leicsmac

It's a difficult one, particularly when different exponents of slavery did it on different scales and have different levels of benefit from it today. The differing levels on inequality between those asked and those doing the asking speaks for itself. There's no real right answer or right course of action here, I fear, except the idea that the UK and other developed nations perhaps should be doing as much as they can to help developing nations with their development. Are they doing as much as they can?

Is this overly surprising to anyone?

Rehan on form. Never had the NZers down to win a series in India. Good for them if they do.

Yeah, but you live in a place that at least has some semblance of food culture.

It's using ridiculous conspiracy theories to disguise something that is itself a legit conspiracy: some of those with power wanting to keep that power and the status quo and will use tools like this to do so, in the name of their own short term self interest, and at the long term cost of at best hundreds of millions of lives and at worst the future of human civilisation itself. The tinfoil hat wearers going on about the "Great Reset" and such are right to suspect a conspiracy. They're just focused on the wrong group of powermongers and afraid of the wrong kind of outcome; not 1984 dystopia, but Mad Max.

The fact that enough people buy into them to be able to affect political policy in a way that is almost always overwhelmingly negative is the terrifying part for me. As a species, we get a handle on our grasp or use of digital information and how it can be misused, or things will go badly. Quickly. (Well, worse than they are, anyway.)

I think it must be first over of first innings of the match, surely.

That's more fvcking like it.

I'm sorry, I thought the topic was how influential the evangelical bloc was in the US? Pardon if that's not the case. I think they have a lot of pull. The matter of the following of Trump (evangelical or otherwise) being cult-like is clearly a matter of debate and everyone will have their own take on that. You're absolutely right with the last paragraph, it happens all the time. I'd just rather not have that particular moral compass setting the agenda for everyone else though. For the sake of a great many people now and everyone later.

They certainly sway legal and political opinion though, if recent Supreme Court and Congress decisions and discussions regarding equal rights are any judge. Speaking personally, if they want to still believe it's pre 1950s with all the social repercussions that entails then that's their choice, it would just be nice if they didn't attempt to legislate their own morality for everyone else. NB. And if the above is sneering, so be it - groups that would inhibit equal rights for women and LGBT people without consent have no place in a modern society.

I think it's a legitimate concern, I don't think it's anywhere as high on the list as it's been placed and also that those who consider it a major concern also vastly overlook a problem that will result in that immigration "problem" becoming at least an order of magnitude larger in the future, which shows a lack of appreciation for actually solving the problem by looking at root cause. But evidently the narrative disagrees there.

Appreciate the additional info. I guess the point is that the economic policies might be ones that the debate can be clouded just enough on because of the complexity. When it comes to social and scientific policies, there is no such clouding - they are objectively negative and that cannot really be argued against. Unfortunately, economics and xenophobic dog whistling on immigration have dominated the policy debate.

FTFY but fair to say. Interesting that on pitches so conducive to spin it's that much of a rarity.

Agreed, but then that's why winning series away (especially in India, Oz or indeed England) is prized so highly - there's so many factors not in your favour. Isn't opening with a spinner rather par for the course in South Asia?

Think it's roughly even, if England had taken one more it may have been broadly their day.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the choice every time, but I would seriously advocate for the choice to exist. That's important IMO. Economically I don't think there's much evidence that things went bad. Socially and environmentally is a different story, but then those things often play into economics anyway. Long term though, I have to be honest, his policy on green matters will only end disastrously and that needs to be considered more.

Leach turning it round corners on day 1. Fun times.

... what do you do when such uncompromising zealotry has practically seized control of the political process and the consequences are both very stark and very bad?

That would be the best case scenario, yes. I fear that the sentiment has tapped into won't leave with him and/or will have caused irrevocable damage by that time, though.

Fair point on the first paragraph, I would just add that I have my own take solely because there are so many other situations (organ donation etc) where a life is reliant on another person's bodily autonomy and yet there freedom of choice seems entirely decisive there, so just focusing on abortion seems hypocritical and controlling. WRT the second paragraph, I get where the thought process of those folks is coming from, but it's a mistake that will cost other people a lot short term and everyone, including them, long term. It's deeply frustrating to know that, and have people choose their short term self interest and things go bad anyway. And put l yet people are still trying to nail Starmer to the wall regardless of how cool and calm and policy based he has tried to be. We've talked about this before and I know your point is good, but in this era I'm really not sure how effective "going high" is as a solution. But then going gutter as Trump is is no solution either, so I've no idea of a solution. I just hope that there is a solution, so that the future isn't inevitably very dark.

267. Difficult to judge, but for me...

It's an interesting case study as to why that happened. In fact, the whole era will make for fascinating reading in the future, I'm sure. Of course, "fascinating" doesn't always mean "good".

Fair enough. Personally, when the bad things will happen, I'm going to hold the people doing them as accountable for the most part rather than the other side for not doing the right thing to stop them. And I'm sure women thinking about their right to bodily autonomy, LGBT people and minority groups thinking about many equal rights at all, and the biosphere itself long term think similarly. Perhaps it's possible to address the systemic issues in US cities without throwing those things to the wolves.

I've seen a lot of talk about this and it sounds good and I'd notionally agree, but is there any proof that it would actually be effective when the other side can pretty much say what they like and essentially get a free pass for it? There has to be some kind of pathway forward to neutralise the sentiment Trump has tapped into, or we're all accepting the terrible consequences of it as a fait accompli.

What kind of a world do we live in when official criminal investigation can be utilised to actually boost a political campaign like that? If the Dems are so dim, what is the best pathway forward on this matter? Not a lot seems to work.