You are caricaturing my arguments. It’s interesting, because you must understand them to a sufficient level to do this whilst not understanding then to a sufficient level to actually consider them. That’s quite a mental effort. Either that or you are for some reason understanding them properly, yet choosing to misrepresent them for some reason.

Here’s my experience as a citizen of the United Kingdom.
A vote for a party which will benefit the majority of people (which you are calling the “far/radical left”) is ignored because of our first past the post political system and because of the mass media, which is rabidly pro-establishment. A lower rate of further education exacerbates this effect. They form an impenetrable system which disallows anything but the tiniest of incremental changes, while the climate and the wealth gap worsen exponentially and relentlessly.

There is a ruling class, and it does largely depend on birthright. None of these billionaires are self made, look closely enough and you will find seed money in their mercurial rise, usually from a family member. You have your eyes shut if you think we’re not ruled by the wealthy. It’s a fact. If you want to argue this point with me you can, but you will lose.

In my country, it’s difficult to become a politician, you usually have to get a specific degree from one of three specific universities, which are much easier to get into if you are -you guessed it- rich.

Which ideas of mine are you talking about exactly? Without some specifics on what you think they are, your last two sentences just don’t land.

Sociopathic behaviour is not prevented, it is rewarded. Stepping on other people to claim more wealth is encouraged. A decent person has no money, in general, and most people are decent. Nobody chose this. Nobody voted for this, and there’s no vote which will put an end to it. We are, like it or not, in a situation where we cannot change the system to benefit us (us=the working/middle classes) by peaceful means. The ruling classes are extending their monopoly with every move, and will never willingly give power back. I’m terrified by the prospect, but looking at similar situations in history, I think violence is inevitable.

Yes we should, and I hope we will. I would love to be able to imagine some kind of smooth, consensual, non violent transition to a society where we keep doing the same stuff but are fairly treated, but I have difficulty with that. And I think space would be the hardest industry to revolutionise because of the above. Not saying it’s impossible and I’m definitely not saying it’s not preferable!

Space travel is exceptional in that you need an incredible amount of cooperation to get a project into space. The supply chains are insane, the component parts highly specialized and hugely expensive, and the range of expertise and knowledge required is simultaneously focused and intense and broad and varied. If human society ever does manage to transition to a genuine people power, space flight will be, to my knowledge, the very last thing we achieve, because it takes so many people working together to get it done. The scope of these projects makes you realise how easy it must have been to build the pyramids. Two brothers can build a plane that just about works, but to get a vehicle to orbit needs a city of people working together.

High radiation, toxic (to us) atmosphere and tidal lock don’t preclude life, though. Besides, we can’t detect such details at those distances.

If a civilization existed and wanted to be discovered at that range, we could detect their signals. Now I’m not trying to argue that life does exist, I’m arguing that the Fermi paradox still poses an interesting question. So, since we could detect a signal coming from a few hundred to a few thousand nearby planets, why don’t we? Is life rare? Is life quiet? Is there no life? Each of the possible reasons we have zero evidence for extraterrestrial life raises incredibly interesting questions that bear thinking about. Why would life be rare? Why would life be quiet? Why would extraterrestrial life have died out, etc.
The argument that the Fermi paradox just isn’t interesting is quite frankly bonkers.

There are habitable planets orbiting about one in five stars. So a few hundred habitable worlds in that range. Why do none of them transmit?

The distances don’t account for the complete, total lack of evidence, though. Our civilization is detectable to dozens of light years at least, if you’re looking. And we are looking. So, the others… Where are they?

Yep, my comment was written pre-coffee. Why dyou ask?

Also I saw a post recently which said that French was the most efficient language in terms of information exchange, so I shouldn’t really be making jokes about its efficiency.

It would be more like <<image pris par appareil-photo qui possède de la fonque>>

That sounds like a threat?

Am I god now?

No, but you’re nearly Franz Reuleaux

What the fuck did I just listen to

Interesting stuff! Thanks!

Punk drumming goes so hard. It doesn’t get enough credit. If you can do Dude Ranch with no pauses then you’ll have earned my respect!

As a guitarist this has inspired my new exercise regimen:

• Switch Fitbit to right arm
• Play more NOFX riffs

I read somewhere that eastern Asian populations lack a certain protein which helps metabolise alcohol, which was attributed to the fact that glass was not industrially developed and therefore distillation of alcohol wasn’t widespread and the genome never had to adapt to alcohol. Probably more to it than that and it’s outside my usual reading, but is there any truth to that? If so then not every culture invented moonshine.

Bro definitely really wants to kiss himself on the cheek

Caribbean? I 'ardly know Ian!

Here’s a related one:

the IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters

~Terry Pratchett