Thankfully, enough parties have pledged not to coalition with the far right that it looks like they'll be boxed out of power. Most likely outcome seems to be Sanchez's center-left party allying with further-left parties and regional / secessionist parties to form a minority government.
Things could still fuck up during coalition negotiations, but for now I'm cautiously optimistic. Probably the best possible outcome, given the circumstances.
(Also the far right party lost half its seats in Parliament, lmaoooooooo)
Not so much, these are only had changed to the PP, almost the same crap. 20 less in one side and 20 more on the other. Luckily they have not achieved an absolute majority, this would have catapulted us to the 70s.
Also I think that nostalgia works in a way where we remember more good times than hardships; humans are good adapting to any bullshit situation to the point we can call it comfortable and finally we look kindly to the past because old people remember mostly being young and healthy above all (despite not making this link mentally).
That's why everyone has this nostalgia for their youth, not because the 60s or 80s where a good time.
DeSantis is already pushing propaganda in Florida schools about how much better black people had it as slaves. I’d be shocked if they didn’t try to repeal the 13th amendment by the end of the decade.
Making short-sighted decisions to obtain results quickly is just human nature.
Fascists, populists and demagogues exploit this flaw in human nature to rise up. They promise big things using big words to masses of people who are uneducated, jaded, or both.
Some people in Spain, like in many other countries right now (USA, Greece, Italy…) are turning to fascism because they feel squeezed dry and let down (unemployment, Covid economic hangover, inflation, etc.) by their current governments, so they run to the people sat in the opposite (or most extreme) end of the political spectrum hoping they can turn things around.
With such a simplistic, binary mindset, coupled with a younger generation of voters who have not experienced what it’s like to live in a fascist country, it’s no wonder fascism and belligerent nationalism is gaining traction in the West. I just hope we can turn things around before more European countries follow on Hungary’s steps.
I am not familiar with the demographics of other countries, but in Spain, Vox is quite popular amongst the young people. Old people tend to be very loyal to “their” party and keep voting PP, even though they agree with Vox’s main talking points.
The younger voters are indeed pushing fascism, at least in Spain. I had also assumed ultraconservative, nationalist movements would be more popular with the older demographic in Spain but, proving my point that it’s those who didn’t experience Franco’s dictatorship who are buying into the far-right ideals, Vox voters are on average 8 years younger than voters of other parties in the country (apologies for the link to Spanish media).
I don’t know if this is any different in other countries but in Spain the people swallowing the fascist pill are very much your archetypical white, privileged, young male.
You are mixing far-right with liberals (less regulation). In Spain there aren’t liberal partys. You can check the group they belong in the EU parlament.
Imagine if Hitler had won. That’s what happened in Spain. Francisco Franco governed for 40 years, till he was too old and sick to keep doing so. He never faced any consequences and died of old age.
During all those years he indoctrinated the new generations and set a precedent, culturally. So even though more than a hundred thousand people suffered and died under his dictatorship, he still has a lot of supporters that are very vocal about it and his influence still permeates spanish society nowadays. You could look up “franquismo cultural” if you’re interested.
Oh no! The horror! These Fossil Fuel companies are out there making fuel out of the goodness of their hearts, and these people come in and just sit there blocking them?
Ffs, can we please please stop the car centric city? Can we please invest in public transportation, bicycle lanes everywhere, and walkable neighborhoods?
Climate change hats this one little trick where we don’t design cities to be car dependent hellscapes, and it’s good for your (mental) health too!
FFS can we please acknowledge reality that cars are not going anywhere anytime soon and that cars are going to be a part of the solution along with the expansion of public transportation and bike lanes that doesn’t get people killed and city planning around less urban sprawl and stop treating this stuff like it’s a zero sum game.
It boggles my mind, that solutions so obvious and simple are somehow framed as untenable. If 3/4 streets in Manhattan were made walkable/bike-able only (except for wee hours for trash and whatnot) - we could still get everywhere - less death - less pollution - more little shops - more trees - healthier.
I’m actually really interested in this as a project I would like to understand what it would take to get this done. The scope creep in planning seems simply astronomical and I would like to know who the authorities are on city design at the moment.
I also think there is a cynical side to me that thinks that all the people who do city design take the money they make and dump it into a mc mansion out in the burbs anyway so the motivation of individuals with these skills seems skewed.
Having lived in the US with publicly run transit and in the UK with privately run transit I’d say there’s a lot of ‘it depends’ you’re glossing over here. Very city dependent
And btw, this decision has, to this date, never been overturned. So yes, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is ok and constitutional to forcibly sterilize people.
to the best of my knowledge even after this ruling, you would still need to be sterilized to get your gender marker changed as the requirement of having genitalia that matches your preferred gender is still in effect. You also need to be 18+, unmarried and have no children who are minors.
Sadly Bibi needed to drum up the hate machine for cover. And Pootie needed the distraction from Ukraine. So both sides worked together to achieve this tragedy.
This is literally like if France said, “your flashlight is too bright; it’s causing cancer and must be stopped”. The use of the term, “radiation” in this context is disingenuous because they’re basically saying, “the wifi is too strong”. Technically visible light is the same kind of radiation as microwaves, radiowaves, wifi and x-rays. The reason why x-rays are considered harmful and wifi/microwaves/radio/visible light isn’t is because x-rays are much higher energy than the others, and are able to ionize materials they come into contact with. This can cause cancer. You know what doesn’t cause cancer? Wifi. Unless you’re shitting out enough microwave radiation (also not cancer-causing) to cook an egg, it’s pretty harmless. This is the kinda shit anti-vax Facebook moms get upset about. They hear “radiation” and their knee jerks so hard it shatters their jaw.
I feel like the limit itself COULD be reasonable (there’s more to the potential harms than ionizing radiation /cancer), but popscience news sites are going to make misleading headlines anyways
Can you provide me with articles about that? Afaik the general scientific consensus is that as long as it’s not shoving out >100watts or is releasing EM radiation on an ionizing band (UV and higher), then it’s pretty harmless.
Can you warm up a chicken with wifi? Yeah, but afaik a signal that strong would probably already violate various international treaties regarding radio communications long before it got strong enough to have a noticable affect on the chicken.
Think about how many watts your microwave needs to cook food. That’s the amount of power it takes to heat up food using EM radiation that’s been roughly tuned with the intention of penetrating and heating physical matter by generating friction between water molecules. If I understand the article, the iPhone is putting out less than 6 watts. That’s almost nothing. Should there be a limit? Yeah, but to my knowledge, you’d start accidentally jamming communication frequencies around you long before it became a threat to personal health.
It’s perhaps helpful to realize that the difference between visible light and radio isn’t really that much, they’re both on the EM spectrum. You can generally think about non-ionizing EM radiation like you would light and not be too far off in terms of intuition on danger. How dangerous would you consider a 5W lightbulb? 60W? 100W? 500W? You probably wouldn’t want to press your face up to a 60W bulb, but you wouldn’t worry about having one sitting in your ceiling, or even a couple feet away from you. For reference FCC rules limit wifi access points to under 5W of power in most cases (there’s exceptions for point-to-point radios, but those are VERY uncommon except in some specific commercial settings). Likewise a phone sitting in your pocket, or even held up to your face that’s putting out even 10W while over double the power limit really isn’t anything to worry about.
The current limits for RF devices are VERY conservative, in part due to the massive fear mongering caused by article titles like the above one. The limits are set in such a way that there is absolutely no risk whatsoever, even for devices that massively exceed the limits. In fact I’d argue the limits have far more to do with interference than any actual health concerns. Nobody wants to have to battle their neighbors for wifi signal and a big way to accomplish that is to mandate very low power limits. Many lower power devices are far easier to manage in terms of interference than a few high power devices.
Taking down a private plane in civilian airspace with Russian air defense is a surprising escalation, even for Putin. Even Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was downed by surrogate forces offering a certain amount of deniability.
Even Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was downed by surrogate forces offering a certain amount of deniability.
Was that actually confirmed somewhere? It’s not that easy to train people to use the AA system and IIRC they shot down plane within days of the system arrival in Ukraine, which would suggest that it was controlled by russian forces.
No. You're right. I should have typed "surrogate forces" in quotations or 'supposed surrogate forces' or something. Point being, at the time and for a few news cycles after there was a story used to interject and/or some attempt to introduce uncertainty. That story was bullshit, it was even pretty obvious at the time, but they tried. This is much more cut and dry. That Putin wanted to send a message is obvious, but there was no concern this time about that message being too loud or it sending warning signals to unintended targets.
This could spook business from returning, as mentioned by another response below. This could have knock on effects. Putin didn't even try to act like he cared about any of that. That could mean a lot of things. I don't think any of them are good.
I feel like putin is just trying to put off the biggest fire at the moment. Any knock on effects are problems to be dealt by future putin. (or someone else) He’s losing control and usual flight from the 15th story window (remember, there were many of those recently) is no longer cutting it so he needed to send a stronger message even if it means future problems.
There’s no going back from this. This was a state sponsored killing (well deserved) but now the masks have been ripped away. There will NEVER be any official relationship from any democratic government with Russia under it’s current leadership. Any business should look at the smoldering wreckage and think twice
I’d like to think you were right but look how people and countries are cozying back up to Saudi Arabia now. There is a lot of people who would sell their soul for a little bit of money.
bbc.co.uk
Top