leicsmac

Up with Nasser at the Gabba in 2002/03 that. Bazball in full flow.

I think it depends on the individual sporting authority for each sport and which rules they've chosen for such things. How they make those distinctions within each sport... well, on that I have no idea.

That's an interesting coincidence, isn't it?

Yep, it tallies that an overall temperature increase will result in an overall more "tropical" climate in the UK and other places of similar latitudes. More humid, wetter summers (and generally hotter too) and much less snow and cold in winters. And if people like that idea because "hey, it's like going abroad!", go look up the effects of frequent flooding and the top ten tropical diseases that affect humans and animals with their associated knock on effects and get back to me.

I can imagine they strike a chord with kindred spirits in other parts of the Anglosphere.

Yes, it would be nice. Necessary, too. I'm not sure that the current level of success in international cooperative projects (or at least compared to what is needed) really bears this out tbh. Believe me, I wish it were the case.

Though tbh this might merit a thread of its own as I'm not sure how electiony it is...

Perhaps this is overly utilitarian of me, but for me the crux of this issue comes down to how useful these ideas of cultural and national identity are at actually making the world (or just one corner of it, even) a better place. (And just to define that, "better" = longer, less suffering life for more people than before.) Sometimes they are useful, sometimes they're really not, and the real skill lies in being able to pick the between the two given a given situation.

Interesting discussion here that has been spoken about on here in the past. Fair to say, but I would hope there is agreement with the last paragraph because evolutionary history shows pretty clearly that unity and coordinated action as a species is, in at least some cases, essential to long term survival.

Because when such supremacist ideas emerge, history shows quite clearly they tend to come hand in hand with the desire to prove that supremacy through acts of war, enslavement and oppression.

Yep. Bet he's getting a tidy sum for speaking to a practically empty room.

Yeah, would confirm what was said above, really, apart from adding that there are a great many people that do take what it prints very seriously indeed still. Their online presence is larger than the printed one.

I dunno, the alt-right grift circuit over there is pretty lucrative, and evidently that can stand in place of self-respect.

Fair to say. I could well be letting the obvious policy advantages for people of all demographics (rather than just a couple) blind me to their similarity on attitude towards the UK, tbh.

I'd certainly side with the EU on practically any issue, and I'd actually side with China on environmental future issues at the present time, over a Trump headed US administration. I think it does depend on the administration in the White House, though. Contemptuous. Of everything outside his borders and almost everything inside of the "wrong" skin colour. Oh, and any woman not meek and submissive, too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn07e2ep20no The deputy prime minister has dismissed comments by Donald Trump's running mate for US vice president that UK under Labour might be the first "truly Islamist" country with nuclear weapons. JD Vance, the Ohio senator chosen as Mr Trump's vice presidential candidate on Monday night, made the comments while at the National Conservatism conference in Washington DC last week. The 39-year-old said he was "beating up" on the UK, and had discussed with a friend “what is the first truly Islamist country to get a nuclear weapon", then joked "maybe it's Iran, maybe Pakistan kind of counts, and then we sort of decided maybe it's actually the UK since Labour just took over". Wonder what diplomacy will be like with an administration who is so obviously contemptuous?

On a more optimistic note, however, there does appear to be a broader developed world consensus on what needs to be done getting done - Russia, India (to a degree) and the US (if the Repubs win in November) being the only significant outliers. Unfortunately, they are all very important outliers, and this issue doesn't have room for large free riders.

Tbh I'm much more in a solutions than problems mode. Everyone wants to talk about what won't work, perhaps it might be nice to actually have people pop up with what will, rather than simply writing the issue off because it's unsolvable. I think it could be articulated as clearly as you like and the ideological bollocks would still get in the way and be difficult to shift. And unfortunately then, the best options to shift it become themselves nasty, as talk and debate no longer works. Exhibit A for the above. Anyone sane should be anxious, and angry. How do you address this kind of stuff in the way necessary to bring round enough people to get meaningful action going? I wish I knew.

I understand it too, and I sympathise. But again, it cannot and will not be an excuse for them should things go sideways.

Yep, you're right, as evidenced by polling data on the most important issues to people (this issue barely hits the top 10), and I've heard this argument advanced before. It's clearly compelling. However, it really is an explanation rather than an excuse because people not prioritising this issue, whatever the reason they have for doing so, will certainly end up rebounding on other people now and possibly themselves and those they hold dear later. People's reasons for overlooking this issue don't absolve them of responsibility for it now, and responsibility for the consequences down the line. At least, I really don't think it will when folks are looking for someone to blame in a few decades. Of course, that leaves a few people in impossible situations where every choice is bad, but it would be nice for the legacy of this particular era of humanity to not have been the ones who killed the world.

Lots of things right now.

Couldn't help but bring this over here... @DJ Barry Hammond: "Ok, but if a fair proportion US population kinda like that sort of stuff and will vote for it in sufficient numbers - what can you do?" You could make an argument for most of the other stuff like that, but I'm not entirely sure that just accepting voting for policy decisions that then will result in (minimum) hundreds of millions of people having to migrate or die in the next few decades is itself entirely acceptable. Is it really fair to have climate policy set by a few people that will then end up harming a great many others - and indeed maybe themselves, in the end?

*copies directly from Project 2025*

....to hell in a handbasket directly it is, then.

Farage: "The narrative that is put out there about Trump by the liberals that oppose him is so nasty... that I think it almost encourages this type of behaviour." Talk about the pot and the kettle.