Daniel Elstein
@danielelstein.bsky.social
Philosopher at the University of Leeds, centrist dad. Research: meta-ethics, normative ethics, political philosophy.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
Although it feels like I am shouting into the void about this sometimes, I want to share some further thoughts on the “Zionism is Racism” motion which the Green Party is due to debate in the next 16 hours.
Just to address various points which I think people in general should know.
A thread:
Just to address various points which I think people in general should know.
A thread:
October 4, 2026 at 2:30 AM
Although it feels like I am shouting into the void about this sometimes, I want to share some further thoughts on the “Zionism is Racism” motion which the Green Party is due to debate in the next 16 hours.
Just to address various points which I think people in general should know.
A thread:
Just to address various points which I think people in general should know.
A thread:
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
This is the funniest thing I've seen today, possibly ever
October 2, 2026 at 2:39 PM
This is the funniest thing I've seen today, possibly ever
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
After a long day at the aquarium, the otters help tidy their toys away. Payment is made promptly and entirely in ice cubes.
September 26, 2026 at 3:56 PM
After a long day at the aquarium, the otters help tidy their toys away. Payment is made promptly and entirely in ice cubes.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
SCHEP is a new thematic hub for Social Care, Health, Ethics & Philosophy at the University of Leeds. Our aim is to foster a collaborative, cross-disciplinary teaching and research culture that builds on our existing strengths. Follow us for updates on events, research, and teaching collaborations!
September 25, 2026 at 9:22 AM
SCHEP is a new thematic hub for Social Care, Health, Ethics & Philosophy at the University of Leeds. Our aim is to foster a collaborative, cross-disciplinary teaching and research culture that builds on our existing strengths. Follow us for updates on events, research, and teaching collaborations!
So I guess we're on to "critical support for Jacob Rees-Mogg" today. Didn't have that one in my calendar.
September 23, 2026 at 5:31 PM
So I guess we're on to "critical support for Jacob Rees-Mogg" today. Didn't have that one in my calendar.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
1/23
Sorry, this will be long...
There is a lot of shouting about what happened in the Channel yesterday.
So I want to go back to basic law. Not immigration policies or political rhetoric.
At sea, the starting point is simple:
Preservation of life comes first under all maritime conventions.
Sorry, this will be long...
There is a lot of shouting about what happened in the Channel yesterday.
So I want to go back to basic law. Not immigration policies or political rhetoric.
At sea, the starting point is simple:
Preservation of life comes first under all maritime conventions.
Worrying scenes in the Channel today, for all interested in asylum policy and maritime tactics.
A small boat from Normandy spent more than 30 hours at sea. Those on board now on their 2nd rescue vessel as Border Force forced to play cat and mouse with far-right activists who have their own boat.
A small boat from Normandy spent more than 30 hours at sea. Those on board now on their 2nd rescue vessel as Border Force forced to play cat and mouse with far-right activists who have their own boat.
September 22, 2026 at 8:48 PM
1/23
Sorry, this will be long...
There is a lot of shouting about what happened in the Channel yesterday.
So I want to go back to basic law. Not immigration policies or political rhetoric.
At sea, the starting point is simple:
Preservation of life comes first under all maritime conventions.
Sorry, this will be long...
There is a lot of shouting about what happened in the Channel yesterday.
So I want to go back to basic law. Not immigration policies or political rhetoric.
At sea, the starting point is simple:
Preservation of life comes first under all maritime conventions.
This is a really interesting thread. Of course it is tempting to respond to this bit with the snarky, "You mean poasting *isn't* praxis?!?". But I actually have a somewhat serious question/doubt about this. If the attention game has bad political effects, why don't those have to be fought within it?
There's also the political hobbyism thesis, from Eitan Hersh, who says your time On Here, in the attention game, is worse than wasted: it makes you *feel* like you're doing politics, & so being a good citizen keeping up with events, but actually you're a passive consumer (& citizenship is active).
Politics Is for Power
A groundbreaking analysis of political hobbyism—treating politics like a spectator sport—and an urgent and timely call to arms for the many well-me...
www.simonandschuster.com
September 21, 2026 at 6:25 PM
This is a really interesting thread. Of course it is tempting to respond to this bit with the snarky, "You mean poasting *isn't* praxis?!?". But I actually have a somewhat serious question/doubt about this. If the attention game has bad political effects, why don't those have to be fought within it?
I think it's worth contextualising this a bit. When I teach intro phil mind, the students would of course be expected to understand that there are physicalist views that reject multiple realisability.
This take would fail any undergraduate intro to philosophy of mind course. Also a textbook example of a false dichotomy!
September 21, 2026 at 9:15 AM
I think it's worth contextualising this a bit. When I teach intro phil mind, the students would of course be expected to understand that there are physicalist views that reject multiple realisability.
A pretty wild report from OpenAI this: alignment.openai.com/misalignment...
September 17, 2026 at 12:24 PM
A pretty wild report from OpenAI this: alignment.openai.com/misalignment...
It is unfortunate that this guy pronounces so confidently on things he knows nothing about. How could he possibly know that consciousness is biological? He might be right that Anthropic's approach is misguided, but this is an unserious way of making that argument.
Microsoft says AI rival Anthropic could have 'disastrous impact' on humanity
Mustafa Suleyman says he believes the AI giant is in effect teaching Claude it "may be conscious".
www.bbc.co.uk
September 16, 2026 at 7:24 PM
It is unfortunate that this guy pronounces so confidently on things he knows nothing about. How could he possibly know that consciousness is biological? He might be right that Anthropic's approach is misguided, but this is an unserious way of making that argument.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
Your Grandad Cyclops talks about his school days
September 16, 2026 at 1:43 PM
Your Grandad Cyclops talks about his school days
This is a cool point applying the theory-ladenness of perception in a way that is new to me.
This is something that frustrates me about films like *Midsommar*.
The nightmarish thing about the premodern era isn't that people were on drugs (they broadly weren't, that's mostly neopagan New Age retrojection) or that they were liars. It'd be comforting if that were true.
They really saw demons
The nightmarish thing about the premodern era isn't that people were on drugs (they broadly weren't, that's mostly neopagan New Age retrojection) or that they were liars. It'd be comforting if that were true.
They really saw demons
I think some of this is from how the Salem Witch Trials are taught. Like it was all about wealth, power, and grievance. But like as someone who was raised in that circumstance, I can tell you that all of those reasons are still filtered through their beliefs.
Like it is very very real to them.
Like it is very very real to them.
September 14, 2026 at 6:46 PM
This is a cool point applying the theory-ladenness of perception in a way that is new to me.
I didn't know about this finding before. What's funny is that philosophers would mostly assume that the reason for this is just that they are really good at critical thinking, and so able to avoid holding important beliefs unreflectively.
Many of you will know the famous finding from @existwell.bsky.social and Derek Anderson:
Philosophers' views on philosophical questions are not predicted by their personality traits
But why not? I asked Anderson about this, and he had a very intriguing suggestion
philarchive.org/rec/YADTPO-2
Philosophers' views on philosophical questions are not predicted by their personality traits
But why not? I asked Anderson about this, and he had a very intriguing suggestion
philarchive.org/rec/YADTPO-2
September 12, 2026 at 6:50 PM
I didn't know about this finding before. What's funny is that philosophers would mostly assume that the reason for this is just that they are really good at critical thinking, and so able to avoid holding important beliefs unreflectively.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
I think we need some word for people who speak in the name of universal values, but can't really be bothered to advocate on behalf of the victims of Hamas terror without being pressured or shamed into it
September 10, 2026 at 8:43 PM
I think we need some word for people who speak in the name of universal values, but can't really be bothered to advocate on behalf of the victims of Hamas terror without being pressured or shamed into it
I suspect the government has the following theory of fascism: half the voters are toddlers and fascism is what happens when they throw a tantrum; therefore the goal is always to avoid the tantrum; talk of "legitimate concerns" etc. is necessary to placate the toddlers.
If someone acts on their 'concerns' by attacking people in their homes and by biting and throwing rocks at cops, no one should assess if those concerns are 'legitimate' or not. That violent behaviour waives any claim to 'legitimacy'. The phrase comes across as justifying violence, not condeming it.
"Legitimate concerns" is starting to feel very "you had people that were very fine people on both sides"
September 7, 2026 at 12:01 PM
I suspect the government has the following theory of fascism: half the voters are toddlers and fascism is what happens when they throw a tantrum; therefore the goal is always to avoid the tantrum; talk of "legitimate concerns" etc. is necessary to placate the toddlers.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
Feminist theory remains undefeated in explaining the weirdest parts of the Trump administration.
I'm just going to keep posting this skeleton-key-to-MAGA passage, written over 40 years ago, until everyone gets it.
I'm just going to keep posting this skeleton-key-to-MAGA passage, written over 40 years ago, until everyone gets it.
September 4, 2026 at 2:44 AM
Feminist theory remains undefeated in explaining the weirdest parts of the Trump administration.
I'm just going to keep posting this skeleton-key-to-MAGA passage, written over 40 years ago, until everyone gets it.
I'm just going to keep posting this skeleton-key-to-MAGA passage, written over 40 years ago, until everyone gets it.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
This really is very good. The diagnosis is spot on, the delivery is refreshing and real. Now we have to hope he can back up these powerful words with real, radical action that starts to reverse it all.
Andy Burnham DESTROYS years of privatisation in first speech in Commons as Prime Minister #politics
YouTube video by PoliticsJOE
m.youtube.com
September 2, 2026 at 5:13 AM
This really is very good. The diagnosis is spot on, the delivery is refreshing and real. Now we have to hope he can back up these powerful words with real, radical action that starts to reverse it all.
Interesting thread. I think it's worth disentangling different reasons why we might want to protect religious and other beliefs. I agree that it doesn't make sense to see discrimination on ground of belief as fully analogous to racist discrimination, but not clear what follows from this.
25 years ago some of us argued against applying anti-discrimination legislation to belief in the same way as race
I do feel those arguments are worth revisiting and also that the extension beyond religious beliefs that we were then accused of invoking as a red herring have come to pass
I do feel those arguments are worth revisiting and also that the extension beyond religious beliefs that we were then accused of invoking as a red herring have come to pass
August 27, 2026 at 4:05 PM
Interesting thread. I think it's worth disentangling different reasons why we might want to protect religious and other beliefs. I agree that it doesn't make sense to see discrimination on ground of belief as fully analogous to racist discrimination, but not clear what follows from this.
One of the things Stephen notes here is that many austerity measures were real but reduced public services but more than they reduced costs. For example, cutting support for being to find/stay in work just increases the bill for unemployment benefits.
My column this week is the product of my frustration at a series of myths that I think have grown up at Westminster that provide comfort to the various parties (not all of which I had space to grumble about) to avoid confronting the real choices we actually have:
Austerity denial and the mystery of Britain’s shrunken state
There is a ready supply of explanations on offer at Westminster
www.ft.com
August 25, 2026 at 9:54 AM
One of the things Stephen notes here is that many austerity measures were real but reduced public services but more than they reduced costs. For example, cutting support for being to find/stay in work just increases the bill for unemployment benefits.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
still one of the greatest conversations ever put on TV.
August 24, 2026 at 3:38 AM
still one of the greatest conversations ever put on TV.
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
you say trains are real. this is curious. because jd rockefeller is a very unpleasant person, and he owns most of the trains which you say work. this is a conspiracy by big train, funded by jd rockefeller, to scam investment money for trains, which do not work
August 24, 2026 at 10:48 PM
you say trains are real. this is curious. because jd rockefeller is a very unpleasant person, and he owns most of the trains which you say work. this is a conspiracy by big train, funded by jd rockefeller, to scam investment money for trains, which do not work
Reposted by Daniel Elstein
One of the first "outrageous" claims I saw as Jason Arday's media hounding unfolded was that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days!
Wow!
What a thing to claim!
And the newspapers all suggested there was no evidence he actually did it.
Well, they clearly didn't look very hard 🙄
🧵
1/26
Wow!
What a thing to claim!
And the newspapers all suggested there was no evidence he actually did it.
Well, they clearly didn't look very hard 🙄
🧵
1/26
August 22, 2026 at 11:22 AM
One of the first "outrageous" claims I saw as Jason Arday's media hounding unfolded was that he ran 30 marathons in 35 days!
Wow!
What a thing to claim!
And the newspapers all suggested there was no evidence he actually did it.
Well, they clearly didn't look very hard 🙄
🧵
1/26
Wow!
What a thing to claim!
And the newspapers all suggested there was no evidence he actually did it.
Well, they clearly didn't look very hard 🙄
🧵
1/26
I am mildly cross that there are no Powell & Pressburger films on this list - A Canterbury Tale was I think made in part to explain Britain to Americans. But TIL that Kevin MacDonald (the director of Touching the Void) is Emeric Pressburger's grandson!
Apparently this is the list of British films included in the booklet accompanying the British Citizenship test.
Unfortunately, if familiarity with the films on this list is one of the criteria for being a British citizen I think we're going to have to deport everyone under the age of 50.
Unfortunately, if familiarity with the films on this list is one of the criteria for being a British citizen I think we're going to have to deport everyone under the age of 50.
August 21, 2026 at 3:54 PM
I am mildly cross that there are no Powell & Pressburger films on this list - A Canterbury Tale was I think made in part to explain Britain to Americans. But TIL that Kevin MacDonald (the director of Touching the Void) is Emeric Pressburger's grandson!
The whole Jo Maugham deal here seems to be: the Arday affair should have been a straightforward academic misconduct case, but unfortunately became this poisonous culture war thing instead - we're all trying to find the guy who did this.
August 19, 2026 at 9:12 AM
The whole Jo Maugham deal here seems to be: the Arday affair should have been a straightforward academic misconduct case, but unfortunately became this poisonous culture war thing instead - we're all trying to find the guy who did this.