leicsmac

The Colombian President absolutely tore into the current US administration on this matter. Good to see.

Pretty much. And either enough of the world turns things around and "gets it right", or the effects will mean no one will.

Superb. The only thing this is missing is foreign policy, for which I'd view things rather simply: be a part of the international community and help other nations to to address core problems so at least try to retain their own citizens and so increase living conditions across the board, and view the Commonwealth Anglophone/Scandic nations as friendlies, while all the big powers (China, Russia, USA) are at best international cooperation business only and at worst detrimental belligerents who should be treated as such - at least until any of their governments change.

...such as? I'm thinking Scandinavia and possibly Canada/Oz/NZ and a couple of places in Europe, but I'm not sure about much elsewhere. Would say East Asia as well, but seeing as it's often a British thing to not want to bother to learn other languages with even a bit of complexity in structure... That is a few, though. NB. I do think though the issues above wrt age demographics and economic effects are going to be felt in a lot of places, including those mentioned here.

If the sentiment is true, it won't just be the UK that's finished. That particular generation is facing problems in so many places. And, more importantly, no government or organisation with both the power and foresight to actually address those problems properly.

Fair to say on both counts. As much as R. Buckminster-Fuller was right about "specious notions", too many folks are clearly not ready for that degree of change yet, so an paradigm based on as much employment as possible until the day such things can properly change is the best idea. And though preservation of life and health should take precedence over any monetary concern as both are beyond price, it really should be a fundamental right that a person can choose the time, and the manner, of passing from theirs, if that is their steadfast wish. The above things being said, increased automation/AI developments are going to cause a big change soon enough anyway. Either it goes utopian and does in fact level the playing field with some kind of universal basic income structure, or it goes dystopian and the gap between the haves and have-nots goes straight back to the Gilded Age, with all the trouble that entails.

I agree the wrong targets are being selected here, but those talking about the wrong targets being selected appear to have no idea of who the right targets are either (or they do but for whatever reason think it wouldn't work), which doesn't really add up for me. I'm not asking for peer review and spreadsheets (though that would show some competence and rigour), but it would be nice for at least some pointers as to the best way forward rather than simply stating how the current one doesn't work - even if that's accurate. Otherwise we get caught in a spiral where everyone knows things are wrong but no one knows how to make them right, and where are we all left then? NB. I've stated a few solutions to various issues in the past, some folks just seem to think that some ways to make the future better are somehow too "radical" or won't work due to Appeal to Nature fallacies or somesuch.

Just goes to show that there's a pretty broad church of Leicester fans about, with a lot of interests and knowledge that extend beyond the club. And I agree, compared to other places where sensitive topics get discussed, it is very, very courteous and articulate for the most part.

As far as I'm concerned, problems and solutions are inextricably linked and it's a bit poor form (yet rather common) for people to state problems without ideas for actually making things better. I'll be the first to say that I don't have a clue about the logistics of the best way forward, but I do know that inequality is rising and targeting that appears to annoy a lot of people seemingly scared of treading on the toes of the rich rather than tugging their forelocks to them.

The Doctor clearly has his position on the matter, but as far as I can see most of the time he's posting peer reviewed studies and interpreting them in a scientific fashion, which is as close to fact as we're going to get on the topic, IMO. WRT the rest of the post, I hope that you're right and whatever path we take forward, decent people won't have to suffer the consequences of people's bigotry on this matter, institutionalised or otherwise.

Fair enough, you're certainly right in that it's very much not an easy discussion and personal feelings do tend to bubble up, as has happened here in the past and has sometimes resulted in threads getting 86ed. I'll leave it at that too, hopefully amicably and with no hard feelings either way.

The underlying trend driving it should be too.

WRT scientific truth, open any biology textbook at university level or above and it becomes very clear that sexual dimorphism in humans, while broadly true, is only that - broadly. Another poster on here - The Doctor - has forgotten more on that than I and everyone else on here knows and has taken the time to educate multiple times, it just seems that people have chosen not to listen. And yes, I do see the point being made in the second paragraph (it's a long slippery slope, but that's not to say it doesn't exist) and I'll happily admit, as I have in the past, that this is one issue where I have personally seen decent people, people who have done no harm to anyone and never would, suffer because of people's ignorance of their lives, and as such it is rather difficult to stay objective.

And I hope that the cost of that isn't more people ending up like Brianna Ghey. Edit: just to be clear about the point being made here, where do people think the sentiment that starts here (as necessary as it may appear) ends in the minds of some?

On the current taxation topic; If the current ideas being floated by the government aren't going to work and a wealth tax isn't going to work because the rich people will all leave/caterwaul in the press/manipulate the media to get their own way...then what will work? Honestly, what way forward is there that won't involve cutting services that turn out to be critical with the associated consequences for at least some vulnerable people? Or is what happens to them acceptable - the human cost for maintaining a "stable society"? Come on, let's talk solutions, not problems.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxn40ep4x2o The freedom to take the consequences is the freedom upon which all the others are based.

I think there's always been an element of that, it's just that more people have louder voices these days. That said, the impeachment proceedings of Nixon (very bipartisan, pretty much everyone accepted the wrongdoing) versus that of Trump (highly partisan, his party refused to censure him despite doing much more wrong than Nixon) shows how things have changed. Perhaps the digital era hasn't really helped there, I don't know.

Not before time either - until now, there's been far too little actual resistance to some of the awful policy decisions of the current government from the establishment Dems.

... or this is a rather good gaslighting attempt. Or a bit of both is going on, perhaps. Either way, AFAIC things have run their course here because we clearly have polar opposite views that aren't going to change, so I am really going to leave it there, and leave it to other people to be the judge about it all.

Anyhow, some news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2kp8dex14xo Shutdown going well, then.

I'm sorry, but if there's another way that viewing humans as inherently violent comes out, then I'd be happy to hear it. Pardon me for getting frustrated at such a worldview, especially when it's being used by some very powerful, very nasty people to do some very nasty things, both historically and today. But then worldviews are worldviews and life's too short to take all this too personally.

And likewise, because you appear to view that reality as defined by violence and all the associated suffering, human and otherwise. I guess leave it at that and let whoever is watching decide which is worse?

I'm saying that at the very least we can overcome it with the necessary effort of will - that's the entire basis of a civilised society. And, quite frankly, I've heard enough paltry justifications for shitty self interested and oppressive violent behaviour because "oh, that's just human" to last me a lifetime. We can do better. Should. Must. Anything else is just mud-grubbing death worship.

Guess it depends on whether one is a cynic who thinks humans have the inherent capacity for beating the shit out of each other. In any case, the man represents a differing turn from the horrific (and violent) orthodoxy that has taken hold in the US right now, and that's a good thing.

Correct answer is at the top of the list, folks. /thread