<![CDATA[Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum - Communities & Social Networking]]> https://www.scivillage.com/ Wed, 23 Sep 2026 07:33:13 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[The unspoken taboo against nuance]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21372.html Fri, 18 Sep 2026 17:48:58 +0000 Magical Realist]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21372.html
[Image: 814952855-1756643975666979-3021541434869520078-n.jpg]
[Image: 814952855-1756643975666979-3021541434869520078-n.jpg]



“An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you.”

“The word, although prevalent in our day, has lost its reasoning value, and has value only as an accessory to images. In turn, the word actually evokes images. But it does not evoke the direct images related to my personal experience. Rather, it calls up images from the newspaper or television. The key words in our modern vocabulary, thanks to propaganda and advertising, are words that relate to visual reproduction. They are stripped of all rational content, so they evoke only visions that whisk us away to some enchanted universe. Saying ‘fascism,’ ‘progress,’ ‘science,’ or ‘justice’ does not suggest any idea or produce any reflection. It only causes a fanfare of images to explode within us: a sort of fireworks of visual commonplaces, which link up very precisely with each other. These related images provide me with practical content: a common truth that is especially easy to swallow because the ready-made images that showed it to me had been digested in advance. Make no mistake here: this is how modern people usually think. We are arriving at a purely emotional stage of thinking.”–Jacques Ellul

I see this. I saw it at my family reunion where my brother and brother-in-law emotionally bonded over their litany of conservative whines and bothers as if expressing something deep within themselves. They were not. It was just a little show put on a million times everyday across our country for each other where we recite all the cliches and catch words we are force fed thru the media locating us comfortably on some idealogical spectrum of concise and familiar political positions. I say positions again, and not real thoughts. When you recite and identify yourself with a public and broadly disseminated position or point of view, the last thing you are actually doing is expressing anything like real time thoughtful consideration. You’re only parroting what the media has conditioned you to say, never breaking thru to anything new or poignant at any time. Real time thinking in fact does not suit casual socializing very well because it expresses ambiguity and reservation and restraint rather than things we can confidently claim to believe in or “tag” ourselves with. It complicates and raises disturbing questions instead of seizing upon pat and easily opined answers. Our beliefs and opinions always being the least individual thing that can be said about us]]>
[Image: 814952855-1756643975666979-3021541434869520078-n.jpg]
[Image: 814952855-1756643975666979-3021541434869520078-n.jpg]



“An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you.”

“The word, although prevalent in our day, has lost its reasoning value, and has value only as an accessory to images. In turn, the word actually evokes images. But it does not evoke the direct images related to my personal experience. Rather, it calls up images from the newspaper or television. The key words in our modern vocabulary, thanks to propaganda and advertising, are words that relate to visual reproduction. They are stripped of all rational content, so they evoke only visions that whisk us away to some enchanted universe. Saying ‘fascism,’ ‘progress,’ ‘science,’ or ‘justice’ does not suggest any idea or produce any reflection. It only causes a fanfare of images to explode within us: a sort of fireworks of visual commonplaces, which link up very precisely with each other. These related images provide me with practical content: a common truth that is especially easy to swallow because the ready-made images that showed it to me had been digested in advance. Make no mistake here: this is how modern people usually think. We are arriving at a purely emotional stage of thinking.”–Jacques Ellul

I see this. I saw it at my family reunion where my brother and brother-in-law emotionally bonded over their litany of conservative whines and bothers as if expressing something deep within themselves. They were not. It was just a little show put on a million times everyday across our country for each other where we recite all the cliches and catch words we are force fed thru the media locating us comfortably on some idealogical spectrum of concise and familiar political positions. I say positions again, and not real thoughts. When you recite and identify yourself with a public and broadly disseminated position or point of view, the last thing you are actually doing is expressing anything like real time thoughtful consideration. You’re only parroting what the media has conditioned you to say, never breaking thru to anything new or poignant at any time. Real time thinking in fact does not suit casual socializing very well because it expresses ambiguity and reservation and restraint rather than things we can confidently claim to believe in or “tag” ourselves with. It complicates and raises disturbing questions instead of seizing upon pat and easily opined answers. Our beliefs and opinions always being the least individual thing that can be said about us]]> <![CDATA[UK deal to deport migrants will run out in days & EU doesn't want new one (EU social)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21352.html Wed, 16 Sep 2026 16:18:43 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21352.html https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uks-mi...ne-4770121

INTRO: The UK faces having no migrant returns deal with any EU nation after its one-in-one out deal with France expires in two weeks time and the bloc moves to tighten its own borders.

France had suggested the “one in, one out” migrant deal with Britain could become a Europe-wide agreement. But it is facing resistance to this idea from other EU governments wary of taking responsibility for Channel crossings, officials have warned.

Paris wants the bilateral scheme, under which Britain can return small-boat arrivals to France in exchange for accepting asylum seekers through legal routes, replaced by an agreement between Britain and the entire EU. Laurent Nuñez, the French interior minister, has argued that France should not shoulder the burden alone and has told Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood that the pilot scheme was not intended to continue beyond October 1.

But France’s proposal is set to run into headwinds in Brussels, particularly from southern European countries that already receive large numbers of migrants entering the EU.

France had long argued that the Channel was a European problem because many of those reaching northern France had previously travelled through countries including Germany, Italy and Spain. However, other governments see the priorities differently.

‘“There is an increasing group of countries that believe that the focus of Europe should not be on doing one-on-one agreements,” a senior EU official said. “It should be on stemming the flow into Europe.”

An EU-wide redistribution arrangement would be a “hard sell” to countries including Italy, Spain, Germany and Poland, the official added.

An EU member state source said: “I don’t see this happening anytime soon because the focus of many EU countries is on implementing our own EU migration pact, agreed before summer. “There is no apetite to start something new, that has no immediate political advantage in the EU countries.” (MORE - details)]]> https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uks-mi...ne-4770121

INTRO: The UK faces having no migrant returns deal with any EU nation after its one-in-one out deal with France expires in two weeks time and the bloc moves to tighten its own borders.

France had suggested the “one in, one out” migrant deal with Britain could become a Europe-wide agreement. But it is facing resistance to this idea from other EU governments wary of taking responsibility for Channel crossings, officials have warned.

Paris wants the bilateral scheme, under which Britain can return small-boat arrivals to France in exchange for accepting asylum seekers through legal routes, replaced by an agreement between Britain and the entire EU. Laurent Nuñez, the French interior minister, has argued that France should not shoulder the burden alone and has told Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood that the pilot scheme was not intended to continue beyond October 1.

But France’s proposal is set to run into headwinds in Brussels, particularly from southern European countries that already receive large numbers of migrants entering the EU.

France had long argued that the Channel was a European problem because many of those reaching northern France had previously travelled through countries including Germany, Italy and Spain. However, other governments see the priorities differently.

‘“There is an increasing group of countries that believe that the focus of Europe should not be on doing one-on-one agreements,” a senior EU official said. “It should be on stemming the flow into Europe.”

An EU-wide redistribution arrangement would be a “hard sell” to countries including Italy, Spain, Germany and Poland, the official added.

An EU member state source said: “I don’t see this happening anytime soon because the focus of many EU countries is on implementing our own EU migration pact, agreed before summer. “There is no apetite to start something new, that has no immediate political advantage in the EU countries.” (MORE - details)]]> <![CDATA["The Ark": an interview with Christie Burke who plays Captain Garnet (space network)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21329.html Sun, 13 Sep 2026 23:01:21 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21329.html More than just Dean Devlin and Jonathan Glassner as showrunners, for why this show continues to defy the odds as the little engine that could.

Burke unexpectedly got selected for the role at the last minute, and it was off in a whirlwind to Serbia. The latter built all the sets especially for the production, they are not reused. Whether in Newsom's mega-expensive Hollywood or even in Canada now, that in itself would probably have cost several times the budget allotted to the show.

First and second seasons of The Ark are free with ads on Plex, Fandango, and Vizio's Watch Free. Third season may have that status eventually, but currently pay available (no ads) on Fandango. Electric Now presumedly has a no-ads pay package, too.
- - - - - - - - - - -

JON DEL ARROZ
https://youtu.be/SnuOqanucXs

INTRO: Jon Del Arroz sat down with Christie Burke, the lead actress behind Captain Sharon Garnet on SYFY's The Ark, for an exclusive interview on The Ark Season 3. New episodes of The Ark air Wednesdays at 10 p.m. ET/PT on SYFY Network.

Burke discusses what drew her to Garnet's command style, how Season 3 evolves the character beyond survival instincts into genuine leadership, and what it means to work on a science fiction series created by Dean Devlin and Jonathan Glassner — the Stargate veterans whose approach to fan engagement she says sets The Ark apart from how most streaming productions treat their audiences. The Ark Season 3 is available now.

Christie Burke opens up about "The Ark" season 3 and what makes Garnet special! ... https://youtu.be/SnuOqanucXs

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/SnuOqanucXs]]> More than just Dean Devlin and Jonathan Glassner as showrunners, for why this show continues to defy the odds as the little engine that could.

Burke unexpectedly got selected for the role at the last minute, and it was off in a whirlwind to Serbia. The latter built all the sets especially for the production, they are not reused. Whether in Newsom's mega-expensive Hollywood or even in Canada now, that in itself would probably have cost several times the budget allotted to the show.

First and second seasons of The Ark are free with ads on Plex, Fandango, and Vizio's Watch Free. Third season may have that status eventually, but currently pay available (no ads) on Fandango. Electric Now presumedly has a no-ads pay package, too.
- - - - - - - - - - -

JON DEL ARROZ
https://youtu.be/SnuOqanucXs

INTRO: Jon Del Arroz sat down with Christie Burke, the lead actress behind Captain Sharon Garnet on SYFY's The Ark, for an exclusive interview on The Ark Season 3. New episodes of The Ark air Wednesdays at 10 p.m. ET/PT on SYFY Network.

Burke discusses what drew her to Garnet's command style, how Season 3 evolves the character beyond survival instincts into genuine leadership, and what it means to work on a science fiction series created by Dean Devlin and Jonathan Glassner — the Stargate veterans whose approach to fan engagement she says sets The Ark apart from how most streaming productions treat their audiences. The Ark Season 3 is available now.

Christie Burke opens up about "The Ark" season 3 and what makes Garnet special! ... https://youtu.be/SnuOqanucXs

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/SnuOqanucXs]]> <![CDATA[UK surprisingly giving up on the Falklands? (stunning guilt trips of the West network]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21272.html Sun, 06 Sep 2026 19:44:10 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21272.html Boris Johnson: Burnham must send reinforcements to the Falklands - now
https://www.dailymail.com/vertical-galle...s-now.html

EXCERPTS: It is hard to think of an argument more immoral or stupid or dangerous than that which the former Foreign Office magnifico, Lord McDonald, advanced this morning in relation to the future of the Falkland Islanders.

In case you missed it, he told the Today programme that he no longer believed in their right to self-determination. There were only 3,600 of them, he said; they were a long way away from this country; and frankly the UK’s strategic interests had changed since 1982, when Margaret Thatcher famously and heroically fought a war in the South Atlantic, to vindicate exactly the principle McDonald now apparently despises – the right of a free people democratically to determine their future.

You think I am exaggerating, or misrepresenting the man who was once in charge of Britain’s entire diplomatic corps? Check the transcript.

[...] His argument is also immoral, obviously, because he is insulting the memory of the 255 UK military personnel who were killed in the fight for freedom in 1982, and the many others who were wounded. As he explained it today, he thinks that sacrifice was pointless.

According to the noble lord, we now need to bully the Falklanders into changing their allegiance. If we stopped subsidising their defence, he argued, then they might wake up, smell the coffee, and submit to rule from Buenos Aires. That is not just unprincipled but also an immensely stupid argument, because it ignores what is actually happening in the Falklands.

This is not some doomed and desolate outpost. The population has been getting larger and more prosperous, and the discovery of the new Sea Lion oil fields offers the prospect of riches both for the islanders and for the UK as a whole.

[...] We seem to be heading for a completely unnecessary crisis, caused by chronic Labour weakness, and teenage Left-wing anti-Americanism. That is why it is so utterly demented that the most senior former UK diplomat has chosen this moment to say that the Falklands don’t matter to this country.

How the hell does he think that will be taken in Buenos Aires?

Burnham needs to grip this problem, and fast. He needs to state powerfully that the Falklands are British, that he will take no nonsense about the Sea Lion oil fields. Above all, he needs to show the practical reality of that commitment, by sending reinforcements now.

It doesn’t matter whether it is more planes, troops, or ships. The Argentinians need to understand now that neither Gary Lineker nor Simon McDonald speak for the people of this country, and that Britain has a deep and implacable commitment to defending democracy... (MORE - missing details)]]> Boris Johnson: Burnham must send reinforcements to the Falklands - now
https://www.dailymail.com/vertical-galle...s-now.html

EXCERPTS: It is hard to think of an argument more immoral or stupid or dangerous than that which the former Foreign Office magnifico, Lord McDonald, advanced this morning in relation to the future of the Falkland Islanders.

In case you missed it, he told the Today programme that he no longer believed in their right to self-determination. There were only 3,600 of them, he said; they were a long way away from this country; and frankly the UK’s strategic interests had changed since 1982, when Margaret Thatcher famously and heroically fought a war in the South Atlantic, to vindicate exactly the principle McDonald now apparently despises – the right of a free people democratically to determine their future.

You think I am exaggerating, or misrepresenting the man who was once in charge of Britain’s entire diplomatic corps? Check the transcript.

[...] His argument is also immoral, obviously, because he is insulting the memory of the 255 UK military personnel who were killed in the fight for freedom in 1982, and the many others who were wounded. As he explained it today, he thinks that sacrifice was pointless.

According to the noble lord, we now need to bully the Falklanders into changing their allegiance. If we stopped subsidising their defence, he argued, then they might wake up, smell the coffee, and submit to rule from Buenos Aires. That is not just unprincipled but also an immensely stupid argument, because it ignores what is actually happening in the Falklands.

This is not some doomed and desolate outpost. The population has been getting larger and more prosperous, and the discovery of the new Sea Lion oil fields offers the prospect of riches both for the islanders and for the UK as a whole.

[...] We seem to be heading for a completely unnecessary crisis, caused by chronic Labour weakness, and teenage Left-wing anti-Americanism. That is why it is so utterly demented that the most senior former UK diplomat has chosen this moment to say that the Falklands don’t matter to this country.

How the hell does he think that will be taken in Buenos Aires?

Burnham needs to grip this problem, and fast. He needs to state powerfully that the Falklands are British, that he will take no nonsense about the Sea Lion oil fields. Above all, he needs to show the practical reality of that commitment, by sending reinforcements now.

It doesn’t matter whether it is more planes, troops, or ships. The Argentinians need to understand now that neither Gary Lineker nor Simon McDonald speak for the people of this country, and that Britain has a deep and implacable commitment to defending democracy... (MORE - missing details)]]> <![CDATA[Trump's ever-changing tariff policies stalling US plant expansions? (panic network)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21234.html Tue, 01 Sep 2026 20:03:11 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21234.html https://youtu.be/T8HAsylhBmI

VIDEO EXCERPTS: This really is getting into a no-man's-land when it comes to the future of North American manufacturing. Keep in mind that the United States needs to at least double the size of its industrial plants simply to have access to the products it's going to lose as deglobalization really kicks in. And doing that without our North American partners means we actually have to increase it further...

[...] At the same time, the Trump administration keeps changing policies. ... So no one wants to invest in North American and especially US manufacturing because the rules of the game keep changing.

[...] One of the things that we've seen during the Trump administration is that industrial construction spending has dropped every single month of this administration...

[...] We're now at the point where the business community's trust in the Trump administration has basically evaporated completely. They will not start investing in new plants until such time as they know what the real rules of the game are.

This is unambiguously horrible news for the US economy long-term. Because it's raising the very real possibility that not only will we not have the replacement product supply chains in place when deglobalization hits hard in the next couple of years, but we won't even be able to be functional with where we were 2 years ago.

And the industries that are going to get hit hardest by that, by far, are agriculture, because their primary customers are Canada and Mexico. And automotive manufacturing, because the average part that is in an American-crafted vehicle crosses the border to Mexico and Canada multiple times overall. Anything going to Canada is now facing potentially compounding tariffs. And if you happen to be headquartered in Detroit and producing cars in Michigan or the northern tier of the Midwest, you're talking about parts crossing maybe seven times...

Trade war revival: Trump, Canada, and tariffs ... https://youtu.be/T8HAsylhBmI

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/T8HAsylhBmI]]> https://youtu.be/T8HAsylhBmI

VIDEO EXCERPTS: This really is getting into a no-man's-land when it comes to the future of North American manufacturing. Keep in mind that the United States needs to at least double the size of its industrial plants simply to have access to the products it's going to lose as deglobalization really kicks in. And doing that without our North American partners means we actually have to increase it further...

[...] At the same time, the Trump administration keeps changing policies. ... So no one wants to invest in North American and especially US manufacturing because the rules of the game keep changing.

[...] One of the things that we've seen during the Trump administration is that industrial construction spending has dropped every single month of this administration...

[...] We're now at the point where the business community's trust in the Trump administration has basically evaporated completely. They will not start investing in new plants until such time as they know what the real rules of the game are.

This is unambiguously horrible news for the US economy long-term. Because it's raising the very real possibility that not only will we not have the replacement product supply chains in place when deglobalization hits hard in the next couple of years, but we won't even be able to be functional with where we were 2 years ago.

And the industries that are going to get hit hardest by that, by far, are agriculture, because their primary customers are Canada and Mexico. And automotive manufacturing, because the average part that is in an American-crafted vehicle crosses the border to Mexico and Canada multiple times overall. Anything going to Canada is now facing potentially compounding tariffs. And if you happen to be headquartered in Detroit and producing cars in Michigan or the northern tier of the Midwest, you're talking about parts crossing maybe seven times...

Trade war revival: Trump, Canada, and tariffs ... https://youtu.be/T8HAsylhBmI

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/T8HAsylhBmI]]> <![CDATA[Group experience vs individual experience]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21208.html Fri, 28 Aug 2026 23:24:51 +0000 Magical Realist]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21208.html

[Image: 782169215-1592622305648115-7015682904132100812-n.jpg]
[Image: 782169215-1592622305648115-7015682904132100812-n.jpg]

]]>

[Image: 782169215-1592622305648115-7015682904132100812-n.jpg]
[Image: 782169215-1592622305648115-7015682904132100812-n.jpg]

]]> <![CDATA[WPATH’s stunning admission could unravel the trans medical industry? (Ozma network)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21173.html Mon, 24 Aug 2026 21:04:00 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21173.html 'Full-scale collapse': Gender transition group calls kid guidelines 'opinions' to defeat FTC suit
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/general...r-AA2aBP8c

EXCERPT: WPATH, the creator of the 2022 "Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People," now claims the SOC-8 guidelines – covertly and crucially shaped by the Biden administration pertaining to minors – are just "statements of opinion," not settled science, and that states have the prerogative to regulate the industry.

WPATH's surprising concessions, in its July 28 motion to dismiss the FTC lawsuit, were flagged Aug. 10 by the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Its generally liberal members played a leading role in the Trump administration's systematic review of youth-gender medicine, concluding that such interventions are not supported.

"It's possible the FTC just got its win, regardless of how this case turns out," the Manhattan Institute's gender-medicine researcher Leor Sapir wrote.

By conceding the "medical and scientific uncertainty" around treatment for minors specifically – quoting the Supreme Court's ruling for Tennessee's ban on the practice – WPATH gave insurers ammunition to deny claims for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries and judges and doctors reason not to defer to WPATH claims, Sapir said.

The organization undermined its own arguments before SCOTUS against Tennessee's ban, that the "widely accepted view of the professional medical community" is that gender-affirming care is "appropriate" and even "necessary" for some adolescents, said Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner.

WPATH even compared SOC-8 to the gender-critical talk therapy derided by gender-affirming care proponents as "conversion therapy" but upheld by the Supreme Court, saying each is free speech even if critics deem them "substandard care," SEGM marveled.

"Overnight, WPATH went from defender of the medical consensus to one voice among many in a disputed debate," Waggoner said, illustrating that "the case for childhood medical 'transition' is in full-scale collapse." (MORE - details)

WPATH’s stunning admission could unravel the trans medical industry ... https://youtu.be/AWxzphb-ATM

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/AWxzphb-ATM]]> 'Full-scale collapse': Gender transition group calls kid guidelines 'opinions' to defeat FTC suit
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/general...r-AA2aBP8c

EXCERPT: WPATH, the creator of the 2022 "Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People," now claims the SOC-8 guidelines – covertly and crucially shaped by the Biden administration pertaining to minors – are just "statements of opinion," not settled science, and that states have the prerogative to regulate the industry.

WPATH's surprising concessions, in its July 28 motion to dismiss the FTC lawsuit, were flagged Aug. 10 by the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Its generally liberal members played a leading role in the Trump administration's systematic review of youth-gender medicine, concluding that such interventions are not supported.

"It's possible the FTC just got its win, regardless of how this case turns out," the Manhattan Institute's gender-medicine researcher Leor Sapir wrote.

By conceding the "medical and scientific uncertainty" around treatment for minors specifically – quoting the Supreme Court's ruling for Tennessee's ban on the practice – WPATH gave insurers ammunition to deny claims for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries and judges and doctors reason not to defer to WPATH claims, Sapir said.

The organization undermined its own arguments before SCOTUS against Tennessee's ban, that the "widely accepted view of the professional medical community" is that gender-affirming care is "appropriate" and even "necessary" for some adolescents, said Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner.

WPATH even compared SOC-8 to the gender-critical talk therapy derided by gender-affirming care proponents as "conversion therapy" but upheld by the Supreme Court, saying each is free speech even if critics deem them "substandard care," SEGM marveled.

"Overnight, WPATH went from defender of the medical consensus to one voice among many in a disputed debate," Waggoner said, illustrating that "the case for childhood medical 'transition' is in full-scale collapse." (MORE - details)

WPATH’s stunning admission could unravel the trans medical industry ... https://youtu.be/AWxzphb-ATM

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/AWxzphb-ATM]]> <![CDATA[The Fauci case is about more than one man (conspiracy network)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21122.html Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:15:10 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21122.html https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the...-more-than

INTRO: Today I am pleased to publish an invited guest post by Sigrid Bratlie, molecular biologist and author of The Wuhan Mystery. An earlier version of this post was first published in Norwegian at Minerva. —RP

Behind the controversy over Anthony Fauci’s silence lies decades of American investment in risky virus research as part of a global arms race – and new questions about how authorities, scientists and intelligence handled the suspicion of a laboratory leak.

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that few American bureaucrats in recent years have been more polarizing than Anthony Fauci — best known as the leader of the US pandemic response.

Now the debate is raging after he was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about the origins of the pandemic under oath. Republicans have made him almost solely responsible for everything that went wrong during the pandemic. Democrats call it a conspiratorial vendetta and an attack on science.

The rhetoric is disappointingly superficial on both sides — and so is the coverage in most media so far, which portrays the whole thing as vengeful Republicans against a somewhat inexplicably silent Fauci.

The matter is far more complex.

There are at least two, each complicated, layers to this story. The first is about decades of misguided bipartisan policy on research into dangerous viruses. The second is about how the US government and academia have communicated the relationship between this strategy and the origin of the virus from 2020 onward. The first may have had disastrous consequences for global health security; the second has contributed to eroding trust in American democracy... (MORE - details)]]> https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the...-more-than

INTRO: Today I am pleased to publish an invited guest post by Sigrid Bratlie, molecular biologist and author of The Wuhan Mystery. An earlier version of this post was first published in Norwegian at Minerva. —RP

Behind the controversy over Anthony Fauci’s silence lies decades of American investment in risky virus research as part of a global arms race – and new questions about how authorities, scientists and intelligence handled the suspicion of a laboratory leak.

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that few American bureaucrats in recent years have been more polarizing than Anthony Fauci — best known as the leader of the US pandemic response.

Now the debate is raging after he was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about the origins of the pandemic under oath. Republicans have made him almost solely responsible for everything that went wrong during the pandemic. Democrats call it a conspiratorial vendetta and an attack on science.

The rhetoric is disappointingly superficial on both sides — and so is the coverage in most media so far, which portrays the whole thing as vengeful Republicans against a somewhat inexplicably silent Fauci.

The matter is far more complex.

There are at least two, each complicated, layers to this story. The first is about decades of misguided bipartisan policy on research into dangerous viruses. The second is about how the US government and academia have communicated the relationship between this strategy and the origin of the virus from 2020 onward. The first may have had disastrous consequences for global health security; the second has contributed to eroding trust in American democracy... (MORE - details)]]> <![CDATA[The head coach soap opera at the Indiana Fever continues... (WNBA community)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21100.html Fri, 14 Aug 2026 23:44:35 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21100.html Curious. A head coach who is not only indifferent about but even praises opposing teams when they physically bash her own players. And a player (Caitlin Clarke) who has to console her depressed coach emotionally and calls the latter "Steph". It shouldn't be that much of a challenge. Just stand up for and occasionally praise the team that you were hired to coach. And avoid contradictorily exalting about "love and kindness" and then tell more than half the human race to go to hell (which includes Fever fans). These bewildering antics in the WNBA are so wild that they've got to be scripted. Wink ...... RELATED: The WNBA circus: sports league engineers pro-wrestling-like dramas to attract attention?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

LINDA COHN
https://youtu.be/q98iPMCQjbE

VIDEO EXCERPTS: I want to not talk about it, but they keep giving me material. Oh, it gets me crazy. [...] I feel like I'm doing forensic files ... I'm doing a documentary on some crime that was committed. I mean, this is what's crazy about it.

[...] Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White praised DJ Carrington and her defense and said nothing about her own player Sophie [being struck and bloodied]. So, three days later, she says, "I didn't see the play in real time." Even if that was the case, why are you praising the opposing player if you didn't see the play in real time? There's a disconnect there.

[...] I really wanted to believe her, but she created the mess that she's in right now. If only she told the truth. This is what she should have said Saturday after the play that involved Sophie Cunningham. She should have told the media then that she didn't see the play. And I'm glad Deja Carrington was thrown out. She deserved the flagrant #2 foul. I'm glad Sophie was not seriously hurt. I'm glad she's okay. That all should have happened at the same time.

And then she should have grabbed the narrative and said, "Now, let's talk about how great my team played and how we are led by Caitlyn Clark and Kelsey Mitchell are and what an amazing tandem they are." This is what head coaches do. They grab hold of the narrative. They create the narrative. They don't let people online create a narrative. They don't let the media in the room create the narrative. Head coaches of every sport do it this way. Why didn't Stephanie White do that?

But she allowed this to fester all the way till Tuesday by not doing exactly what I said. And it's not just me. I'm no genius. Anyone who watches sports all these years understands what head coaches do. They call the shots. They control the narrative. Instead, she let it fester. Then it boiled over.

Then, Tuesday before the fever game against the Liberty, Stephanie White gave an emotional pregame statement that basically ripped everyone, without herself looking in the mirror and taking some responsibility. [...] her emotional, passionate statement was ripping everyone basically except herself. Roll it, Dominic...

"The fear-mongering, the divisiveness, the stuff that's trying to hijack our league will not win. It won't win. We are united. We are connected. We will not be divided. Every day, these women put their on the line every day. When they go low, we go high. Love will win. Grace will win. Humility will win. And kindness will win. I stand by them. I will always stand by them. Everybody else can go to hell."

Really? Everyone else could go to hell. Stephanie White, what about the love? What about the grace? What about the humility? What about the integrity? What about taking the high road, which she had mentioned earlier? That's not taking the high road telling everybody you don't agree with to go to hell. That's not what head coaches in control do. They don't let the outside bother them.

It was very disappointing because at first I was happy that she was trying to take control of the narrative, even though it came a few days late. But she did a horrible job. Then after she took the court, she was booed by the hometown fans in Indiana. The Fever fans booed her. The players then went out and kicked the butts of the Liberty. Won big in that game. And after that game, it was no secret the two players that were put up there on the podium to talk to the press were Sophie Cunningham and Caitlin Clark.

Let's hear from Caitlin. Roll it, Dominic...

"Yeah, I talked to Steph earlier in the day, too. And, you know, I think we forget a lot of times that we're human and she has feelings. There are moments that are really hard, and sometimes that's just the job you sign up for. But at the same time, it's okay to feel those emotions. And I just told her like, I've been through the same thing. There have been days where I was really upset, and you can have the thickest skin in the world, but sometimes it does get to you. And you know, I think our world is just like we love to hate. We love to divide. That's all we want to do. Like nobody wants to see each other succeed. And I think that's a really painful thing for me to watch. I feel like we need to do a better job at uplifting each other. And I can assure you there was no way we were losing this game tonight. And I told her that."

Caitlin Clark, once more, the adult in the room, articulating perfectly, doing the right thing, taking the high road, and supporting her head coach. Even though the body language in the past, by her, by Cunningham, by other players during those press conferences when Stephanie White speaks.

Caitlin Clark took the high road there. Why not? She should because she cares about winning. She knows this team, a very entertaining Indiana Fever team. They are so good. I mentioned Caitlin. I mentioned Kelsey Mitchell, Aliyah Boston, Sophie. I mean, they're playing with such great chemistry. Why ruin that? Why distract from the main goal, which is winning a championship? And that's what Caitlyn Clark wants to do.

She knows if she rips her coach or if she kind of like hems and haws and sounds fake that it'll be a distraction, and that's what she doesn't want. She knows how good this team is. She talks like a head coach right there, does Caitlin Clark. She knows this team has a chance to win at all. She's not going to blow it by ripping her coach...

Stephanie White CRASHOUT: Learn from this NFL coach! ... https://youtu.be/q98iPMCQjbE

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/q98iPMCQjbE]]> Curious. A head coach who is not only indifferent about but even praises opposing teams when they physically bash her own players. And a player (Caitlin Clarke) who has to console her depressed coach emotionally and calls the latter "Steph". It shouldn't be that much of a challenge. Just stand up for and occasionally praise the team that you were hired to coach. And avoid contradictorily exalting about "love and kindness" and then tell more than half the human race to go to hell (which includes Fever fans). These bewildering antics in the WNBA are so wild that they've got to be scripted. Wink ...... RELATED: The WNBA circus: sports league engineers pro-wrestling-like dramas to attract attention?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

LINDA COHN
https://youtu.be/q98iPMCQjbE

VIDEO EXCERPTS: I want to not talk about it, but they keep giving me material. Oh, it gets me crazy. [...] I feel like I'm doing forensic files ... I'm doing a documentary on some crime that was committed. I mean, this is what's crazy about it.

[...] Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White praised DJ Carrington and her defense and said nothing about her own player Sophie [being struck and bloodied]. So, three days later, she says, "I didn't see the play in real time." Even if that was the case, why are you praising the opposing player if you didn't see the play in real time? There's a disconnect there.

[...] I really wanted to believe her, but she created the mess that she's in right now. If only she told the truth. This is what she should have said Saturday after the play that involved Sophie Cunningham. She should have told the media then that she didn't see the play. And I'm glad Deja Carrington was thrown out. She deserved the flagrant #2 foul. I'm glad Sophie was not seriously hurt. I'm glad she's okay. That all should have happened at the same time.

And then she should have grabbed the narrative and said, "Now, let's talk about how great my team played and how we are led by Caitlyn Clark and Kelsey Mitchell are and what an amazing tandem they are." This is what head coaches do. They grab hold of the narrative. They create the narrative. They don't let people online create a narrative. They don't let the media in the room create the narrative. Head coaches of every sport do it this way. Why didn't Stephanie White do that?

But she allowed this to fester all the way till Tuesday by not doing exactly what I said. And it's not just me. I'm no genius. Anyone who watches sports all these years understands what head coaches do. They call the shots. They control the narrative. Instead, she let it fester. Then it boiled over.

Then, Tuesday before the fever game against the Liberty, Stephanie White gave an emotional pregame statement that basically ripped everyone, without herself looking in the mirror and taking some responsibility. [...] her emotional, passionate statement was ripping everyone basically except herself. Roll it, Dominic...

"The fear-mongering, the divisiveness, the stuff that's trying to hijack our league will not win. It won't win. We are united. We are connected. We will not be divided. Every day, these women put their on the line every day. When they go low, we go high. Love will win. Grace will win. Humility will win. And kindness will win. I stand by them. I will always stand by them. Everybody else can go to hell."

Really? Everyone else could go to hell. Stephanie White, what about the love? What about the grace? What about the humility? What about the integrity? What about taking the high road, which she had mentioned earlier? That's not taking the high road telling everybody you don't agree with to go to hell. That's not what head coaches in control do. They don't let the outside bother them.

It was very disappointing because at first I was happy that she was trying to take control of the narrative, even though it came a few days late. But she did a horrible job. Then after she took the court, she was booed by the hometown fans in Indiana. The Fever fans booed her. The players then went out and kicked the butts of the Liberty. Won big in that game. And after that game, it was no secret the two players that were put up there on the podium to talk to the press were Sophie Cunningham and Caitlin Clark.

Let's hear from Caitlin. Roll it, Dominic...

"Yeah, I talked to Steph earlier in the day, too. And, you know, I think we forget a lot of times that we're human and she has feelings. There are moments that are really hard, and sometimes that's just the job you sign up for. But at the same time, it's okay to feel those emotions. And I just told her like, I've been through the same thing. There have been days where I was really upset, and you can have the thickest skin in the world, but sometimes it does get to you. And you know, I think our world is just like we love to hate. We love to divide. That's all we want to do. Like nobody wants to see each other succeed. And I think that's a really painful thing for me to watch. I feel like we need to do a better job at uplifting each other. And I can assure you there was no way we were losing this game tonight. And I told her that."

Caitlin Clark, once more, the adult in the room, articulating perfectly, doing the right thing, taking the high road, and supporting her head coach. Even though the body language in the past, by her, by Cunningham, by other players during those press conferences when Stephanie White speaks.

Caitlin Clark took the high road there. Why not? She should because she cares about winning. She knows this team, a very entertaining Indiana Fever team. They are so good. I mentioned Caitlin. I mentioned Kelsey Mitchell, Aliyah Boston, Sophie. I mean, they're playing with such great chemistry. Why ruin that? Why distract from the main goal, which is winning a championship? And that's what Caitlyn Clark wants to do.

She knows if she rips her coach or if she kind of like hems and haws and sounds fake that it'll be a distraction, and that's what she doesn't want. She knows how good this team is. She talks like a head coach right there, does Caitlin Clark. She knows this team has a chance to win at all. She's not going to blow it by ripping her coach...

Stephanie White CRASHOUT: Learn from this NFL coach! ... https://youtu.be/q98iPMCQjbE

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/q98iPMCQjbE]]> <![CDATA[Police call for Labour's release of killers to be stopped (criminal support network)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21072.html Tue, 11 Aug 2026 23:15:30 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21072.html Police condemn PM: In an unprecedented letter, EVERY chief constable calls for PC Harper's killers not to be freed
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-1...llers.html

INTRO: Every police chief in the country has urged Andy Burnham to prevent the early release of PC Andrew Harper's killers.

In an unprecedented intervention, 50 police leaders - representing every force in the UK - united to condemn Labour's soft justice reforms, calling on the Prime Minister to scrap plans to set free Jessie Cole, Albert Bowers and thousands of other dangerous prisoners.

The National Police Chiefs Council released an extraordinary joint letter from heads of 48 UK police forces, the National Crime Agency and Jersey Police, condemning the plans, warning it 'risks undermining public safety, victim confidence and wider confidence in the criminal justice system'.

The signatories want Mr Burnham to explore 'every lawful option' to stop PC Harper's killers being freed, suggesting Government's plans to early release offenders are a betrayal of a law brought in his memory. The 28-year-old newlywed was killed in the line of duty in 2019 when he was dragged behind a car for more than a mile as he tried to stop three teenagers from stealing a quad bike in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

His widow, Lissie, fought for Harper's Law - a mandatory life sentence for anyone who kills an emergency worker in the line of duty following outrage over the sentencing of his killers.

Cole and Bowers, who were 17-year-old passengers in the getaway car at the time, were sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter in 2020. The two thugs are among a wave of killers, rapists and violent criminals set to go free from September under Labour's soft justice prisoner release scheme... (MORE - details)

Burnham's jitters & waffling ... https://youtu.be/owq3d2QV5jI

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/owq3d2QV5jI]]> Police condemn PM: In an unprecedented letter, EVERY chief constable calls for PC Harper's killers not to be freed
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-1...llers.html

INTRO: Every police chief in the country has urged Andy Burnham to prevent the early release of PC Andrew Harper's killers.

In an unprecedented intervention, 50 police leaders - representing every force in the UK - united to condemn Labour's soft justice reforms, calling on the Prime Minister to scrap plans to set free Jessie Cole, Albert Bowers and thousands of other dangerous prisoners.

The National Police Chiefs Council released an extraordinary joint letter from heads of 48 UK police forces, the National Crime Agency and Jersey Police, condemning the plans, warning it 'risks undermining public safety, victim confidence and wider confidence in the criminal justice system'.

The signatories want Mr Burnham to explore 'every lawful option' to stop PC Harper's killers being freed, suggesting Government's plans to early release offenders are a betrayal of a law brought in his memory. The 28-year-old newlywed was killed in the line of duty in 2019 when he was dragged behind a car for more than a mile as he tried to stop three teenagers from stealing a quad bike in Sulhamstead, Berkshire.

His widow, Lissie, fought for Harper's Law - a mandatory life sentence for anyone who kills an emergency worker in the line of duty following outrage over the sentencing of his killers.

Cole and Bowers, who were 17-year-old passengers in the getaway car at the time, were sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter in 2020. The two thugs are among a wave of killers, rapists and violent criminals set to go free from September under Labour's soft justice prisoner release scheme... (MORE - details)

Burnham's jitters & waffling ... https://youtu.be/owq3d2QV5jI

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/owq3d2QV5jI]]> <![CDATA[Comparing racially homogenious towns]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21044.html Fri, 07 Aug 2026 15:58:55 +0000 Syne]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21044.html

That's a really interesting contrast, isn't it? You've got a black only town where they don't allow white people because they will murder them on sight because apparently they have a worry spirit and can't control themselves. They have a white only town where they don't want to get murdered and would actually like to have a peaceful, productive, wholesome life.



https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/v9iU-_bqXIE]]>

That's a really interesting contrast, isn't it? You've got a black only town where they don't allow white people because they will murder them on sight because apparently they have a worry spirit and can't control themselves. They have a white only town where they don't want to get murdered and would actually like to have a peaceful, productive, wholesome life.



https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/v9iU-_bqXIE]]> <![CDATA[Manufacturing white criminals on television: a political necessity (the network)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21038.html Thu, 06 Aug 2026 20:59:05 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-21038.html https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1...15.1104977

In an interview, the creator of the TV show COPS, John Langley, admits that he goes out of his way to show more white suspects on the show...

-- EXCERPT --

LANGLEY: "Here's the reality of street crime. Approximately 60% to 70% is committed by people of color. Only 30-35% of the suspects are white people. In prisons, the numbers are pretty much the same. Around 35% of the inmates are white and the rest are black, hispanic, etc.

Now on COPS, we reverse that. We show 60% to 70% white suspects and only 30%, sometimes maybe as high as 40% of people of color. Why do we do that? Because I don't want to contribute to negative stereotyping. Everyone knows that street crime takes place in the ghettos. We all know that, or should know that. All of the white criminals are in corporate boardrooms and places like that because they're not disenfranchised, so they do different kinds of crime."

In an interview, John Langley, the creator and executive producer of the reality television police drama COPS, admitted that he purposely did not present race and violent crime accurately on his show, which centered around race and crime, because of the potential impact it would have on the audience. Langley essentially concedes television’s power to impact how the audience sees the world and therefore consciously decided to present a false reality where whites were seen committing violent crime disproportionate to real-world statistics and reality.

Langley’s admission is not surprising as research has long shown that the media can shape thought and culture, and provide a powerful tool for individuals to learn about their social world particularly on issues like race and violence. Since the advent of television, politicians and the public have voiced concern about its impact on political beliefs and social attitudes.

Biased or inaccurate messages may influence the audience and potentially reinforce stereotypes and therefore remain a vital area of inquiry for researchers. When the public is presented a narrow range of ideas in the media, and become accustomed to this narrow view, they begin to accept this portrayal as representative of society and the real world even if it is not an accurate representation. This becomes a greater concern as audiences select programming they find entertaining and conforming to their own perceptions/beliefs of the world, which reinforce these perceptions... (MORE - details)]]> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1...15.1104977

In an interview, the creator of the TV show COPS, John Langley, admits that he goes out of his way to show more white suspects on the show...

-- EXCERPT --

LANGLEY: "Here's the reality of street crime. Approximately 60% to 70% is committed by people of color. Only 30-35% of the suspects are white people. In prisons, the numbers are pretty much the same. Around 35% of the inmates are white and the rest are black, hispanic, etc.

Now on COPS, we reverse that. We show 60% to 70% white suspects and only 30%, sometimes maybe as high as 40% of people of color. Why do we do that? Because I don't want to contribute to negative stereotyping. Everyone knows that street crime takes place in the ghettos. We all know that, or should know that. All of the white criminals are in corporate boardrooms and places like that because they're not disenfranchised, so they do different kinds of crime."

In an interview, John Langley, the creator and executive producer of the reality television police drama COPS, admitted that he purposely did not present race and violent crime accurately on his show, which centered around race and crime, because of the potential impact it would have on the audience. Langley essentially concedes television’s power to impact how the audience sees the world and therefore consciously decided to present a false reality where whites were seen committing violent crime disproportionate to real-world statistics and reality.

Langley’s admission is not surprising as research has long shown that the media can shape thought and culture, and provide a powerful tool for individuals to learn about their social world particularly on issues like race and violence. Since the advent of television, politicians and the public have voiced concern about its impact on political beliefs and social attitudes.

Biased or inaccurate messages may influence the audience and potentially reinforce stereotypes and therefore remain a vital area of inquiry for researchers. When the public is presented a narrow range of ideas in the media, and become accustomed to this narrow view, they begin to accept this portrayal as representative of society and the real world even if it is not an accurate representation. This becomes a greater concern as audiences select programming they find entertaining and conforming to their own perceptions/beliefs of the world, which reinforce these perceptions... (MORE - details)]]> <![CDATA["What Did People Do Before Smartphones? No one can remember."]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20980.html Thu, 30 Jul 2026 16:19:31 +0000 Magical Realist]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20980.html No one can remember."

By Ian Bogost
The Atlantic Monthly

"In 2000, I got the RIM 957, my first BlackBerry. It received, in real time, emails sent to my work account. Such receipt would cause the device to flash a light and buzz, pager-style. It buzzed constantly. When set just right on the counter, the vibrations would resonate through stone and lumber, alerting the whole room: An email has arrived!

Sometimes you can feel the future’s shadow looming over the present—formless, cold, Lovecraftian. So it was with the BlackBerry. Its capacity to inject digital events into the ordinary world even when they weren’t wanted inaugurated the smartphone age: one of constant online life everywhere. But it wasn’t like that yet. Back then mostly executives had the new device, and government officials, and people who thought they were important. (I was the last kind; I made software.) My co-workers and especially my wife were repulsed by the “CrackBerry,” and my compulsive grasping at it, like Gollum with his ring.


Over the years that followed, I kept clicking on my keyboard phones until eventually the iPhone replaced them. I have memories of using a Palm Treo on the train and my BlackBerry at lunch through most of the 2000s. But I can’t remember how I’d spent my idle time in the years before, on the train or at lunch or at any other time of day when we found ourselves between things. Literally, what did we do? I cannot recall.

Some things are easy to reconstruct. Email came to you at your desk, which means you didn’t receive it while at lunch or once you’d left the office. MapQuest was around, but you had to print out directions before you went anywhere. Photography was less a part of daily life, absent social media on which to post. Some dumbphones had cameras, but they were terrible, and stand-alone digital cameras were still expensive and mostly used to generate images for printing.

Okay, fine, but how did people occupy the time, attention, and perceptual orientation that have now been overtaken by smartphone use? Answering this question seems important, because smartphone use is supposedly deleterious. Extreme use is often blamed for contributing to anxiety, depression, and compulsivity—and almost everyone seems to use these devices to extremes. Smartphones are also said to disconnect us from the world and from one another. Instead of enjoying lunch or tourist attractions, people take photographs of them, frequently to secure approval from their peers, who are also using smartphones. The sociologist Sherry Turkle famously lamented how these devices encourage people to live “alone together.”

I asked some middle-aged friends to think back to life in the old days, when we still lived together together—and then to tell me what they remembered doing. “What the heck did I do?” one replied. Some fragments of childhood life could be recovered: shooting hoops in the driveway, or passing notes in class, or burning time hunting for friends to burn time with. But the nature of our idle life as adults evaded memory. Even surfing the early web, the precursor to today’s scrolling, was made tedious by slow connections. Other things took longer too: consulting a paper map before driving anywhere, finding and then conversing with a salesperson to select an appliance. Daily non-activities—waiting at the supermarket line, sitting in traffic, walking the dog—took place under different circumstances. Worse ones.


A spine-chilling revelation: We couldn’t remember what we did, because there was nothing to remember having done. We did nothing, and it was horrible. Filling the nothingness with activity of any sort became a constant exercise. Talking on the phone offered one approach, however poor. Telephones were the only way to connect with your friends synchronously from afar. They worked astoundingly well, and except for the cost of tying up the line or getting a crick in your neck, local calls were free. Advice, ideas, and tips weren’t as accessible before the internet arrived and then matured, so you might phone a friend or a business for information, not just for chatter.

But telephonic banter back then was similar to smartphone social life today. Phone calls were just as mediated as text exchanges. People pursued them to get away from whoever else was in the house or the office, just like they do with text messaging today. A phone call filled the empty time, even if it also helped create a social bond. And the calls could also strain the very bonds they helped sustain, by setting them against the burden of paying for long distance, or the trick of reaching people at their homes, where their phones were wired to the wall. Old-fashioned telephones caused longing and deferral too.

Television was another way of killing time. We watched a lot of it. Game shows, daytime soaps, sitcoms, the evening news, MTV—television was just sort of on, sort of all the time. In homes, if people were there to watch them. But also in airports, doctors’ offices, and laundromats. Some train and bus stations had tiny, coin-operated televisions bolted to the arm rests of their seats, a reminder of the desperation people felt when confined.

And we scrolled for ambient information by flipping pages, in whatever newspapers, magazines, or catalogs happened to be nearby. Like smartphones do today, these offered ways to see something—anything—that we hadn’t seen before, while waiting for the next thing to happen. Periodicals were spread in waiting rooms, in airline seat-backs, on benches in the park. Free alt-weeklies and classified rags were godsends when no other options were on offer—during a long wait for a restaurant table, perhaps, or while stuck at the auto-repair shop. In the idle time we now spend on our phones, people used to read anything and everything they saw—junk mail, subway ads, the backs of cereal boxes, the story on the restaurant placemat, the labels on the condiments. In the beginning people sneered at social media: Who cares about whatever meaningless trifles you found around you? But previously, we cared desperately for exactly those things, absent an alternative.

I cannot overemphasize how little there was to do before we all had smartphones. A barren expanse of empty time would stretch out before you: waiting for the bus, or for someone to come home, or for the next scheduled event to start. Someone might be late or take longer than expected, but no notice of such delay would arrive, so you’d stare out the window, hoping to see some sign of activity down the block. You’d pace, or sulk, or stew.

The despair that accompanied this dead time implied and almost required an existentialist orientation to life itself: absurd and pointless, a sea of doldrums that never washed up to shore. My generation’s penchant for malaise must be a direct result of being alone with ourselves so much, with so little reason. We’d read an oral-hygiene pamphlet or a shampoo bottle. We’d follow the smooth-spinning hands of the clock. Yes, sure, other and better and more useful acts were possible, but only if we knew in advance exactly how much time we had to kill, and where, and under which circumstances. But we never did know until it was too late.

Before smartphones, people didn’t invest their in-between time into forging social bonds or doing self-improvement. They mostly suffered through constant, endless boredom. So let us not lament or malign the time we waste on smartphones, at least not so much. It is bad to be seduced into argument or conspiracism, to shop or lust or doomscroll, to bring one’s job into the dentist’s chair or the living-room recliner. But it was also bad to suffer the terror of monotony. Now there is too much happening, but before, ugh, nothing ever happened."-------- https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...om/674631/
Here's what I do with my time without a smartphone--I just go into my own thoughts. I remember once while on a flight I was the only one on the plane with my head up and just staring ahead, totally content to ponder what Kant meant by saying we create space and time. I must've looked very strange to the flight attendants, not doing anything in order to pass the time. Now they have little TV screens you can watch while on your f light, which I DO avail myself of. But the whole notion that we cannot bear the raw passage of moments without doing anything is exaggerated imo. Humans have been doing it since prehistoric times, especially during those long winters spent inside our caves. We've simply become spoiled by device-fixated preoccupation. We are being de-souled by our own gadgetry. We've lost the precious ability to go into our own inner worlds. IOW, we have lost the very human talent for daydreaming.]]> No one can remember."

By Ian Bogost
The Atlantic Monthly

"In 2000, I got the RIM 957, my first BlackBerry. It received, in real time, emails sent to my work account. Such receipt would cause the device to flash a light and buzz, pager-style. It buzzed constantly. When set just right on the counter, the vibrations would resonate through stone and lumber, alerting the whole room: An email has arrived!

Sometimes you can feel the future’s shadow looming over the present—formless, cold, Lovecraftian. So it was with the BlackBerry. Its capacity to inject digital events into the ordinary world even when they weren’t wanted inaugurated the smartphone age: one of constant online life everywhere. But it wasn’t like that yet. Back then mostly executives had the new device, and government officials, and people who thought they were important. (I was the last kind; I made software.) My co-workers and especially my wife were repulsed by the “CrackBerry,” and my compulsive grasping at it, like Gollum with his ring.


Over the years that followed, I kept clicking on my keyboard phones until eventually the iPhone replaced them. I have memories of using a Palm Treo on the train and my BlackBerry at lunch through most of the 2000s. But I can’t remember how I’d spent my idle time in the years before, on the train or at lunch or at any other time of day when we found ourselves between things. Literally, what did we do? I cannot recall.

Some things are easy to reconstruct. Email came to you at your desk, which means you didn’t receive it while at lunch or once you’d left the office. MapQuest was around, but you had to print out directions before you went anywhere. Photography was less a part of daily life, absent social media on which to post. Some dumbphones had cameras, but they were terrible, and stand-alone digital cameras were still expensive and mostly used to generate images for printing.

Okay, fine, but how did people occupy the time, attention, and perceptual orientation that have now been overtaken by smartphone use? Answering this question seems important, because smartphone use is supposedly deleterious. Extreme use is often blamed for contributing to anxiety, depression, and compulsivity—and almost everyone seems to use these devices to extremes. Smartphones are also said to disconnect us from the world and from one another. Instead of enjoying lunch or tourist attractions, people take photographs of them, frequently to secure approval from their peers, who are also using smartphones. The sociologist Sherry Turkle famously lamented how these devices encourage people to live “alone together.”

I asked some middle-aged friends to think back to life in the old days, when we still lived together together—and then to tell me what they remembered doing. “What the heck did I do?” one replied. Some fragments of childhood life could be recovered: shooting hoops in the driveway, or passing notes in class, or burning time hunting for friends to burn time with. But the nature of our idle life as adults evaded memory. Even surfing the early web, the precursor to today’s scrolling, was made tedious by slow connections. Other things took longer too: consulting a paper map before driving anywhere, finding and then conversing with a salesperson to select an appliance. Daily non-activities—waiting at the supermarket line, sitting in traffic, walking the dog—took place under different circumstances. Worse ones.


A spine-chilling revelation: We couldn’t remember what we did, because there was nothing to remember having done. We did nothing, and it was horrible. Filling the nothingness with activity of any sort became a constant exercise. Talking on the phone offered one approach, however poor. Telephones were the only way to connect with your friends synchronously from afar. They worked astoundingly well, and except for the cost of tying up the line or getting a crick in your neck, local calls were free. Advice, ideas, and tips weren’t as accessible before the internet arrived and then matured, so you might phone a friend or a business for information, not just for chatter.

But telephonic banter back then was similar to smartphone social life today. Phone calls were just as mediated as text exchanges. People pursued them to get away from whoever else was in the house or the office, just like they do with text messaging today. A phone call filled the empty time, even if it also helped create a social bond. And the calls could also strain the very bonds they helped sustain, by setting them against the burden of paying for long distance, or the trick of reaching people at their homes, where their phones were wired to the wall. Old-fashioned telephones caused longing and deferral too.

Television was another way of killing time. We watched a lot of it. Game shows, daytime soaps, sitcoms, the evening news, MTV—television was just sort of on, sort of all the time. In homes, if people were there to watch them. But also in airports, doctors’ offices, and laundromats. Some train and bus stations had tiny, coin-operated televisions bolted to the arm rests of their seats, a reminder of the desperation people felt when confined.

And we scrolled for ambient information by flipping pages, in whatever newspapers, magazines, or catalogs happened to be nearby. Like smartphones do today, these offered ways to see something—anything—that we hadn’t seen before, while waiting for the next thing to happen. Periodicals were spread in waiting rooms, in airline seat-backs, on benches in the park. Free alt-weeklies and classified rags were godsends when no other options were on offer—during a long wait for a restaurant table, perhaps, or while stuck at the auto-repair shop. In the idle time we now spend on our phones, people used to read anything and everything they saw—junk mail, subway ads, the backs of cereal boxes, the story on the restaurant placemat, the labels on the condiments. In the beginning people sneered at social media: Who cares about whatever meaningless trifles you found around you? But previously, we cared desperately for exactly those things, absent an alternative.

I cannot overemphasize how little there was to do before we all had smartphones. A barren expanse of empty time would stretch out before you: waiting for the bus, or for someone to come home, or for the next scheduled event to start. Someone might be late or take longer than expected, but no notice of such delay would arrive, so you’d stare out the window, hoping to see some sign of activity down the block. You’d pace, or sulk, or stew.

The despair that accompanied this dead time implied and almost required an existentialist orientation to life itself: absurd and pointless, a sea of doldrums that never washed up to shore. My generation’s penchant for malaise must be a direct result of being alone with ourselves so much, with so little reason. We’d read an oral-hygiene pamphlet or a shampoo bottle. We’d follow the smooth-spinning hands of the clock. Yes, sure, other and better and more useful acts were possible, but only if we knew in advance exactly how much time we had to kill, and where, and under which circumstances. But we never did know until it was too late.

Before smartphones, people didn’t invest their in-between time into forging social bonds or doing self-improvement. They mostly suffered through constant, endless boredom. So let us not lament or malign the time we waste on smartphones, at least not so much. It is bad to be seduced into argument or conspiracism, to shop or lust or doomscroll, to bring one’s job into the dentist’s chair or the living-room recliner. But it was also bad to suffer the terror of monotony. Now there is too much happening, but before, ugh, nothing ever happened."-------- https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...om/674631/
Here's what I do with my time without a smartphone--I just go into my own thoughts. I remember once while on a flight I was the only one on the plane with my head up and just staring ahead, totally content to ponder what Kant meant by saying we create space and time. I must've looked very strange to the flight attendants, not doing anything in order to pass the time. Now they have little TV screens you can watch while on your f light, which I DO avail myself of. But the whole notion that we cannot bear the raw passage of moments without doing anything is exaggerated imo. Humans have been doing it since prehistoric times, especially during those long winters spent inside our caves. We've simply become spoiled by device-fixated preoccupation. We are being de-souled by our own gadgetry. We've lost the precious ability to go into our own inner worlds. IOW, we have lost the very human talent for daydreaming.]]> <![CDATA[Trump to blame for Islamist attack on Pride parade in Berlin? (populist network)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20975.html Wed, 29 Jul 2026 23:21:07 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20975.html

--PRELUDE-- Trump effect hits Pride funding during increased security costs (excerpts): Spooked by President Donald Trump's crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), some corporate sponsors have shunned Pride marches across the United States this year, and European LGBTQ+ campaigners say they are also taking a hit. [...] "We can certainly speak of a 'Trump effect' - as part of a global culture war against minority rights," said Marcel Voges, a board member at CSD. [...] The loss of corporate support comes at a time when Pride organisers are also facing increased security costs, said Conrad Breyer, spokesman at Munich's CSD. Last year, far-right groups tried to disrupt LGBTQ+ marches in Berlin and Leipzig. Companies are not the only ones withdrawing their money. [...] The loss of corporate support comes as LGBTQ+ people are increasingly being targeted, from Hungary's ban on Pride marches to the growing calls to restrict the rights of trans people, to Bulgaria's Russian-style law banning LGBTQ+ "propaganda". "I'm not just worried, I'm genuinely frightened about what the next four years could mean for smaller Prides like Sofia Pride," said Simeon Vasilev, chairman of the Bulgarian LGBTQ+ group GLAS Foundation.

1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride terrorist attack (intro): A man drove a van into Berlin Pride festivities on Saturday night, killing one Pride-goer and injuring 16 others. Police confirmed yesterday that the suspect died in a shoot-out with officers.

Pride in Germany’s capital came to an early end on Saturday after 21-year-old Abdul Ballout, who is reportedly a supporter of the Islamic State, a militant organization also known as ISIS or ISIL, allegedly drove a rented van into the city’s Tiergarten park at around 10 p.m. before crashing into a tree. Police say that Ballout then allegedly went on a knife rampage, injuring more people, before running away.

Law enforcement conducted a manhunt for Ballout, a German citizen of Lebanese heritage, and found him at around 6 p.m. on Sunday “at an allotment garden complex in Spandau,” according to Berlin police. They said that he “ran towards officers while armed with a bladed weapon” and police opened fire on him. He died at the scene.

In total, he allegedly killed one person and injured 29 others.

“It’s one of the worst days for the queer community and a day I personally hoped I’d never have to experience,” said Pride attendee Julian Methig. “I’m shocked.”

“It is difficult for us to put into words the shock and grief of the queer community,” Alva Träbert of Federation Queer Diversity said in a statement. “Our solidarity goes out to all the victims and their families. The community’s grief now needs space to be expressed.”

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt called it a likely “Islamist terrorist attack” on Sunday, saying that investigators have not yet determined the motive...

[...] Who Was Abdul Ballout? (excerpt): Abdul B., a German citizen, traveled to Lebanon in 2025 in an unsuccessful bid to join the terrorist group, German media reported, citing police sources. He remained in pretrial detention until May 2026 and was ordered to participate in a de-radicalization program.

Sharing an update on Sunday, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the number of people injured had risen from 16 to 29, with three of them in life-threatening condition.

"Everything we are seeing here indicates that we have experienced an Islamist attack," Dobrindt said. ... The minister also warned: "We cannot rule out the possibility that further terrorist attacks might take place."

Dobrindt added that Abdul B. was born in Germany in 2005 and is of Lebanese descent. His mother became a naturalized German citizen in 2002.

Abdul B. was convicted in May of "preparing a serious act of subversive violence." However, Der Spiegel reported that he received a suspended sentence, according to German media reports. Bild reported that he was arrested in Lebanon while trying to join the Islamic State group and was later returned to Germany because he is a German citizen.

Der Spiegel reported that, a few weeks ago, authorities received a tip that Abdul B. had posted a photo online showing himself posing with what appeared to be a weapon. However, when police searched his apartment, they found only a toy replica. Officers were also deployed to the suspect's reported address, about one kilometer south of the attack site...

Suspect fatally shot ... https://youtu.be/mOoz52Kz6GU

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/mOoz52Kz6GU]]>

--PRELUDE-- Trump effect hits Pride funding during increased security costs (excerpts): Spooked by President Donald Trump's crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), some corporate sponsors have shunned Pride marches across the United States this year, and European LGBTQ+ campaigners say they are also taking a hit. [...] "We can certainly speak of a 'Trump effect' - as part of a global culture war against minority rights," said Marcel Voges, a board member at CSD. [...] The loss of corporate support comes at a time when Pride organisers are also facing increased security costs, said Conrad Breyer, spokesman at Munich's CSD. Last year, far-right groups tried to disrupt LGBTQ+ marches in Berlin and Leipzig. Companies are not the only ones withdrawing their money. [...] The loss of corporate support comes as LGBTQ+ people are increasingly being targeted, from Hungary's ban on Pride marches to the growing calls to restrict the rights of trans people, to Bulgaria's Russian-style law banning LGBTQ+ "propaganda". "I'm not just worried, I'm genuinely frightened about what the next four years could mean for smaller Prides like Sofia Pride," said Simeon Vasilev, chairman of the Bulgarian LGBTQ+ group GLAS Foundation.

1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride terrorist attack (intro): A man drove a van into Berlin Pride festivities on Saturday night, killing one Pride-goer and injuring 16 others. Police confirmed yesterday that the suspect died in a shoot-out with officers.

Pride in Germany’s capital came to an early end on Saturday after 21-year-old Abdul Ballout, who is reportedly a supporter of the Islamic State, a militant organization also known as ISIS or ISIL, allegedly drove a rented van into the city’s Tiergarten park at around 10 p.m. before crashing into a tree. Police say that Ballout then allegedly went on a knife rampage, injuring more people, before running away.

Law enforcement conducted a manhunt for Ballout, a German citizen of Lebanese heritage, and found him at around 6 p.m. on Sunday “at an allotment garden complex in Spandau,” according to Berlin police. They said that he “ran towards officers while armed with a bladed weapon” and police opened fire on him. He died at the scene.

In total, he allegedly killed one person and injured 29 others.

“It’s one of the worst days for the queer community and a day I personally hoped I’d never have to experience,” said Pride attendee Julian Methig. “I’m shocked.”

“It is difficult for us to put into words the shock and grief of the queer community,” Alva Träbert of Federation Queer Diversity said in a statement. “Our solidarity goes out to all the victims and their families. The community’s grief now needs space to be expressed.”

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt called it a likely “Islamist terrorist attack” on Sunday, saying that investigators have not yet determined the motive...

[...] Who Was Abdul Ballout? (excerpt): Abdul B., a German citizen, traveled to Lebanon in 2025 in an unsuccessful bid to join the terrorist group, German media reported, citing police sources. He remained in pretrial detention until May 2026 and was ordered to participate in a de-radicalization program.

Sharing an update on Sunday, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the number of people injured had risen from 16 to 29, with three of them in life-threatening condition.

"Everything we are seeing here indicates that we have experienced an Islamist attack," Dobrindt said. ... The minister also warned: "We cannot rule out the possibility that further terrorist attacks might take place."

Dobrindt added that Abdul B. was born in Germany in 2005 and is of Lebanese descent. His mother became a naturalized German citizen in 2002.

Abdul B. was convicted in May of "preparing a serious act of subversive violence." However, Der Spiegel reported that he received a suspended sentence, according to German media reports. Bild reported that he was arrested in Lebanon while trying to join the Islamic State group and was later returned to Germany because he is a German citizen.

Der Spiegel reported that, a few weeks ago, authorities received a tip that Abdul B. had posted a photo online showing himself posing with what appeared to be a weapon. However, when police searched his apartment, they found only a toy replica. Officers were also deployed to the suspect's reported address, about one kilometer south of the attack site...

Suspect fatally shot ... https://youtu.be/mOoz52Kz6GU

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/mOoz52Kz6GU]]> <![CDATA[Walz's grade school transgender dolls conspiracy? (corporate opportunism network)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20958.html Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:09:52 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20958.html Just as companies exploit Christian sentimentality by selling shiny baubles and religious totems -- establishing church contracts for them... So now the capitalization of these psycho-social, therapeutic fetishes commercially distributed to left-wing communities. Next up business-wise: Cheaply produced, trans B-movies dealing with soon-to-be published extrapolation concerning an impending TERF-instigated apocalypse, and the DSA led salvation from it.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Transgender dolls to be available for Minnesota schoolchildren as young as 4 under Walz-backed program
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/arti...06536.html

Transgender dolls will be accessible to Minnesota school children between the ages of 4 and 10 starting this fall as a result of a taxpayer-funded development program supported by Gov. Tim Walz, according to a report. The MyGenderDolls, which were developed in part through the University of Minnesota's Early Innovation Fund, will be for use by "clinicians and educators" starting this year, the New York Post first reported, citing the product's website.

The dolls, according to the website, were "designed for gender diverse children ages 4–10."

They come with interchangeable accessories and removable and swappable genitalia to help children "realize all the different options that exist for who they can be — regardless of their body parts," University of Minnesota postdoctoral fellow Ben Parchem said in a now-deleted article in the University of Minnesota Foundation's magazine.

The dolls began as a research program in the University of Minnesota Medical School's Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, spearheaded by two members of the school's faculty, Dianne Berg and G. Nic Rider, both educators in the school's Department of Family Medicine and Community Health.

"It's really important to address the belief, 'I'm not a 'real' boy because I don't have these private parts,' versus, 'I am a real boy, whatever my anatomy looks like,'" Berg told the Foundation's magazine in the now-deleted article. "It's about helping children develop tools to cope with messages in society that could lead to shame."

"MyGender Dolls began as an idea of the Institute for Sexual and Gender Health psychologist, Rachel Becker-Warner, PsyD. NCGSH Co-Director, Dianne Berg, PhD, and Communications Specialist, Ashley Finch, have been hard at work developing the dolls to be used as a therapeutic tool for transgender and gender diverse children. The concept is similar to classic paper dolls; kids can select bodies, genitals, clothes, and other accessories as a way to visualize their anatomy and genders," a now deleted 2024 summary of the project from the University of Minnesota's Eli Coleman Institute for Sexual and Gender Health (ISGH) read.

The project is one of many pro-transgender state-funded efforts under Walz, according to the Post. In 2023, the University of Minnesota's ISGH presented Walz with the Distinguished Sexual and Gender Health Champion Award "for his outstanding efforts in protecting sexual and reproductive health care (PRO Act, HF 1) and gender-affirming health care (Executive Order 23-03) in Minnesota," the school wrote in its annual report in 2023.

Of the three faculty members presenting him his award, one was Rider, a co-creator of MyGenderDolls.

Taxpayer fury? ... https://youtu.be/VF99_9yKWAc

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/VF99_9yKWAc]]> Just as companies exploit Christian sentimentality by selling shiny baubles and religious totems -- establishing church contracts for them... So now the capitalization of these psycho-social, therapeutic fetishes commercially distributed to left-wing communities. Next up business-wise: Cheaply produced, trans B-movies dealing with soon-to-be published extrapolation concerning an impending TERF-instigated apocalypse, and the DSA led salvation from it.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Transgender dolls to be available for Minnesota schoolchildren as young as 4 under Walz-backed program
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/arti...06536.html

Transgender dolls will be accessible to Minnesota school children between the ages of 4 and 10 starting this fall as a result of a taxpayer-funded development program supported by Gov. Tim Walz, according to a report. The MyGenderDolls, which were developed in part through the University of Minnesota's Early Innovation Fund, will be for use by "clinicians and educators" starting this year, the New York Post first reported, citing the product's website.

The dolls, according to the website, were "designed for gender diverse children ages 4–10."

They come with interchangeable accessories and removable and swappable genitalia to help children "realize all the different options that exist for who they can be — regardless of their body parts," University of Minnesota postdoctoral fellow Ben Parchem said in a now-deleted article in the University of Minnesota Foundation's magazine.

The dolls began as a research program in the University of Minnesota Medical School's Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, spearheaded by two members of the school's faculty, Dianne Berg and G. Nic Rider, both educators in the school's Department of Family Medicine and Community Health.

"It's really important to address the belief, 'I'm not a 'real' boy because I don't have these private parts,' versus, 'I am a real boy, whatever my anatomy looks like,'" Berg told the Foundation's magazine in the now-deleted article. "It's about helping children develop tools to cope with messages in society that could lead to shame."

"MyGender Dolls began as an idea of the Institute for Sexual and Gender Health psychologist, Rachel Becker-Warner, PsyD. NCGSH Co-Director, Dianne Berg, PhD, and Communications Specialist, Ashley Finch, have been hard at work developing the dolls to be used as a therapeutic tool for transgender and gender diverse children. The concept is similar to classic paper dolls; kids can select bodies, genitals, clothes, and other accessories as a way to visualize their anatomy and genders," a now deleted 2024 summary of the project from the University of Minnesota's Eli Coleman Institute for Sexual and Gender Health (ISGH) read.

The project is one of many pro-transgender state-funded efforts under Walz, according to the Post. In 2023, the University of Minnesota's ISGH presented Walz with the Distinguished Sexual and Gender Health Champion Award "for his outstanding efforts in protecting sexual and reproductive health care (PRO Act, HF 1) and gender-affirming health care (Executive Order 23-03) in Minnesota," the school wrote in its annual report in 2023.

Of the three faculty members presenting him his award, one was Rider, a co-creator of MyGenderDolls.

Taxpayer fury? ... https://youtu.be/VF99_9yKWAc

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/VF99_9yKWAc]]>