leicsmac

Addendum: this is happening already and has done for a long time. Social media has helped accelerate it.

That sounds ideal in principle. Given attitudes at the moment, I do wonder how it would work in practice, though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwyvyqkx9yo One of the most famous polar shipwrecks has been filmed in detail on the sea floor for the first time. The Terra Nova carried Captain Scott and his men on their doomed expedition to reach the South Pole more than a century ago. The British party lost the race to the pole, and died on their return journey in 1912. The footage shows the Terra Nova colonised with sea life, but key features of the wooden ship are still visible including its wheel, winch and mast. Interesting piece. The more you look at what happened though, Scott really didn't stand a chance. Amundsen was better prepared, better equipped and a better leader.

I think this is a tricky one with few good options - there's too many people who simply do not think that the way things are being expressed right now isn't (at least from some areas) blatantly bigoted. So calling them out directly won't work, and neither appears to be the approach they've taken with "legitimate concerns". Third option?

It's been interesting reading all of this over the past day or so. Lots of parallels when complaining on the main forum section about the LCFC manager - criticism, some of it warranted based on results, but precious little discussion of which viable alternative would be better and why.

Anti future of the biosphere, with all that entails.

It's their reporting on matters of science policy that could and in all likelihood will lead to the most damage IMO.

There's a lot of things that really shouldn't be a debate, tbh. Unfortunately, in this era, it appears that even established fact is up for the talking shop. Not a good thing in a lot of circumstances of course.

Fair enough, if someone thinks it's zero tolerance then it's zero tolerance. That's an entirely legit viewpoint to take. Just to be clear though, I don't have a horse in this particular race, and I'm going to appeal to much bigger problems as my area of focus. If she goes, she goes, if she stays, she stays.

Guess it depends if a person thinks the involvement of more money makes them think it's a bigger problem that deserves a greater level of attention. I think that's reasonably self-evident, but each to their own. NB. Still curious about linking more conservative viewpoints with self-interest and towards the future, if anyone wants to voice an opinion rather than tactfully avoiding the topic.

Don't worry, I'm sure his friend Felon#47 will offer him another favour or two for being his man in the UK while he's there.

Love how the UK apparently nicked the Arc d'Triomphe without the French noticing.

And, funnily enough, that attitude to governance can be a little negatively consequential when the problems involve consequences that aren't subject to human control. In short, nature abhors ostriches as much as Big Nige does.

You can want that, sure. But it's clear from their platform and what Tice has said that you can't have it. People should know what they're voting for in terms of policy when they pick a party and own all of it - not just the bits that they wanted to vote for. And that's my point - too often people disingenuously look to disavow horrible things with "that's not what I voted for". Yes, as long as it is quoted policy, when you put vote in, you did. Own the responsibility.

Again, "collateral damage" to "stop the boats", apparently.

Yes. And yet, apparently a statistically significant proportion of people in the UK are willing to write off decent lads like your grandson as collateral damage in order to make a point about another issue.

And we come back again to the definition of life skills and how they are applied. There's so many wooly words, I wish people would define what they mean when they use them a bit more.

In other news, Tice choosing SEN kids as the next Reform target. Well, it was either that or the LGBT community as a whole, I guess.

And to add to this, such incitement can now easily become a matter of political policy, by virtue of digital media bringing enough people together to form a significant voting bloc on an issue. That lets the extremism described above not only become normalised, but politically acceptable.

The whole Mises Institute, come to that. That being said, I would like to hear an argument in favour of such self interest as it pertains to the future because like I said, I've not heard one and I want to know if there is an argument there or it is simply that they don't assign importance to that future. I don't think so, but I guess we shall see.

Would be interested in hearing any viewpoint from those more given to individualism on here on this one, to be honest.

I think they're playing both sides right now, and there's a lot of animus between the Asian nations that we in the West don't go into the depths of.

See above regarding definitions of intelligence. Personally, I've no idea how someone with even a modicum of smarts cannot or will not consider things outside their line of sight in their reasoning (even in the cause of mutual self interest), but that's me. Again, individualism and Just World Fallacy taken to its logical outcome. Every single human in anywhere approaching a modern society relies upon, and should appreciate, the labour of people they have never known and never will for keeping that society running and giving them the comforts they enjoy.

The Just World Fallacy has a lot to answer for. Additionally, there's a reason it and general inequality that it is one of the drivers of are known and listed as one of the biggest problems our species faces

I'm yet to hear an argument from that particular area that actually considers factors beyond short term personal gain to be honest. Earnings don't mean much when you have no resources to buy with them and preserve the life and comfort of yourself and those around you. Edit: I guess it comes down to how a person defines intelligence; either through making short term gain, or considering the future of themselves and others.