• 7 Posts
  • 854 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle




  • I didn’t mention the censorship because he is wrong about that

    I also don’t agree with his quote about “no need for barriers”. I wasn’t aware he had said that.

    He is referring to the poor handling of migration in Europe, which is true. And the general ignoring of popular outrage at how migration is managed.

    That he is a fascist dickhead is indicative of the problem. Many many people who are not racist think migration is handled terribly in Europe and the problem is moderate politicians are hopelessly slow to engage with this and as a result the only people talking about it are fascist nutbags…










  • Simply put, because you often want to change the state of something without breaking all the references to it.

    Wild off the top of my head example: you’re simulating a football game. Everything is represented by objects which hold references to other objects that are relevant. The ball object is held by player object W, player object X is in collision with and holds a reference to player object Y, player Z is forming a plan to pass to player object X (and that plan object holds a reference to player object X) and so on.

    You want to be able to change the state of the ball object (its position say) without creating a new object, because that would invalidate how every other existing object relates to the ball.


  • Evolutionarily speaking, threats from outside are an existential threat and need spreading. Good deeds at home are already known by everyone who matters and the ‘reward’ is survival of your children, not you ‘feeling good’. People do ‘hero worship’ though. I think you are downplaying that. Though the influence that comes from such a position probably means people are inclined to cooperate with ‘power’ because it has, de facto, already shown itself to be powerful. Whereas those ‘asking’ for power are necessarily weak.

    This is all pop-sci evolutionary psychology so discard at will…





  • Practically speaking since war is unthinkable is would result in as much economic isolation as Europe can bear. It would be the end of NATO. Almost immediately there’s be European voices saying ‘What’s the real harm?’ and other appeasers. I think the political lash back would only last 5-10 years as parties opposed would find the only tool at hand - economic punishment - to be unsustainable. It would legitimise nationalistic sentiments in Europe even further. Britain would, naturally, talk of betrayal but not be able to make any resistance of any substance.