Time for an open thread, I think. But first,

Yes, let’s squeeze in another visit to the Guardian‘s Dining Across the Divide series, in which “strangers from across the divide” – albeit strangers with, very often, eerily similar opinions and a common choice of newspaper – “discuss the divisive issues of our time” and attempt to “bridge their political differences.” Should any significant differences actually materialise.

Yes, a series in which the entire breadth of conceivable political thought – as imagined by the Guardian‘s intellectual powerhouse Zoe Williams – is given an airing. And where left-leaning teachers, left-leaning writers and left-leaning university administrators discuss just how awful and stupid those non-leftwing people are, and whether Net Zero is super-imperative or just really, really important.

A series in which totally random Guardian readers – sorry, totally random members of the public – encounter “the opposite point of view,” while chewing on kale and butternut squash. Except that they both vote Green and are named Tamsin and Matilda.

This week, the clashing titans are BJ, a vegan and Lib Dem-voting writer, and Toby, a Labour-voting student now enthused by the Greens.

As you’d imagine, there’s much laughter and gaiety:

“I don’t see there’s any debate,” says Toby.

It’s all going terribly well, this debate thing.

Sadly, details of any clashing are for the most part left to the imagination. Filthy details are few and far between. Though BJ is slightly more concerned by exactness of terminology, and by antisemitism, of which both disapprove.

Says BJ,

I know. It’s just one blow after another.

To which, Toby replies,

At which point, I could just leave this here.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And…

Well, we’ll be here all day. And we must push on.

And so, during dessert:

Again, it’s all clash, clash, clash. Whether either participant is married or in some way entangled is, alas, not divulged.

And in a final, shocking twist:

Do take a moment to recover from all that spirited thrusting.

Previously in this bare-knuckle arena of Guardian debate:

As commenter Rafi quipped following the above,

Well, indeed. On poking through the series, of the three Conservative voters I could find, two were very soft Conservative, in the sense of actually voting for Labour, and the token Reform voter was oddly steeped in the Guardian tongue, showing great enthusiasm for “wealth taxes,” and disliking Mrs Thatcher.

This seems to be a common pattern – lefties and, well, almost lefties bonding over their dislike of Reform or Mr Trump. There’s very little substance to be had. It’s chiefly leftist boilerplate with some occasional and oddly flaccid pushback. Hardly representative of rebuttals one might offer. And not exactly capturing the tensions of our time.

Update, via the comments:

EmC quotes this,

And adds, not unfairly,

Quite.

Among the many miracles conjured into being by the Green Party in Brighton were numerous, long strikes interrupting basic services; residents having to wade through mountains of uncollected garbage for weeks on end; subsequent invasions by rats; plans to abolish car use in the city; and – despite the party’s ecological mania – the lowest recycling rates in the country.

Not to mention the endless manufactured congestion and astronomical parking fees, due to the council’s hostility to car ownership; the loss of tourism revenue as a direct result of these policies; countless failures to maintain simple infrastructure; and pavements overgrown with weeds to a degree that endangered the elderly and called to mind some dystopian science fiction.

For those unfamiliar with the farce in question, long-time Brighton resident Julie Burchill conveyed something of its scope and flavour:

And what every voter wants is a city councillor laughing at their frustration when trying to do formerly simple things. A frustration entirely the fault of said councillor’s own party and their bizarre policies. In this case, a policy based on a belief that when people go to the local dump – sorry, recycling centre – they do so by bicycle.

Readers are welcome to picture Brighton residents making three-mile journeys by pedal bike with old fridges and unwanted microwaves strapped to their backs.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Open thread. Share ye links and bicker, baby.

Lifted from the comments, this feat of self-knowledge:

https://t.co/NK6ZXsV5cq pic.twitter.com/kRryCjRo8X

— Overeducated Gibbon (@MostlyMonkey) June 9, 2026

“How little they understand us,” says he. Sorry, he/him. Because pronouns in bio, obviously. Again, cue the meme.

But remember, dear reader, the routine and often vehemently announced antipathy of so many progressives towards people of pallor – as seen, for instance, here, and here, and here, and here, and here and here – is merely a figment of your fevered imagination.

It was all just a misunderstanding, see? Your fault entirely.

The cattier among you will have noted the choice of profile photo.

See he/him thinking deeply.

Update, via the comments:

Following much mockery, our book-reading pronoun stipulator is now referring to his numerous quoted posts – in which he refers to massive, indiscriminate third-world immigration as “just a thing that is happening,” and in which he says white people are “the worst” and should be “cancelled” and “abolished” – as being some misunderstood subtlety of thought. While sneering at those who noticed these statements as “chuds.”

This process is of course resulting in people uncovering more of the same.

Oh, and then there’s this, approvingly reposted by our deep and subtle thinker:

Given the increasing luridness and frequency with which these horror-show scenes are happening, and given what is at stake should this trend continue – all these vibrant stabbings and rapes – asking pertinent questions with a view to making them stop doesn’t strike me as obvious proof of scumbaggery.

I mean, if you aren’t allowed to recognise the pattern and identify the problem – the dare I say it, root causes – then such horrors will continue and most likely multiply, perhaps very quickly. And it seems a bit rich to rush to one’s fainting couch because someone used the word “savage” to refer to a third-world migrant, supposedly a source of our enrichment, ululating in triumph while attempting to behead a native on the streets of Belfast.

Apparently the indigenous are allowed to be briefly upset, but only before ramping up their tolerance and inclusivity, and carrying on as before, as if nothing of significance had happened, or will happen again, and again, with ever greater boldness. While the process, to which we mustn’t pay any attention, and regarding which we mustn’t ask obvious questions, continues.

Anna, needless to say – the woman crying “scumbag” and boasting of being a Labour voter – also thinks you need to know her pronouns.

Again, patterns.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and so forth.

Where employers must accommodate impossible pregnancies:

A lot of people have struggled to believe me when I say that the Australian Human Rights Commission is giving pregnancy protections in law to men who claim to be woman, because it’s so stupid it’s hard to believe anyone would say it.

Enjoy: pic.twitter.com/IveqVhN9KG

— Sall Grover (@salltweets) May 26, 2026

One more time. When you surrender to the lie, complications will ensue.

There may be perfectly rational reasons not to employ a cross-dressing man. Practical workplace complications, bathroom use, likely mental health issues, not wishing to participate in someone else’s psychodrama, things of that kind. A fear of him becoming pregnant is not, I’d suggest, one of them.

Previous adventures in the Land of Before Logic, where everything is terribly progressive, competitively so, can be found in the archives.

Among which, the “multicultural playgroup” in Sydney that’s all about “diversity” and “celebrating difference,” and which therefore turns away four-year-olds and their mothers for being “too white.” And where parents of suspicious pallor are promptly interrogated by staff on their “cultural background.”

And we mustn’t forget the implausible sorrows of Ms Cindy Prior, an administrator at the Queensland University of Technology, who invoked the “trauma” of sweating when politely questioned by students about the need for racially segregated computer labs.

Ms Prior, a woman of aboriginal descent, saw fit to seek damages of $250,000 from the students in court, where she claimed to have suffered “psychiatric injury” as a result of this enquiry. What with all the sweating. Ms Prior told the court that, such was her distress, she was “unable to continue working face-to-face with white people.” Ms Prior also objected to being “found ridiculous.”

Happily, her vexatious legal action, directed at three students, two staff members and the university itself, was not successful. It remains unclear whether anyone at the university belatedly realised that a job entailing the denial of access to computer resources on the basis of race – specifically, being white – might attract racists with personality disorders.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and so forth.

In the comments, Pst314 and Dicentra steer us to new realms of niche woe:

An exchange of views ensues.

In which, Ms Taylor Lorenz, an “online culture journalist,” struggles with causality. Including the seemingly difficult concept that a heavy reliance on delivered takeaway, and the mindset that implies, may have some bearing on how little cash one has left at the end of the month. And so, via some contortion, we arrive at the conceit that preparing a simple meal, even a packed lunch, is a physical impossibility for those deemed downtrodden.

Readers may note that, during the exchange, the more excuses that Ms Lorenz conjures into being, the more she pretends to care, the less she sounds like an actual person so much as a weird programme that’s been left running.

Despite Ms Lorenz’s pretence of cosmopolitan expertise, there’s no sense at any point in the exchange that the topic has actually been thought about, autonomously, poked at from various angles. Her mouthings merely suggest someone who’s memorised some pre-approved excuses for suboptimal behaviour. I don’t believe that any actual thinking has taken place.

Instead, there’s a sense that Ms Lorenz has merely recalled the mouth sounds that will denote some fashionable stance, an approved position, one selected well in advance of any mental activity.

Should any occur.

Update, via the comments:

Chow Bag adds,

When not dining out, that is.

At risk of sounding insufficiently sensitive, I’d suggest that if your life is so disorganised that you use delivered-to-the-door takeaway services for the bulk of your meals, week after week, in ways you cannot afford, then the problem, the actual problem, is your being so disorganised.

Readers will note how Ms Lorenz has to add implausible and contradictory complications to bolster her assertion.

And so, not only are these weirdly incompetent young people all working double shifts, every day, every week, but they’re also elderly and disabled and unable to operate a hob or reach for kitchen utensils. And they’re so pressed for time, so downtrodden, that they can afford to spend half of their food budget on dining out in restaurants.

As one does.

I doubt it’s ever occurred to Ms Lorenz that, by excusing foolish, unaffordable behaviour and the habitual displacement of responsibility, by encouraging the cultivation of victimhood, she’s making poverty more likely, and more likely to persist.

Her supposedly compassionate philosophy, such as it is, seems to be, “Carry on doing that really stupid thing. Just remember to blame other people for your own bewildering choices.”

Ms Lorenz has subsequently restricted who may reply to her assertions.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

I paraphrase, of course. Though not, I think, wildly:

The alleged harms of debate and the citing of statistics are not mere rudeness or a failure to flatter, but “lasting psychological damage.” Because statistics can do that, apparently.

What might constitute controversy in the minds of such implausibly delicate creatures is not made clear, though we are told that the terms “blind review,” “handicap parking” and “immigrant” were considered “harmful language” by Stanford University’s IT department. Which does rather suggest a kind of neurotic contrivance.

Humble, you say. We’ll get to that in a second.

You can guess where this one’s going.

And,

And what better gift to the world than imposing your own hang-ups and inadequacies on everyone else, quite emphatically, at every opportunity?

And then we arrive at this glorious conundrum:

The study, found here, informs us that those most keen to pre-emptively shut down discussion, including by vigorous means, also “rated themselves as higher in… empathy.”

The inversions of progressive “empathy” – and its routine departure from reality – have of course been poked at here before.

And regarding those claims of humility, nothing says, ‘I entertain the possibility that my assumptions may be wrong’ like forbidding any and all attempts at contradiction.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.