@withoutend.bsky.social
Luckily you don’t have to imagine - they’ve done it for you. Go to ‘see more episodes’ and scroll down
January 12, 2026 at 9:02 PM
Luckily you don’t have to imagine - they’ve done it for you. Go to ‘see more episodes’ and scroll down
They’re making a mistake trying to co-opt him - it can only draw attention to his moral clarity and how far they fall short of it
January 10, 2026 at 12:40 AM
They’re making a mistake trying to co-opt him - it can only draw attention to his moral clarity and how far they fall short of it
Exactly. This is society bending over backwards to accommodate an offender within a motocentric system where it doesn’t even acknowledging the similar plight of those excluded through no fault of their own.
December 17, 2025 at 8:44 AM
Exactly. This is society bending over backwards to accommodate an offender within a motocentric system where it doesn’t even acknowledging the similar plight of those excluded through no fault of their own.
Insulting that they expect a pat in the back for pointing out the worst of the previous administration’s divisive rhetoric and throwing in a few platitudes. They know this won’t go beyond a niche audience while the amounts are so paltry. If it did they’d row back sharpish. Cowards.
December 12, 2025 at 3:16 PM
Insulting that they expect a pat in the back for pointing out the worst of the previous administration’s divisive rhetoric and throwing in a few platitudes. They know this won’t go beyond a niche audience while the amounts are so paltry. If it did they’d row back sharpish. Cowards.
🧵 Is it a super flu year? Who knows, but I think the current reporting is stupid.
A pissed off thread using data.
Firstly - here are today's headlines and some from the last 3 years... spot the difference. 1/10
A pissed off thread using data.
Firstly - here are today's headlines and some from the last 3 years... spot the difference. 1/10
December 12, 2025 at 1:08 PM
Which part do you disagree with Otto?
November 28, 2025 at 11:46 PM
Which part do you disagree with Otto?
Also everyone saying that their negligence, patently obvious at the time, would only get mainstream acknowledgement once safely in the past
November 20, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Also everyone saying that their negligence, patently obvious at the time, would only get mainstream acknowledgement once safely in the past
Ironic if the HoL’s own demise turns on their handling of this issue
November 13, 2025 at 10:46 AM
Ironic if the HoL’s own demise turns on their handling of this issue
They’re focussed on managing medium-term risks. In the end-game of societal collapse all bets are off anyway.
The system they’re operating within can’t support collective action at the required scale to save itself from planetary buffers. Only external political forces can do that.
The system they’re operating within can’t support collective action at the required scale to save itself from planetary buffers. Only external political forces can do that.
November 9, 2025 at 10:44 PM
They’re focussed on managing medium-term risks. In the end-game of societal collapse all bets are off anyway.
The system they’re operating within can’t support collective action at the required scale to save itself from planetary buffers. Only external political forces can do that.
The system they’re operating within can’t support collective action at the required scale to save itself from planetary buffers. Only external political forces can do that.
Looking at the quotes, the article conflates (1) banks managing risks to their own profits from climate effects and (2) pursuit of emissions goals.
Entirely plausible that they could be doing (1) while doing nothing for (2). The confusion serves to hide the blatant immorality of that stance.
Entirely plausible that they could be doing (1) while doing nothing for (2). The confusion serves to hide the blatant immorality of that stance.
November 9, 2025 at 6:24 PM
Looking at the quotes, the article conflates (1) banks managing risks to their own profits from climate effects and (2) pursuit of emissions goals.
Entirely plausible that they could be doing (1) while doing nothing for (2). The confusion serves to hide the blatant immorality of that stance.
Entirely plausible that they could be doing (1) while doing nothing for (2). The confusion serves to hide the blatant immorality of that stance.
The article is good reminder of all the good things Khan has done. Eg…
October 28, 2025 at 12:41 PM
The article is good reminder of all the good things Khan has done. Eg…
The usual robotic ‘our no1 priority is growth’; with none of the customary platitudes about ‘raising human rights concerns’
We’re being sold out cheaply: GDP impact £1.6bn (0.06%) or £23 per head to look away.
Their real no1 priority is signalling to their handlers that they’ll do what it takes.
We’re being sold out cheaply: GDP impact £1.6bn (0.06%) or £23 per head to look away.
Their real no1 priority is signalling to their handlers that they’ll do what it takes.
October 27, 2025 at 10:41 AM
The usual robotic ‘our no1 priority is growth’; with none of the customary platitudes about ‘raising human rights concerns’
We’re being sold out cheaply: GDP impact £1.6bn (0.06%) or £23 per head to look away.
Their real no1 priority is signalling to their handlers that they’ll do what it takes.
We’re being sold out cheaply: GDP impact £1.6bn (0.06%) or £23 per head to look away.
Their real no1 priority is signalling to their handlers that they’ll do what it takes.
Because the incentive structures are already ridiculously skewed towards low density car-dependent urban sprawl, which is ruinous to the environment and people’s wellbeing
October 24, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Because the incentive structures are already ridiculously skewed towards low density car-dependent urban sprawl, which is ruinous to the environment and people’s wellbeing
They wouldn’t actually deport that many people; their goal is to create a ‘slave class’ by using the threat of arbitrary deportation to block access to labour rights and political participation.
October 23, 2025 at 11:49 AM
They wouldn’t actually deport that many people; their goal is to create a ‘slave class’ by using the threat of arbitrary deportation to block access to labour rights and political participation.
I’m sure she’s well aware he won’t suddenly come clean. She’s pointing out the bad faith behind his protestations of innocence. Scandalous that this task is left to the victims and not those with real power to make him come clean.
October 22, 2025 at 1:29 PM
I’m sure she’s well aware he won’t suddenly come clean. She’s pointing out the bad faith behind his protestations of innocence. Scandalous that this task is left to the victims and not those with real power to make him come clean.
Particularly important to specify as it would be entirely in character for the UK government to be the ones banning them.
But abandoning the passive voice would make Isreal look bad and the both-sidesing required to smooth that over won’t fit in a boilerplate statement. What to do?
But abandoning the passive voice would make Isreal look bad and the both-sidesing required to smooth that over won’t fit in a boilerplate statement. What to do?
October 20, 2025 at 8:02 AM
Particularly important to specify as it would be entirely in character for the UK government to be the ones banning them.
But abandoning the passive voice would make Isreal look bad and the both-sidesing required to smooth that over won’t fit in a boilerplate statement. What to do?
But abandoning the passive voice would make Isreal look bad and the both-sidesing required to smooth that over won’t fit in a boilerplate statement. What to do?