DaveR

"Ensure a Platonic hierarchy of everyone in their proper place" That's not what Platonic hierarchy means "Believe in autochthonous powers." And this doesn't really make sense, or at least it doesn't mean what you evidently think it does. I've said before that your posts make 'literally no sense', and to be clear I mean that they often do not have any coherent meaning if the words are understood in the conventional way, as opposed to just saying that I disagree (though I generally disagree with what you appear to be saying). Anyway, there was quite a lot of discussion in the press/media about the reasons for the employment/jobs figures, none of which resembled even vaguely your ridiculous caricature. Regarding the actual subject of the thread, mainstream economists have largely now accepted that they were wrong about the immediate effects of Brexit, but equally warning sensibly that positive figures now just represent relief that the world didn't end, recognition that the UK economy has some fundamental strengths, and a cautious sense that there may be a minimal damage Brexit process that is achievable. Huge uncertainty remains.

http://www.fwckungfu.com/clubs/dulwich/ The kids classes are in Herne Hill. My daughter loves it, and I'm pretty sure they have kids of 6 y.o.

I didn't see any of the series, but many of the materials from the original Booth surveys that were the starting point are available online in a searchable form. This is the home page: http://booth.lse.ac.uk/ This is the fairly short and anodyne description of Camberwell Grove: http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b373/jpg/39.html and these are the comments on the neighbourhood generally: http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b373/jpg/51.html

the philosophy textbook has been switched for a sociology one but the posts aren't making any more sense.

Talk of 'fault' presupposes that a wrong has been done, when what has actually happened is an unexpected result from a democratic process, but of a type that people on the other side of it cannot accept it as rational, and therefore legitimate. And I understand that, because tbh that was my instinctive reaction to both the Brexit vote and Trump's win. But talking about fault is pointless, because it doesn't offer any way forward, or even any useful analysis of the past. The time for catharsis is past (about Brexit at least), and Trump is such an inconsistent, contrary and improbable character to be US president that there's no predicting what might happen, and therefore what we may be seeking to blame people for. The wider Republican party are already beginning to outline a fairly conventional program that might be disagreed with but is not batshit crazy, and also includes some public spending policies that look suspiciously like 'anti-austerity'. And the chances of President Trump putting some of his more extreme promises into action already look like zero, or close to.

Why don't you remind us of how the vast majority of people (who of course, are not stupid) nevertheless believe whatever they read in the newspaper and so need to be protected from the lies of the mainstream media? Or perhaps you also believe that discussion of freedom is aporetic? FFS

So I get called a Nazi and Otta gets a pat on the head and "you really don't understand, do you?" What a pair of patronising f@ckwits. PS if I'm going to be insulting I'm not going to leave you in any doubt about it. PPS I note rh now talking about 'mainstream media' like a true tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist

'Make them act in a more measured way' = change what they say so I find it less objectionable. It's still an attempt at censorship based on your disagreement with the message. The already infamous "Enemies of the State " piece was undoubtedly stupid and highly irresponsible but not unlawful (as it would have been if it could really have amounted to an incitement to violence). Call it out but don't try and shut it down. NB to call this 'aporetic' literally makes no sense at all. Increasingly jaywalkers posts feel like someone has swallowed a philosophy textbook, a thesaurus and a few copies of the Guardian and then picked through the resulting vomit to construct a paragraph

"FFS, why do you feel the need to call everyone with a different opinion to you as a "liberal" (which you are clearly using as a perjorative? It's entirely possible to not be on the left side of politics and still think that newspaper doesn't deserve the title of journalism." The dictionary definition of liberal is "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas". Does that sound more like me or you? "Try not to make assumptions as to the political leanings of complete strangers, there's a good chap." And this is just a joke, given the assumptions made about my views on this thread. To be clear - this campaign is about censorship, and I am opposed to it, just as I would be if the target were a left-leaning publication. And I would expect anyone who actually believes in freedom of expression (rather than just freedom to say the right things) to oppose it too.

See Otta, you've been told. Next it will be suggested that you're a closet sympathiser. The illiberal so-called liberals who only want to hear the 'right' message

Rh, you're wrong. I don't have to explain or justify my political views but I've never made a secret of them. Ironically you are guilty of exactly the crime you accuse me of, sacrificing principle because of my own personal views. I loathe the DM and have real difficulty understanding the mindset it speaks to, but unlike you I genuinely believe in freedom. The answer is never censorship- it's better arguments

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship It's really not that complicated What is the purpose of this campaign if not to try and change the editorial content of the newspapers involved? At least other posters are honest about this. Rh just getting more and more weaselly

In answer to the question from rh above, yes - any act of power where the intention is to silence or restrict free speech should be opposed, and freedom of the press is well recognised as having a special quality in an open democracy. And coordinated economic activity is absolutely an act of power. Btw, wtf has auto da fe got to do with anything?

A boycott aimed at removing editorial content from a newspaper using economic coercion is no different from censorship using legal coercion. Weasel words don't change that. I'm against it, whether I agree with the content or not. Anybody who genuinely believes in freedom of the press should also be against it

"from DaveR: "Take a step back from this i.e. stop thinking specifically about the Daily Mail. This campaign is urging consumers to say to businesses, "use your commercial clout as major advertisers to exercise editorial control over the press" Really?? Why not? Why should we be lied to by Rupert Murdoch et al, and of course the owners of the Mail don't pay any tax in the UK according to Private Eye?" What if a religious leader urged his congregation to stop buying a particular newspaper unless it stopped supporting gay marriage? Or a gay rights campaigner led a boycott of a publisher who printed Bibles? Either you support censorship or you don't. I don't. It appears you do when you disagree with the message. Book burning anyone?

Take a step back from this i.e. stop thinking specifically about the Daily Mail. This campaign is urging consumers to say to businesses, "use your commercial clout as major advertisers to exercise editorial control over the press" Really??

Columnist in the Times put it this way - Trump's opponents and the media took him literally but not seriously, the voters took him seriously but not literally. Who was right remains to be seen.

The race/class/income point is ultimately a telling one, because (as BNG has observed twice but, it seems, been ignored) the swing to Trump occurred most dramatically amongst poorer whites. The point about the rust belt states and the white working class is not that they are the poorest - the poorest states are in the Deep South and the poorest people are disproportionately black - but that they are the ones whose fortunes have declined most precipitously, both in terms of income and status. Just as with the former UK industrial heartlands it is not just that jobs have gone but that they were well paid jobs that sustained whole communities, and across generations, which supported a strong sense of identity. There are undoubtedly race and class issues as well but they are tied to income and status - white folks in Pennsylvania are now no better off than their black neighbours and worse off than the fast growing Latino middle class all across the USA, and much worse off than 'bankers' and West Coast tech types (who are probably, shock horror, also gay). Is Trump likely to do anything to help these people (or at least anything more than Clinton)? No. Did he try harder than Clinton to reach out to them? Yes. Edited to add - to be clear, I'm not suggesting this is the whole story. Hillary has some unattractive qualities and some unfortunate episodes in her recent past, and on the other hand I'm sure there was also a fair amount of outright misogyny.

All he said was that everything you posted above (to the extent it was factual) was wrong, as a matter of verifiable history. He wasn't the only one to say that, because it was wrong. The idea that the UK in 1973 was 'the most powerful place on Earth' or was a world leader in the industries that you cite is so wrong that it's laughable.

"In the US, MPV's are called minivans are at least in the public psyche are VERY different. Mini vans are for people with kids. Their very practicality makes them deeply uncool and they have a whiff of having 'given-up' about them..." .....and this is the reason why SUV/crossovers have become so popular in the UK. MPVs took over the family car market (Citroen Picasso, Renault Scenic and of course Zafira) but they looked dull and worthy. The only body shape that keeps the high driving position and space but can be made more sexy is the SUV - QED. Plus, the Japanese manufacturers missed the boat in the MPV market and rather than trying to catch up decided to go different, and most already had bigger SUV ranges.

Random distribution is more likely to be 'lumpy' than evenly spread out. If the outcome of a lottery looks scrupulously fair it's more likely to be fixed.

I haven't read the full judgment but I understand that the key points were that (i) making the cake did not imply endorsement of the message (ii) the business discriminated between messages they were willing to put on cakes and those they weren't, based on their own beliefs and (iii) the message they refused to put on was supportive of a position likely to be strongly associated with a protected characteristic i.e. being gay makes you very likely to support gay marriage. There will be lots of other circumstances that look the same but don't fit with these points so may be decided differently. However, it does (it seems to me) draw a fairly bright line between commercial activities and other parts of life - when you are engaged in the former you are very likely to have to put your beliefs to one side and deal with the customer.

Suit and tie still default option for 'business dress', unfortunately Though I met recently with a guy from the Bank of England, and reluctantly put a tie on, then he turned up in an open necked shirt and bright red cardigan.

"Legally, they're probably fulfilling their duty. In spirit - no, there is no justification for Dulwich public schools being charities in my opinion." Is that just the Dulwich schools, or all public schools? And is it because you object to public schools per se? I genuinely don't have a strong view on this, but being a bit pedantic about it, whether a body is a charity or not is a legal question, and it has to be, because important legal consequences flow from it. There are lots of charities that, in my opinion, don't do much public good, and some that I think are basically wrong in their whole raison d'etre, but to deny that they are charities seems a bit pointless.

"There comes a time if you drink enough (15 pints maybe) where you can't make a reasoned decision" = lack of capacity