leicsmac

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w792x0ggyo.amp The English section of South Korea's gruelling college entrance exam, or Suneung, is notoriously difficult, with some students comparing it to deciphering an ancient script, and others calling it "insane". So intense was the criticism around this year's test that the top official in charge of administering it resigned to take responsibility for the "chaos" it caused. Imagine, at the end of your high school/college route, doing a single all or nothing exam where this was one of the questions - in a language that wasn't your own? Kant was a strong defender of the rule of law as the ultimate guarantee, not only of security and peace, but also of freedom. He believed that human societies were moving towards more rational forms regulated by effective and binding legal frameworks because only such frameworks enabled people to live in harmony, to prosper and to co-operate. However, his belief in inevitable progress was not based on an optimistic or high-minded view of human nature. On the contrary, it comes close to Hobbes's outlook: man's violent and conflict-prone nature makes it necessary to establish and maintain an effective legal framework in order to secure peace. We cannot count on people's benevolence or goodwill, but even 'a nation of devils' can live in harmony in a legal system that binds every citizen equally. Ideally, the law is the embodiment of those political principles that all rational beings would freely choose. If such laws forbid them to do something that they would not rationally choose to do anyway, then the law cannot be: (1) regarded as reasonably confining human liberty (2) viewed as a strong defender of the justice system (3) understood as a restraint on their freedom (4) enforced effectively to suppress their evil nature (5) accepted within the assumption of ideal legal frameworks.

"Commonwealth of Democratic States" involving all of those nations plus Canada, Oz, NZ, Japan and (South) Korea please. That's a lot of soft power.

I think that's a possibility tbh. Perhaps the above mentalities are changing a bit. Given recent history it's too much to call China anything close to a friendly, but the fact remains that they're the only big player doing the long game anywhere close to how it needs to be done and if the UK can collaborate in that particular area if no other, then it should.

The whole mentality belongs back in the 20th century, and that's being generous. Mind you, has there ever been a time when there hasn't been a lot of people with massive nostalgia filter affecting the way things are done in the present?

I think it's also to do with the current approval rating.

It is an unfortunate fact that far too many people haven't pulled their heads out of that or the 1950s timeframe.

The added twist here being that Trump is in hock to Putin who some people think is a Communist, but clearly isn't because otherwise why would he be nice to him?

Make bank, guarantee the future of civilisation. What's not to like?

Good to see the US proving its moral calibre to be different from places like Russia and China again. ... right?

Yeah, if they throw him in there now he's just going to get Kerrigan'd. That would be pretty awful.

Fair point well made tbh. I guess it's a hope rather than expectation that something might go differently and this administration will get a rather large public humiliation.

I am so very glad I'm not looking to go anywhere near while it's still in hock to the death worshipping fascist enablers. Just hope that this blows up in their faces when they have to vet so many people coming in for the World Cup next year. Humiliation and farce is what they richly deserve.

And particularly over there, where the ones bankrolling and driving that celebrity culture have been and are utterly brutal in their search for money from their "product".

Something a bit different: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c989e9xxn5po Celebrity culture is the same the world over.

That, of course, being one of the key weapons of those who either wish for or simply enable that f-word. Obfuscation and denial gives the people with that ideology the time and the freedom to do as they wish. As Trump and his supporters, for one, are doing. The road to darkness in the 1930s was paved with people saying "overreacting" or "that'll never happen".

Mate, we've gone over your sociopath kink before. I've already said I'm not going to judge you

The scariest thing is, for me, the amount of people either in denial about that or actively wanting to see it.

Yeah, but he won't. And as an addendum, people like him and their consequences are the logical outcome of nationalist sentiment, given enough time for it to grow. A glance at history shows, time and time again, that such sentiment, with just enough people either believing in it or simply enabling it, nearly always leads there.

It won't be very funny, but there may be a certain dark satisfaction. Perhaps the look on their faces when they realise all their money, all their influence over people, all their pious little belief, means absolutely nothing...witnessing that brief moment of realisation might be worth what comes afterwards.

I'm not going to go full-bore like Sampson above here, but I will say this: A world with the philosophy of "winners" like Putin and Trump embody only ends one way - with everyone losing. You know that because you're smart, so please don't chat as if what's going on now is either desirable or inevitable unless you're so nihilistic that you think that outcome is inevitable too. And all the time, prime Mike Tyson is rapidly finishing his warmup and is ready to take on every single comer who is causing him grief. And even those that aren't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w9ge93w9po A key UN report on the state of the global environment has been "hijacked" by the United States and other countries who were unwilling to go along with the scientific findings, the co-chair has told the BBC. The Global Environment Outlook, the result of six years' work, connects climate change, nature loss and pollution to unsustainable consumption by people living in wealthy and emerging economies. It warns of a "dire future" for millions unless there's a rapid move away from coal, oil and gas and fossil fuel subsidies. But at a meeting with government representatives to agree the findings, the US and allies said they could not go along with a summary of the report's conclusions. As the scientists were unwilling to water down or change their findings, the report has now been published without the summary and without the support of governments, weakening its impact. When the dust has settled, when the corpses (human and otherwise) have been counted, when there's no more time for activity, there will be accountability. And it will be of the swift and brutal kind. I just hope enough people remain that can witness it and learn from it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clydlwldkvko US President Donald Trump has criticised European leaders as "weak" and suggested the US could scale back support for Ukraine. In a wide-ranging interview with Politico, external, he said "decaying" European countries had failed to control migration or take decisive action to end Ukraine's war with Russia, accusing them of letting Kyiv fight "until they drop". He argued that Russia held the "upper hand" and urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to "play ball" by ceding territory to Moscow. In the UK, Downing Street rejected Trump's claim that Europe had failed to act, citing the UK's leadership on sanctions and reiterating support for the US-led peace process As if there were any more proof needed about which "side" the US is on.

I know that the context is entirely different but that choice of words given interactions on the sci threads in the past did make me snort a bit. On the general topic of discussion here, people can can talk about "legitimate concerns" all they like (and some of them are legitimate, don't get me wrong), but that isn't the endgame to those with the actual power to set policy. Ethnostates enforced by violence is. Done in the name of those "legitimate concerns". And if folks think that's unfair because they're damned either way, they'd be absolutely right. But that is how it is.

On this topic, I wonder what the cleanup % of cases for things like vandalism and theft is now compared to 30 years ago, for instance.

It's possible the data is tainted, but then equally it may not be. I would still hypothesise that right now overall is a less violent UK than even a few decades ago.