Racist and not-provable

Egypt should accommodate Palestinian Refugees (with an emphasis on blaming them for not volunteering... Basically racist and ignores the obvious

Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas... Racist and supporting war crimes.

I probably get that you don't understand the racism, but it pretty obvious.
Especially, when you tone police your blog, while at the same time promote racist writers.

lastly this: This is not true; as so often, the desire to speak words and be noticed isn't matched by a commitment to reality.

Is total denial of reality - there were almost 1000 casualties, there was clearly thousands of people attempting to get food, and the Israelis clearly fired at them.

Just to keep the spirit of your valetes

Anonymous said...

Re Victor Venema, just to keep the spirit of your valetes to dead climate "scientists", good riddance to the thin-skinned, xenophobic, ridiculously politically correct tosser! He won't be missed by many people

01/01/2023, 15:28 

So surprised you haven't posted a heageography

Graeme said...

So surprised you haven't posted a heageography of hoaxer-in-chief Sir John Houghton. Are you slacking? Or is living the preferred eco lifestyle getting to you?

22/04/2020, 20:54

To which I reply: oh, FFS, can't you idiots even manage to spell hagiography correctly?

Congress is Pissed

Or so says CIP. This is vis-a-vis Mueller vs Trump. I said:

In Merrie Englande, "pissed" means drunk. Having said that...

I think Mueller is belatedly realised he kinda fucked up and now wants a second go. But what to make of "Mueller explained that his decision was based on longstanding justice department policy, rather than lack of evidence. “A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” he said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view – that too is prohibited.”" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/29/mueller-says-trump-was-not-exonerated-by-his-investigation). That sounds like bollox to me. Plenty of people (waves hands vaguely) were fully expecting and hoping that Mueller would indeed charge The Mango; only *now* claiming there is a clear policy not to do so sounds like excuse making.

Congress has I think got using to buying cheap popularity with pork and ducking hard decisions, which is why so much power has bled away to the presidency. This is not what your founders intended.

Talking about "The Green New Deal And A Universal Basic Income" with Thomas Fuller

TF posts The Green New Deal And A Universal Basic Income; I commented the below. Let's see how the discussion goes.

wmconnolleysays:

May 15, 2019 at 8:28 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

This is doomed in so many ways (I say that as someone definitely interested in an UBI, and perhaps even a supporter of it).

> but few would argue we are doing enough

I think you’re wrong. I think many people would (in the sense of proportion of those-that-bother-to-even-think-about-it). Also, I’d guess your averages hide a lot.

> a permanent net loss of positions

A bit like when farming was mechanised. Or when spinning was. Oh, but this time is different… And who knows, maybe it is. But I’m dubious.

> primary premises of The Green New Deal is “Guaranteeing a job with…

I think this is a bad idea and it’s one of the reasons that I oppose the GND. But then I’m a small-govt person.

> endorsement by us for

You speak in the plural. Who is “us”?

> sovereign wealth fund

You don’t have a SWF because you don’t have a budget surplus, you have a (massive, by world standards) deficit. If you could raise extra income through magic free taxes, there would be pressure to (a) pay down the deficit; but also (see recent politics) to give out freebies and/or cut other taxes.

> it wouldn’t take long …. By 2030 we could have a nice nest egg built up

Sorry, but this is where you get delusional. Can you genuinely imagine a large nest egg building up, and your rapacious pols not raiding it for their own pet pork projects?

CIP tilts against Public Choice, again

People don't like Public Choice. The name, incidentally, is a touch weird, but never mind. It's just a name. When you know what it's a label for, you know what it is. It is associated in my mind with James M. Buchanan; and it came to my attention during the Democracy in Chains nonsense. In a way, it is just the bleedin' obvious; in much the same way that natural selection is. But the implications - towards smaller government - are strongly resisted by all those who don't want smaller government.

Which brings us to CIP's take on Public Choice (arch, which doesn't include the comments), which is is reaction to my The left has no theory of the behaviour of the government?

I assert that Plato is the archetypical believer in the virtues of govt, and ignorer of public choice. CIP asserts

Plato and Confucius were very familiar with governments behaving badly, and had elaborate theories for how to prevent or limit the damage. You may need to reread your Republic [Hint: prevent or limit conflicts of interest].

I reply:

If Plato is aware of the PC / P-A problem in the Republic, then please quote chapter and verse. I assert that he is unaware of it. Prove me wrong by direct quotation.

I await his response.

Roy Spencer and the List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Over at Dr Roy's, I asked:

Off topic, but I have a question for you. 

You're listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming under "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes". Someone who thinks they are defending you has recently complained about that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming#Umm,_isn't_it_long,_long_past_time,_to_replace_this_incredibly_outdated,_29_YEARS_old,_%22Climate_Change_Attribution%22_chart?). 

If you're happy being so listed, then all is well. The listing is on the basis of your 2008 testimony "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor". 

If you're not happy being so listed, then pointing to something you're written that explicitly or implicitly revises those words would be useful.

Freedom of the Press and of Speech: True and False; By David Henderson

Freedom of the Press and of Speech: True and False is by David Henderson at EconLib, which I've taken to reading recently. This discusses CNN/Acosta and the White House withdrawl of Acosta's press pass. Oddly, the article discusses only the First Amendment issue and argues (narrowly) that there is no First Amendment (freedom of speech) issue. Narrowly, that is true; I'm not convinced that a court might not construe it more broadly. But that's not important, because there is a far clearer Fifth Amendment (due process) right. As I comment:

You seem to have got the Acosta stuff wrong. The judge didn’t rule on First, he (from your link) “sided with CNN on the basis of the suit’s Fifth Amendment claims, saying the White House did not provide Acosta with the due process required to legally revoke his press pass”.

That gets an odd answer from another commentator, to which I reply:

"due process" is much wider than life, liberty or property. As you surely know. The odd thing here is that this article focusses on the First, even though the judgement was made explicitly on the basis of the Fifth.
And when you think about it, what seems "wrong" about the press pass being revoked is indeed not a freedom of speech matter, as this article notes; the wrongness lies in the White House's treatment of an individual. The WH's action was arbitrary, and motivated by pique; this is why it falls foul of the Fifth. And correctly so: the WH (aka the Govt) should not be able to play favourites, and try to intimidate journalists by withdrawl of access.

CIP: Of Course Trump is to Blame (for the bombings): terrorism and trolling

CIP got wound up about the recent "bombings". Partly because he discovered he could blame Trump, somewhat implausibly in my view. I said:

If he's to blame for the "bombings" (which weren't actually bombings since none of them went off) he's to blame for something very dull. Except the meeja always overplay anything with bombs, because they're kinda sexy. 

> modern American has acquired such a potent appetite for this truly disgusting human being 

Indeed. But Trump isn't to blame for that, the modern USAnians are.

CIP wasn't happy, so I expanded:

> deprecate every crime 

I don't. As you've maybe noticed, I've said nothing about the recent shootings, because real people actually died. 

Unlike the "bombings", where no-one died; and where the intended targets wouldn't have been affected even if the bombs had been real. It was terrorism, in the sense of attention-grabbing; more trolling than real terrorism (compare the inches of column coverage you, and your meeja, gave it compared to the recent Afghan bombings where yet more real people actually died). DNFTT.

People are so easily trolled by bombings. We're the same.

The Supreme Court - CIP

In the Supreme Court CIP discusses, errrm, SCOTUS. This of course is in the context of Kavanaugh.

I jumped in because of his the Supreme Court is not only the ultimate interpreter of the laws but has also appropriated the right to judge laws against the template of the Constitution and strike down those it finds wanting, which I found odd. After all, some entity is going to have to do this; the court is the obvious one.

CIP continues I prefer that laws be made by the legislature rather than the Court. I think that's sort-of snark; anyway, I replied:

Everyone agrees that the laws should be *made* by the Legislature (pace law-is-custom, of course). But that leaves open two issues, that need to be resolved: interpreting the law, and conformity with the constitution. Neither of these is "making" law, except in a rather stretched sense (notice we're not talking about common law at this point).

If you're Hobbes, then the person who gets to interpret the law is effectively the legislator, but this is too broad, because the interpreter doesn't have arbitrary authority to do so, in practice. So the courts get to only interpret ambiguous bits, and therefore the legislature, if it likes, gets to have another go and remake the law if it wants to.

The constitution could have included a clause stating that the legislature is trusted to ensure that laws that it passes are consistent with the constitution, and therefore all laws passed are automatically constitutional, but it didn't. Absent that there is an unavoidable need to some body to check this constitutionality. And (having now got to this point it becomes obvious) since the legislature can't be trusted with this task, it has to be the court.

The constitution genuinely is there to prevent majoritarian tyranny, so yes it must be capable of forbidding some laws, no matter how much people want them. See the aforementioned church-n-state. Of course, even that can be solved if you have enough votes by changing the constitution (see-also https://cafehayek.com/2018/10/formally-amending-constitutions.html).

Modern Galileos facing the Postmodernist Inquisition?

When someone plays the "Galileo gambit" it's a fair sign that the reader should be cautious. In this case the writer is the usually interesting Thing Finder (arch), and the post one that segues into Global Warming and how Evil Climate Scientists have suppressed... you know the story; read the post if you like.

I was interested to see if a rational discussion was possible; the answer looks like being "no". The irony is that TF is quite keen on the idea of cognitive biases but, as is commonplace, only those of other people.

Conservatives find liberals deficient in some other stuff

CIP discusses Right and Wrong  and I felt moved to comment:

William Connolley • 3 days ago 

> Liberals find conservatives deficient in compassion and tolerance and conservatives find liberals deficient in some other stuff
You know, or can invent, the "liberal" position. But you are too deficient too know, or (it would appear) even to care, what "conservatives" think.

The conversation grew heated; CIP continued in The Conservative Position. I replied there:

William Connolley • 2 days ago 

We're getting fairly close to not being able to talk to each other, which would be a shame.
Recall that this started from your "Liberals find conservatives deficient in compassion and tolerance and conservatives find liberals deficient in some other stuff". I'm still trying to tell you that you're finding it hard to understand, or perhaps to care, what C's think about L's.
> Kirk... is fond of citing that old fascist, Plato
You mean like http://capitalistimperialis... ?
I'm not familiar with K. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... contains no ref to P. P isn't particularly in favour of pederasty any more than was common back then. Slavery wasn't uncommon then and was supported by many other than P. P's major faults are elsewhere; principally as you now note, that he was a fascist.

And:

William Connolley  CIPig • 5 minutes ago 

You'll have to wait for my take on Burke, but he's now on my list (available at https://constitution.org/eb..., it looks like).
> Plato himself was both bold and radical
Popper would I think disagree with you, and I feel inclined to follow him. He describes Plato as reactionary, not radical; and indeed that's a large point of TOSAIE part 1. I'd really recommend reading that if you haven't; it is very good. Recall that only slightly earlier you called Plato an old fascist. Of course fascists can be bold and radical, though B&R is usually used as a compliment. Would you call Mussolini B&R?
> most great advances in human history have stemmed from radical ideas
That's very close to a tautology.
> legally forbidden but ubiquitous
Worth dwelling on. Because it's part of the Paine/Burke dichotomy, as well as part of the Con/Lib one. You don't change a people instantly by changing their laws. Law is custom. That's what Kirk was trying to tell you.

Some time I will read Burke.

The Science Video Facebook Did Not Want You To See?

28 JULY 2018: The Science Video Facebook Did Not Want You To See by Dan Satterfield.

This is l'affaire Hayhoe, and it might be a correct account, but it might not, and I'm interested to find out the details; it smells a little fishy to me.

William Connolley says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation. 

29 July 2018 at 15:19

> They decided to boost the post to reach more people, and Facebook said NO, it’s too political!

I notice you say that but provide no evidence. Is it, for some reason, so obvious that it requires no evidence?

What, in their own words not someone else’s, did fb actually say?

Having looked at my original Tweet I find that KH has replied, and indeed she was somewhat economical with the truth.

Freeman Essay #93: “The State is the Source of Rights?

CH regurtigates old posts. Freeman Essay #93: “The State is the Source of Rights? contains some mistakes about Hobbes - the same one everyone makes - but also an interesting discussion on the source(s) of Rights and the source of Law. the discussion there is largely focussed around DB's - interesting - interest in Libertarianism, but coming from that it is also possible to look more fundamentally at rights. I plan to expand this at some point, but for now I'll just quote my comment:

Your discussion of law-from-govt isn't terribly convincing, but I think that is less interesting than the question of rights, so I'll comment on that. I think a more coherent view of "rights" is the (Hobbesian) idea that in a "state of nature" everyone has a right to everything (unlike Hobbes, you don't provide a coherent defn of "rights"). Accepting a government (whether a formally constituted one or even your merchants court) means losing some of your freedom of action (aka rights) in exchange, presumably, for law-n-order. On that view a govt is, intrinsically, not a "source" of rights by its very nature. It is something that naturally removes rights, and this is only to be expected. Your Dec of Indy says "all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable...", which is the same thing: those rights pre-date govt.