leicsmac

The exceptions that prove the rule, clearly. It is difficult to be sure, but I'd happily hypothesise that such issues have existed for a while.

I mean exactly that - the last sentence of the headline, in particular, is written for emotional impact, not so much for presenting fact. I don't disagree at all with the facts of the case and the interpretation of how horrible they are, but let's not pretend such an incident isn't being used as a means to generate clicks and to incite ill feeling and intent.

I think that there were, they were just not listened to or really paid attention to until something spectacular or dreadful happened. Then everyone wondered "how didn't we see this coming?" I guess people were expected to carry their burdens in silence, but as per earlier discussion I really don't think that's really an attractive concept to anyone except Calvinists and masochists.

Ah, so the Mail was just responsible for the photos and the provocative headline, then. My mistake.

Beg pardon, but as if the kind of managers that wouldn't offer that choice if it were feasible are the type to care in the least about mental health anyway.

Oh, no disagreement there. I was making the point that at least after a probation/training period, the option should be offered if at all feasible, rather than rejecting the idea wholesale.

https://youthendowmentfund.org.uk/reports/beyond-the-headlines-2024/summary/ This one shows that violent crime among children is going down, but I'll hold my hands up here and say the picture is more complex than just that and there are other factors at play.

It's the Mail. Say no more.

Why this isn't obvious to everyone is baffling to me. Offer the choice and accept that everyone has different ways to be productive.

Yeah, this is true, even though the numbers show that violent or other nasty incidents towards children and teenagers have actually declined in that time frame. Just goes to show how social media and the like has altered perception in spite of facts.

I think this very much depends on the person and more flexibility on such matters (where feasible) can only be a good thing. Erudite, thank you. I have to repeat the point once more though that even though declining birth rates at the present time will lead to a difficult bottleneck, I'm not sure there are any better options. The others appear to be a massive scaling back of rights for half of the human population, and/or a boosted birth rate through that or another means that causes resource scarcity issues and then a unmanageable population crash anyway.

Nothing there to be disagreed with tbh. The only thing I'll add is that, yes, I do think every generation should strive to make things at least as easy for the next one as it was for them. Never bought into the Calvinist BS about excessive suffering being somehow necessary for character and/or simply a fact of life.

There certainly is an expectation that things should be easier for younger generations... but then IMO that's one of, if not the, key objective of society in the first place. To build on what's come before to make the world an easier, more comfortable, better place for those who come after us. Not look to screw them over in the name of self interest. That's the very nature of progress. Which leads rather neatly into the next point; there certainly was more inequality 300 years ago, but then there was less 50 years ago (in terms of straight income figures anyway). And that suggests that societies are regressing, not progressing. Which, naturally, is a problem.

That's because it's rightly pointed out to be fallacious, and if you think that even a decent proportion of average younger folks are spending a little over 13k a year on the above, then quite frankly that's fallacious too. In any case, systemic inequality is building and on the topic being discussed, while the population growth in developed nations both slowing and ageing resulting in a demographic issue described as by posters above is bad, it may remain the best possible bad option and I'm stumped to think of a future outcome that is better on this topic.

Oh, I absolutely agree that they could try in the way that you suggest, or even manufacture consent in the way @Dahnsouff suggests, and either could well work. They certainly have the mentality, and the power, to try and succeed at either. I was thinking more that insular mindset in of itself, through looking at this issue and other issues in this particular way, would still end up failing because such a tribal mindset is doomed to failure anyway - in this instance, either through allowing birthrates to balloon and so resulting in resource crises, or through simple rebellion after enough time has passed. Or other possibilities that I've not considered.

I have no idea how these people haven't grasped the fact that it's either this steady decline followed by a plateau that must be managed as best we may... or a catastrophic population crash, including "theirs". Perhaps they do know it, but denial is a strong emotion.

A suspended sentence and some work in the community helping other people not to be bigots sounds about right to me tbh. Edit: plays rather neatly into the above discussion about some folks wanting freedom from consequences.

The Earth will disabuse all of them of that notion at some point. Probably abruptly, probably painfully.

To elaborate on this a bit, I reckon what they want is freedom from consequences. They want to be able to abuse their power in peace and treat people as things without being pulled up for it, as those laws world do and seek to do. And they're looking to inspire others to do the same. Needless to say, that cannot happen - and it won't happen. Because, for all the money and power that they have, they are still only human.

They may will try. The good news is that such an attempt is guaranteed to fail, given their idea of traditional nationalism and ethnostates cannot survive the way the world is changing. The bad news is that such failure will screw everyone, not just them.

Because not doing so makes failure (to the ruin of all) inevitable, rather than just probable. I know it's dispiriting, but those who actually care about the future beyond their own eyes have to keep fighting the good fight.

On the general topic, Musk is reacting in roughly the expected fashion to the European Commission giving him and Twitter a fine, then.

Quite right, isn't Old Winchester good enough for you?

I think it might be because a small group of people obsessed with the idea of having and abusing power and leveraging the idea of nationalism to further the above have managed through deft manipulation to convince enough voting people that even that slightest idea of cooperation is somehow offensive to... some kind of ideal.

Fair to say, and it's possible you're right and I'm not here. The only thing that I'll add is that should that be the case, at least there will still be a civilisation to speak of for at least a while. I don't think there are any such guarantees if any of the other usual suspects were/are running the show.