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, a reminder, were one needed, that you don’t despise the media anywhere near enough.

In this case, it’s Flemish public television – not unlike our own BBC – and one guest’s realisation that any discussion of rising intolerance and a growing enthusiasm for violence against women must arrive at certain predetermined conclusions, regardless of the facts:

The seemingly routine attempt to deceive does rather invalidate the ostensible core function of this publicly funded organisation. It throws everything they do into question. How could one possibly trust them? It quite literally wipes out their credibility as a broadcaster. And by extension, any claim to public funding or favoured status.

In a saner world, it would be the end of them.

I say ostensible function because it’s not altogether obvious – to say the least – how one could reconcile some supposed broadcaster’s mission to convey the facts, and to bring into being an informed citizenry, with doing everything possible to prevent precisely that.

And doing so in a manner one might regard as practised.

Update, via the comments:

Should anyone assume that our own BBC is any more trustworthy in this regard, by all means think again. Do note the willingness of senior BBC employees to lie, repeatedly. Brazenly. Supposedly in the name of some fluffy and fragrant tomorrow. As if we should be grateful for their efforts to deceive us.

Update 2:

In light of the above, it may be worth revisiting this gathering of Canadian media luminaries, at Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication, where much bewilderment is expressed regarding the public’s supposedly inexplicable dislike of journalists:

Readers amused by eye-widening self-flattery will find much to entertain.

Update 3:

In the comments, Martin D notes the BBC link, above, and adds,

What’s surprising, I suppose, even to the cynical, is the realisation that the omissions and bias aren’t just a result of carelessness or some subconscious preference, but are actively engaged in. Knowingly. By people – broadcasters – who are terribly progressive and therefore happy to lie.

Again, with the implication that it’s being done for our own good. As if we, the public, should be grateful for their efforts to deceive us.

I should add that the BBC has very recently admitted a correlation of migrant status and crime, albeit belatedly – very belatedly – and while trying to downplay the full extent of the phenomenon, again in ways that are deceptive.

And all it took was other people doing the job the BBC wouldn’t – while being badmouthed for it by the BBC and other mainstream media – and years of stabbings, assaults, child grooming, murders and rapes. Oh, and an attempted beheading or two.

170,000 offences in one year alone. That’s 473 arrests per day. Or if you prefer, one every three minutes.

Our betters, you know.

From the comments – which of course you’re reading – a phenomenon to ponder. A small but telling feature of our unrelentingly progressive times.

It began with this exchange from Question Time, the BBC’s flagship political debate programme, in which Green Party candidate Sarah Wakefield struggled with causality. Specifically, the apparently alien notion that a rapidly growing UK population – overwhelmingly a result of immigration – requires more housing. And thus the two topics – immigration and housing availability – being very much related.

🚨 WATCH: The Reform and Green candidate in the Makerfield clash over immigration

Sarah Wakefield: “Do you think if we locked down our borders, we’re going solve the housing crisis?”

Rob Kenyon: “The more people you have in the country, the more houses you need” #BBCQT pic.twitter.com/Fsog3KOFz8

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) June 4, 2026

Ms Wakefield is, it seems, somehow unaware that immigration accounts for almost all population growth over the last six years, and the vast majority of such growth over the last twenty years.

When not struggling with simple arithmetic, Ms Wakefield spends her time announcing that farming is riddled with “white supremacy” and is in need of “decolonisation.” British food production, says she, “entrenches racial oppression.”

Still, whatever her shortcomings in terms of readily available facts and observable reality, she does put her face to eye-catching use.

Which prompted the following from your host:

And,

In reply, commenter [+] shared a link to this video, which may amuse, and deployed the term Longhouse Face.

Which in turn brought us this not implausible observation:

Dicentra added,

Quite.

This facial phenomenon has subsequently, and happily, attracted wider attention. Among the commentary to be found elsewhere, this caught my eye:

Cue the meme.

Another glimpse into the mind of the scrupulously progressive:

Because, says Mr Gold, our pronoun-stipulating essayist, a sense of connection with one’s home, one’s territory, one’s ancestry and how one came to be, is “utterly arbitrary.” A thing of no importance, unworthy of consideration. Says he, or he/him, “The only sensible form of government is one-world government.”

You see, becoming even less important, even smaller in relation to the steering of the ship, one of billions instead of millions, is a good thing, it turns out. And that irrelevance is sensible, a thing to which the rest of us should apparently aspire. Star Trek, I fear, has much to answer for.

Mr Gold is happy to be described as a “rootless cosmopolitan.” Lofty and unaffiliated, and thus exempt from customary expectations. Because status, baby. One simply must be seen having those designer opinions. Whatever the practical consequences of those opinions might prove to be.

And while pointedly disdaining as foolish and low-status any sense of connection with, or affection for, the country in which he just happens to live, Mr Gold is simultaneously an emphatic supporter of Palestine, regarding which very different assumptions would seem to apply.

The world of things just happening, entirely by chance and for no reason whatsoever – in the progressive mind, at least – has been poked at here before.

From which:

Because apparently all things are possible in progressive metaphysics.

Update, via the comments:

Geoff asks, not unfairly,

Well, Mr Gold’s obliviousness does seem rather contrived, a modish affectation. And despite his ostentatious sneering at pretty much anything patriotism adjacent, I remain unconvinced that a country inhabited only by people who think as he does would long survive.

Readers may wish to ponder how Mr Gold, and doubtless many of his peers, can denounce Mr Trump as some kind of quasi-fascistic, totalitarian nightmare, an end to democracy, while simultaneously enthusing about a one-world government, as if the prospect had no implications for democracy.

Also, it’s unclear where the boundaries of this disdained patriotism are. Does it include the feeling that one’s country is more than a hotel, a holiday resort, or an economic zone? Does it include a background sense of attachment, of lineage and continuity, of history? Does it include the sense – say, while driving through the countryside – that “I like this place, I know this place”?

I ask because, while I’m not prone to flag-waving or wearing patriotic hats, I do understand a sense of belonging, of attachment, of home.

And I think I understand the kinds of people who disdain such things.

Though I can’t say I like them.

A question is asked and answered:

Highly neurotic, antagonistic, passive-aggressive. Borderline. https://t.co/xFEKa2jooG

— J.D. Haltigan, PhD 🏒👨‍💻 (@JDHaltigan) May 24, 2026

Bluesky is, it has to be said, a strange, unhappy place. One where everything, but everything, is fraught, problematic and seething with complication.

Including grilled cheese sandwiches and the paranormal:

Readers may recall previous mentions of the platform as a favoured watering hole for those who demand the pre-emptive deletion of untoward thoughts:

Got banned from BIuesky within the first 30 seconds for posting a biological fact pic.twitter.com/uxQzPVn2SR

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 17, 2024

People so immensely progressive that they are enraged by even polite statements of fact. Such that, in response to polite statements of fact, they issue repeated, quite colourful death threats and publicly share the polite person’s home address, including photos of his front door and directions to the nearest subway station.

One might almost appreciate the attention to detail.

People so immensely progressive that they then complain that the person being threatened, by them, has taken screenshots of said threats. Because, in the world of the immensely progressive, that constitutes harassment, the “doxing” of trans people, and indeed “trying to have them killed.” By simply quoting their own words.

Update, via the comments:

Rafi quotes this,

And adds,

Answers on a postcard, please.

The whole thing had an air of inversion and unrealism, of something not unlike madness. It called to mind the James Damore ‘Google memo’ incident, detailed here, or Cathy Newman’s bewildering interview with Jordan Peterson. It didn’t feel like a difference in political outlook, so much as one of incompatible psychology. It became quite surreal.

At one point, Mr Singal was the most blocked person on Bluesky*, with mass reporting campaigns and a petition of at least 18,000 Bluesky users demanding that he be banished immediately. Amid endless, openly malicious efforts at defamation and numerous, quite vivid demands that he be killed, with helpful instructions on how to go about that task.

The participants in this weird fever included Harvard-educated professionals, or supposed professionals, and alleged champions of decency and justice. Albeit of a kind who favour gratuitous pronouns in their bios, and who claim that the US is a “totalitarian fascist state.”

And lest we forget, this uproar, this psychotic reaction – what some have dubbed a tightening purity spiral – was not a result of Mr Singal being rude or abusive or racist or indecent, or anything of that sort. But for politely correcting factual errors and suggesting that maybe, just maybe, children shouldn’t be drugged and mutilated such that their lives will be forever ruined.

That’s quite a feat.

Much of the left-leaning tech-related media joined in the farce, of course, with claims that “marginalised communities” – people “who escaped Twitter” – escaped! – “now feel their Bluesky experience is at risk because of Singal’s joining.” As if he, one man, a political liberal who has only ever voted for Democrat candidates, were befouling their paradise, their refuge, “harassing” users with his polite statements of fact.

Taken as a snapshot of progressive psychology, a general mindset – like the ‘Google memo’ saga and the Cathy Newman interview – it was quite… revealing.

*That title, of most blocked, is now held by JD Vance, The official White House account, and the US Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.