27 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure what the rationale is for “not torturing/killing people is just as bad as torturing/killing them”

Indeed. They are scare words. Many in the US don’t know what they actually mean, and the truth is that republicans love socialism when it benefits them. Loosening regulations is one example - companies are e.g. allowed to pollute more and society as a whole pays the price of dealing with it, with the bulk of the burden falling on the poorer people.

Politicians say “socialism/communism” hoping it makes everyone clench up, but when the actual policies are discussed, honestly, they sound pretty good.

It needs to be emphasized more that bailing out failing companies and throwing public money their way is Socialism.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

You seem to have made utterly zero attempt to understand what I posted here.

I guess you never read 1984.

Apparently, I am not smart enough to understand what you have posted because I fail to see what relevance 1984, which I have read, has to do with anything I have written...

Edited November 8Nov 8 by npts2020

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Indeed. They are scare words. Many in the US don’t know what they actually mean, and the truth is that republicans love socialism when it benefits them. Loosening regulations is one example - companies are e.g. allowed to pollute more and society as a whole pays the price of dealing with it, with the bulk of the burden falling on the poorer people.

Politicians say “socialism/communism” hoping it makes everyone clench up, but when the actual policies are discussed, honestly, they sound pretty good.

I think this is very true, and is causing some of the misunderstandings on this site. I think for folks who have not been on both side of the pond, the difference in context is sometimes difficult to assess. And even in the European context, there are differences. In Germany, for example folks wouldn't call social demoractic policies socialist, but instead the term "social" is used. I.e. the difference between mixed economy (which is the reality also in the US) and systemic changes toward collective ownership is clearly delineated, whereas in US rhetoric they are almost fully mixed in common parlance.

1 minute ago, npts2020 said:

Apparently, I am not smart enough to understand what you have posted because I fail to see what relevance 1984, which I have read, has to do with anything I have written..

Okay, let's start with the concept of Newspeak. To save time I'll quote from a Google AI response to the prompt "What is the nature and purpose of Newspeak in 1984"

Nature of Newspeak

Newspeak is a controlled, artificially reduced language designed to replace Standard English (referred to as Oldspeak). Its core characteristics include:

• Shrinking Vocabulary: Words are systematically deleted every year to narrow the range of human thought. If a word does not exist, the concept behind it cannot be named or easily conceived.

• Elimination of Nuance and Antonyms: Complex, independent, or contradictory words are stripped away. For example, words like "bad" are eliminated and replaced by adding prefixes to approved roots (e.g., "ungood" for bad, "plusgood" for very good, and "doubleplusgood" for extremely good).

Purpose of Newspeak

The primary purpose of Newspeak is mind control—specifically, to make heretical or rebellious thought literally unthinkable.

• Preventing Thoughtcrime: In Ingsoc, independent thought or personal identity is a thoughtcrime. By removing words like freedom, justice, morality, or democracy, the Party ensures citizens lack the vocabulary to articulate or even desire opposition.

• Enforcing Orthodoxy and Doublethink: The language forces citizens to accept doublethink—the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously—by merging opposites and removing grey areas.

• Eradicating History: By shrinking how the past can be described, the Party makes it easier to rewrite history and cut off emotional or intellectual connections to a time before Big Brother.

As Orwell notes in the novel's appendix, the ultimate goal of Newspeak is that once Oldspeak is completely dead, any thought departing from Party doctrine will be literally impossible to express or conceive.

Imagine what would happen to chemistry if the periodic table were reduced by criminal law to "H, He, metals"

What would happen to physics if any reference to the discretisation of energy (ie QM) were made illegal?

Now look at what you stated.

On 11/7/2026 at 4:16 PM, npts2020 said:

One of the problems is that words like "socialism", "communism", "capitalism", "oligarchy" etc are defined in such a way as to set off chemical reactions in the dinobrains of many of our fellow citizens, causing no small number of them to be unable to articulate or even follow a logical argument. IMO it is the use of such words, as shorthand for systems that place society ahead of the individual vs systems that prioritize the individual over society in general, does nothing positive for the side of the debate I have seen the majority on this forum seem to take.

If we are robbed of the standard English terms used in sober political analysis, then we are deprived of the ability not only to perform sober political analysis, but even to understand that such an exercise could exist.

This is not a fiction. It happens. You can see the results in this thread. I've made no particular effort to hide my polical opinions, and yet it's clear that there are few here who could distinguish them from those of a Tankie. I'd guess @Sensei and @Otto Kretschmer might but few others would simply because they lacked the necessary language to distinguish them.

O, and since you mention "individualism vs society", Richard Murphy released an interesting take on that this morning.

Enjoy!

44 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Okay, let's start with the concept of Newspeak. To save time I'll quote from a Google AI response to the prompt "What is the nature and purpose of Newspeak in 1984"

Thanks for the breakdown of 1984, Seth.
I've never really understood Catcher in the Rye.
Can you do a similar breakdown of the alienation, rebellion and pain of growing up, in Salinger's book, for me 🙂 .

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It needs to be emphasized more that bailing out failing companies and throwing public money their way is Socialism.

Yeah !
No one complained about when the banks were bailed out in 2009-10.
( and that would be the worst kind of Socialism; almost as bad as letting 8 Million Ukrainians starve, so Joe can sell the grain to help industrialize Russia )
But I guess Socialism is 'un-bad' when it benefits your Billionaire cronies.
( see what I did there @npts2020 ... newspeak )

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

Can you do a similar breakdown of the alienation, rebellion and pain of growing up, in Salinger's book, for me 🙂

Beyond me, I'm afraid. Other than Dick and Asimov, I've never been able to make head-nor-tail of American literature. Just couldn't work out who was supposed to be the good guy.

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It needs to be emphasized more that bailing out failing companies and throwing public money their way is Socialism.

Except when it's a necessary government intervention in the interests of national security. Ask yourself why Churchill was perfectly okay with Ernest Bevin running British industry during WWII.

On 11/5/2026 at 8:45 PM, sethoflagos said:

Oddly enough, a few hours before the Bernie clip showed up, I was thinking about a Wealth Tax and wondered if going as high as 2% per annum might be politically viable. Didn't realise how myopic I was being.

A bit of an issue is that the difficulties of implementing a wealth tax is that in practice they tended to have issues, and I am not sure whether there has been enough work and suggestions to address those. From what I have read there is possibility that inheritance and corporate tax might be ultimately a better way for redistribution, but I have not read in-depth about that to really have an informed opinion. That being said, I the public discussion is even more superficial than that and really is more about ideology than mechanism.

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

A bit of an issue is that the difficulties of implementing a wealth tax is that in practice they tended to have issues, and I am not sure whether there has been enough work and suggestions to address those. From what I have read there is possibility that inheritance and corporate tax might be ultimately a better way for redistribution, but I have not read in-depth about that to really have an informed opinion. That being said, I the public discussion is even more superficial than that and really is more about ideology than mechanism.

Since wealth is an umbrella term for buildings, land, investments, and money, and each behave differently when leveraged, treating it as a single thing does seem problematic. As I understand it, the UK could make significant progress by introducing a land tax, and making the existing property tax more progressive in nature. Taxing investments tends to have an immediate adverse effect on growth, and money just disappears all too easily into offshore accounts.

The concept could maybe become significantly easier with international collaboration, but that's hardly a runner as things stand.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Since wealth is an umbrella term for buildings, land, investments, and money, and each behave differently when leveraged, treating it as a single thing does seem problematic. As I understand it, the UK could make significant progress by introducing a land tax, and making the existing property tax more progressive in nature. Taxing investments tends to have an immediate adverse effect on growth, and money just disappears all too easily into offshore accounts.

The concept could maybe become significantly easier with international collaboration, but that's hardly a runner as things stand.

I think you have nicely summarized the main challenges I have read about.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think you have nicely summarized the main challenges I have read about.

There are national differences. The UK tax authorities are okay with me drawing a pension below the taxation threshold in the UK without reference to any income I might receive from my activities in Nigeria. The IRS are not so lenient with American nationals. Their reach is global, much to the chagrin of some of my drinking buddies over here.

7 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

There are national differences. The UK tax authorities are okay with me drawing a pension below the taxation threshold in the UK without reference to any income I might receive from my activities in Nigeria.

Is that not dependent on Tax treaties ?
I recall my dad used to get a small Italian, or Swiss, pension; it wasn't taxed at the source so he needed to pay tax on that pension in Canada.
If it had been taxed at the source, there would be no Canadian taxation on it.

On a separate issue, I know the UK has had a fairly aggressive inheritance tax for over 30 years.
Has that done anything for wealth inequality ?
It certainly hasn't done anything to help the economy, as it keeps going from bad to worse.
( or is that just caused by bad political decisions )

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Is that not dependent on Tax treaties ?

Yes, but the UK has no such treaty with Nigeria, the UAE, or Gabon which covers me for the last 30 years.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

On a separate issue, I know the UK has had a fairly aggressive inheritance tax for over 30 years.
Has that done anything for wealth inequality ?

I guess. No impact on me so not something I've investigated.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

It certainly hasn't done anything to help the economy, as it keeps going from bad to worse.
( or is that just caused by bad political decisions )

Don''t believe everything you read. The UK economy is performing better than most at the moment.

The only time I recall (not personally, I was pre-zygotic) the US trying for all-out socialism was when Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War. A war situation was seen as the only basis for such a move. The Supremes rejected his attempt, and I don't think the Left was too happy, either, since his socialist moment was kind of stained by the fact that he was trying to bust the humps of United Steelworkers union. 🙄

While there might have been some legitimate worry that a union strike could affect war production, Congress clenched more over socialism than it did over a hypothetical dip in steel production.

And, let the record show, there are other members here who would never mistake @sethoflagos for a tankie. Even his probiotic experiments seem to show a lack of zeal for totalitarian control. 😉

Is 'tankie' an affectionate term for someone who thinks tanks are the solution ?
( eg. Hungarian revolution of November, 1956 )

It's what the rest of the British left started calling those who still supported the Soviet Union during the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. It split the Communist Party of Great Britain into Eurocommunists vs Tankies. They never really recovered.

On 11/8/2026 at 2:14 PM, sethoflagos said:

If we are robbed of the standard English terms used in sober political analysis, then we are deprived of the ability not only to perform sober political analysis, but even to understand that such an exercise could exist.

Bingo!!! That's exactly the problem I was outlining. Many political terms used do not have the same definitions in common parlance as they do when used by experts.

On 11/8/2026 at 2:14 PM, sethoflagos said:

If we are robbed of the standard English terms used in sober political analysis, then we are deprived of the ability not only to perform sober political analysis, but even to understand that such an exercise could exist.

I suspect that many of the people misusing the terminology aren’t much interested in sober political analysis. But the difference in meaning is one reason in some discussions I ask what the poster means by their use of hot-button terminology (e.g. socialism, woke, DEI) I think we have some responsibility to accommodate non-expertise; we do it in science discussions when someone uses terminology that has a technical meaning that’s at odds with the everyday use and understand that the meaning of a claim will differ depending on which definition you use (e.g. acceleration)

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I suspect that many of the people misusing the terminology aren’t much interested in sober political analysis. But the difference in meaning is one reason in some discussions I ask what the poster means by their use of hot-button terminology (e.g. socialism, woke, DEI)

Their intent is to kill the analysis, because they fear the light it would shine on them. But there is a spectrum of usage from outright malice through to simple ignorance. Not much point in dialogue with the former, but you're right in regard to the latter. These terms are unordered pigeonholes with diverse contents. Somewhere in there is a wrong question in need of an insightful reframing. The first stage must be to unpack the pigeonhole. I admire your patience when you do this.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I think we have some responsibility to accommodate non-expertise; we do it in science discussions when someone uses terminology that has a technical meaning that’s at odds with the everyday use and understand that the meaning of a claim will differ depending on which definition you use (e.g. acceleration)

And 'random'. How often is that word used here correctly? I reckon 9 times out of 10 it should be replaced with 'diverse'.

I can't remember exactly which thread it was, but recently after years of glazed-over ignorance, I finally discovered what you guys mean by the term 'trace'. The fog lifted and I'm left thinking "ffs, is that all it was?". We all have these little bits of shorthand jargon and useful pigeonholes in our respective disciplines. It can be really helpful to others if we occasionally unpack the odd one or two into more accessible language.

Edited Thursday at 06:47 AM2 days by sethoflagos
missing word

I've seen physics noobs trip over "massive particles."

9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Their intent is to kill the analysis, because they fear the light it would shine on them.

More disturbing on the American political spectrum are those who don't actually know what analysis is, as a tool used in discourse. They don't fear the light, they believe they are casting the light via pithy slogans or aphorisms that arrive in the guise of common sense. Hey, it's common sense like grandpa had, we don't need no stinkin' analysis. We'll just utter the magical words and let the mic drop.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czp0bb3HlGQ&pp=ugUHEgVlbi1JTg%3D%3D&ra=m

President Trump,

You should have watched this video.

There is a lot of truth here in the link I posted. Trump won because he wasn’t a standard politician. His screw ups were many and no one cared. He beat Hillary because people were tired of traditional politicians. But that worked out to be even worse.

But what he was good at is improving industry. He randomly placed and set rates of tariffs which U.S. citizens pay. But tariffs mean Americans can buy a $10,000 dollar EV and bankrupt the U.S. car industry.

Military and industry were in his view what made America great. To be great you have to have a great economy to influence the World.

But that is a strong business model but people have more needs than a strong economy. People don’t mind standing behind Israel if there was a legitimate reason and every policy wasn’t a lie.

And Bernie touched on AI. Why do we spend billions to replace us? AI makes billions now but why have a race to our demise?

No of it makes freaking sense and is why I was studying to be an engineer and not a politician.

But as I have be told that good politicians are important but they will never fix all the world’s problems.

What is the scientific way to solve problems? Logic does not apply to everything problem. People have conflicting beliefs. Some times it best to not act on a problem. Doing nothing doesn’t fix a problem.

Scientifically can you prove we’d be better off with Harris than Trump? If you are familiar with the sci-fi shoe Quantum Leap where he fixed things right that went wrong, does changing one outcome always mean an improvement. Is that the theme of all science fiction?

Trump is arrogant and is pissing everyone off. But maybe that was needed. Part of his strategy is making everyone mad and confused about what he is doing. But as Bernie said act like he is on the ballet.

None of it makes any sense. Trillions to AI and cut an inexpensive billion to food Aid; building monuments and placing his name everywhere.

I you like or hate Trump it shouldn’t mater. We should be able to debate. It is just Trump cause division in any opposition every speech. Bernie was right the republicans were a rubber stamp. But that is how Trump forced his policies through.

It is probably a good thing the midterms turned out blue. Because there are other issues than the economy.

If you think I am defending Trump in this post, I’m not. Bernie is making sense. I am just giving the reasons people voted for Trump and why politics is a trap. We should be doing science, but you can’t avoid politics because it affects all our lives.

On that socialism thing....

https://theconversation.com/debate-in-new-york-city-over-city-run-groceries-is-not-just-about-food-but-something-bigger-291749

(...) Municipal grocery stores would offer New Yorkers a similar choice alongside private retailers. But as a public option, they would create a visible alternative against which shoppers can judge privately owned stores, setting a benchmark for food prices and service quality. They would also demonstrate how public investment can be used to make an essential good more affordable.

(...)That is why the five grocery stores carry a broader significance, in my view. They offer a different model of public investment that makes the government much more visible in providing an essential service – and more accountable for its results. New Yorkers will get an opportunity to judge that contribution directly.

(...)Municipal grocery stores would offer New Yorkers a similar choice alongside private retailers. But as a public option, they would create a visible alternative against which shoppers can judge privately owned stores, setting a benchmark for food prices and service quality. They would also demonstrate how public investment can be used to make an essential good more affordable.

(...) In 1934, Mayor Fiorello La Guardia’s administration began selling discounted milk to low-income families, but the initiative drew complaints from grocers about unfair competition. Independent merchants similarly protested the city’s efforts to subsidize a new Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem in the 1990s, warning that it would put local grocers out of business.

A more recent example is the city’s Food Retail Expansion to Support Health program, known as FRESH. Since 2009, it has offered supermarket developers and operators long-term tax breaks and zoning incentives to build or expand dozens of stores in underserved neighborhoods.

These incentives have helped increase grocery retail space, but shoppers don’t see the public support behind them.

FRESH is just one example of an approach toward supermarket financing that gained momentum in the 1990s, when governments sought to address social problems by encouraging private investment. Food insecurity was blamed on a scarcity of neighborhood supermarkets, not on prices being beyond reach for local shoppers.

Subsidizing new stores promised better nutrition and economic development without confronting poverty or inequality, and FRESH reflects that approach. Participating supermarkets must devote space to perishable foods, but they’re not required to offer affordable prices. That may be one reason why researchers have found that adding supermarkets to low-income neighborhoods, by itself, doesn’t substantially improve residents’ diets.

(...) This hidden government role is hardly confined to grocery stores. Much of what government does for Americans is delivered indirectly, through tax credits, subsidies and private institutions. Because the public contribution is obscured, people often give credit to private markets for the benefits provided by public policy, from student loans to healthcare.

This invisibility is a consequence of policy design and influences how citizens understand government, a phenomenon that political scientist Suzanne Mettler described as “the submerged state.”(article continues)

16 hours ago, Trurl said:

We should be doing science, but you can’t avoid politics

I hope you do science better than you do politics, because your analysis fails on many levels.

16 hours ago, Trurl said:

Scientifically can you prove we’d be better off with Harris than Trump?

We would be better simply because, even if she did nothing, things would not be as bad as D Trump has fu*ked them up.

Even with tariffs, Americans are willing to pay the higher costs, because it would cost even more to produce/mine/build in the US.
His policies certainly made improvements to stocks ( by eliminating foreign competition ), but you don't go buy groceries or gas with stock futures; he helped Billionaires who make their money from investments, but ordinary Americans got saddled with higher prices and a return of inflation, just to get by.

The simple ( and accurate ) analysis is

"It's the Economy, stupid"

( and the corruption ... and the failed foreign policies ... and the war ... and the inhumane treatment of immigrants ...and the Epstein Files ... and the contempt for Law and Constitution ... and ... )

Edited yesterday at 10:09 PM1 day by MigL

On 11/8/2026 at 8:14 PM, sethoflagos said:

Okay, let's start with the concept of Newspeak. To save time I'll quote from a Google AI response to the prompt "What is the nature and purpose of Newspeak in 1984"

Imagine what would happen to chemistry if the periodic table were reduced by criminal law to "H, He, metals"

What would happen to physics if any reference to the discretisation of energy (ie QM) were made illegal?

Now look at what you stated.

If we are robbed of the standard English terms used in sober political analysis, then we are deprived of the ability not only to perform sober political analysis, but even to understand that such an exercise could exist.

This is not a fiction. It happens. You can see the results in this thread. I've made no particular effort to hide my polical opinions, and yet it's clear that there are few here who could distinguish them from those of a Tankie. I'd guess @Sensei and @Otto Kretschmer might but few others would simply because they lacked the necessary language to distinguish them.

O, and since you mention "individualism vs society", Richard Murphy released an interesting take on that this morning.

Enjoy!

Tankie basically only refers to Marxists-Leninist who uncritically support the USSR and other communist/socialist states. Generally, it means the kind of people who say the 1932-33 famine was caused by the peasants who deserved IT, the Great Terror was necessary, the Great Leap Forward deaths are CIA propaganda and so on.

11 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Tankie basically only refers to Marxists-Leninist who uncritically support the USSR and other communist/socialist states. Generally, it means the kind of people who say the 1932-33 famine was caused by the peasants who deserved IT, the Great Terror was necessary, the Great Leap Forward deaths are CIA propaganda and so on.

Same, same, though since the Western Left didn't experience these events in such a visceral way (a case of 'someone else's problem'), our usage was a bit looser and more directed at teasing the uncomfortable apologists rather than condemning the relatively rare out-and-out Stalinists. I only ever met a handful of those in the UK., and they were more embedded in some of the unions than active in the various parties.

Amused that you include the GLF. In my early adulthood I spent about ten years as a trade union rep and Labour Party activist, and AFAIK Chinese politics was completely off the radar in those circles. I'm really only aware of the 1911 revolution because both PRC and ROC celebrate my birthday.