Putting aside questions of ecosystems etc, I think the main reason is that we just can’t - ironic since we seem to be extint-ing all the other animals

In South America they tried in the 50s and 60s, and more kept cropping up. They breed so quickly, if you miss an area they can just rebound. Then more can come in on ships and stuff

So you couldn’t really localise it, it would have to be a huge global undertaking. And it would likely require widespread use of pesticides that are at best tricksy and at worst illegal, not to mention environmentally shitty

Regardless of the electoral politics, as Chris notes, the important challenge in social policy is helping people who won’t benefit from wealth transfers from wealthy relatives, rather than engaging in fantasies about “generational warfare”. What matters is not generations, but class.

In the UK you start school at 4

Yeah i suppose you have a point. I never think of sovcit claims as credible, but if that’s what someone needs to hear or believe in a tough time, could be a different story

Its pretty easy to hear a credible-sounding claim and take it in, without doing the research to debunk it

Yes, that is exactly what sovcits do.

I suppose where we differ then is if sovcit beliefs are ‘credible-sounding’

On the other hand, belief in a widespread historical myth that has been argued by professional historians isn’t exactly ‘soveriegn citizen’ level - even if that myth has been overwhelmingly dismissed by the majority of their colleagues.

Its pretty easy to hear a credible-sounding claim and take it in, without doing the research to debunk it

Well, it was never going to look like the Americas even if it was true. The claim is that they discovered the land, not that they circumnavigated it or were able to chart the coasts with Renaissance-level precision.

There’s no good or compelling evidence. But there’s lots of ‘evidence’ that while dismissed by most academics, can be used in support of the theory in a vacuum, for example the existence of a pre-Colombian carving in Arabic (which isn’t actually that, but was believed to be by some).

The idea isn’t based on the map alone, it’s only one piece of the corroborating ‘evidence’.

Again, I’m not arguing that it’s a true claim, just that it’s not on the surface insane

Al-Masudi was a very able cartographer, and his 10th Century map of the world is really impressive. And yes, it includes a continent to the West of the Old World.

Obviously this doesn’t prove a genuine knowledge or discovery of the New World, but its a noted oddity.

The theory that a Muslim population discovered and settled in the Americas is widely discredited and shouldn’t been taken seriously, but it is a published theory and supported by at least some academics. Most though dismiss is as either ‘psuedo-history’ or even ‘propaganda’, so yeah…

This theory might be ahistorical, but how sinister it is is debatable (“Yeagley believed that Shabbas and the other authors were simply trying to gain acceptance for Arabs, further integrating them into American culture by making them ‘native.’”). The American myth making around Colombus might be more based in fact, but lets be honest, there’s a lot of fake history there too.

The word ‘admiral’ does come from the Arabic ‘amir’, - circuitously via medieval Latin and Old French.

So yeah the post is untrue, but I wouldn’t call it ‘insane’ necessarily. Its a reasonably common, and interesting, myth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masudi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_transoceanic_contact_theories https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/did-muslims-visit-america-before-columbus

I suppose I’d call myself more curious than sceptical - I could look shit up and I can’t be bothered - but how do you define when humans became humans? I imagine its an estimate based from anthropological and fossil records and stuff

I mean, unless there was a hoax that led to widespread belief that they were gonna launch a bomb

Its suspicious if its out of nowhere, but less so if its in response to an existing rumour

This just isnt true. I’m not saying this to defend Israel and their actions in Gaza - its just really important to not get swept up in falsehoods, particularly at a time when legitimate criticism of Israel is being portrayed as antisemitic.

There are allegations that Israel administered a birth control drug - which has to be readministered every three months - to Ethiopian immigrants without informed consent. The investigation into this was flawed, but there is literally no evidence to suggest that anyone was forced or coerced into taking this.

What does seem plausible and even likely based on the facts is that doctors often made little or no effort to overcome language and cultural barriers and make sure that consent was fully informed and patients were completely aware of the effects of the procedure.

This is definitely an issue in and of itself, and is a level of societal racism. But what it is not, is ideoligical forcible sterilization.

Further, when you say ‘Ethiopian Jewish women tried to invoke the Law of Return’ the implication is that Israel was really against Ethiopian immigration. In reality, the Israeli government worked with the US to actively enable this - in 1984 Israeli covert forces worked to evacuate the Beta Israel community from Sudan to Israel during the civil war there (this is known as Operation Moses).

Basically, there is so so much to legitimately criticise the Israeli government for right now. Repeating misinformation like this just straight up doesn’t help.

You wouldn’t take a shit in it though

If they’d rather die then they’d better do it, and decrease the surplus population!

Everybody is different - you haven’t figured out the one simple trick to avoid hangovers. Drinking lots of water is like, the most common thing to do and 99% of people still get bad hangovers

‘Cost’ is applicable, because this money is money that has factored into the budget and public spending every year. To make up for not having it, you would need to find or cut the same amount of money elsewhere.

For what its worth, the reason that Tories want to cut this is because it disproportionately taxes the wealthy, and specifically generational wealth. Assets under £375,000 (iirc) are not taxed on inheritance

Cutting inheritance tax will increase the wealth gap and cost the goverment money at a time when vital public services are still suffering from 13 ongoing years of austerity