http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38359640 BA cabin crew (and baggage handlers) + post office + trains will it end? RMY president says he wants to bring down the government (but the strikes are about safety!) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rail-union-boss-vows-to-topple-tories-c0hm3r3sh
Not from what i heard on TV, apparently there were many more strikes during the winter of discontent.
No, that'll be the winter of 2019. LOL at the government saying that the strikes show "contempt for ordinary people". Postal workers and train drivers are now part of the globalist elite now, are they?
I don't think theres much sympathy for anyone striking in those industries, especially for those of us doing the same work in the "private sector".
Thatcher who created the Single Market, was pro-EU, against referendums as a way to make political decisions, and acknowledged global warming? I think she had some good points. Comparisons of Theresa May to Margaret Thatcher are an insult to Thatcher.
No she was pro eec but anti EU. The main issue which got her kicked her out by her own party was over the maastrict treaty. In fact the reason why we had the Referendum was caused by the rupture in the tory party over the formation of the EU at the end of thatcher's administration. Agree on the Theresa May point. I think the difference in quality at least between our last prime minister Cameron and Thatcher (and you know her propensity to believe in things like science) was Cameron got a PPE from Oxford but Thatcher had a degree in chemistry. If we just simply stopped with th Bs degrees and start having Bsc degrees again the country might be better run
God yes. It was because Thatcher had a proper science degree that she acknowledged global warming. Her view was that you can't argue with scientific fact. As for Cameron's degree: Otto: "Apes don't read philosophy" Wanda: "Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it"
Degrees aren't particularly difficult to achieve (finances not withstanding ) and don't offer much beyond a starting point for a career. So peeing match comparisons between disciplines don't offer much. That being said, in my world PPE means things like safety glasses, high visibility vests, steel toe boots etc. Which makes Cameron's degree amusing.
Pretty much this. A few years of Trump white racial policies and minority/Muslem persecution South China Sea will kick off and I'll be on the front line. NATO neutered and Russia will march through Eastern Europe to the German boarder Climate change causing regular catastrophic weather events Pakistan implodes into a new Afghanistan Mmm what else... Got a lot to look forward to.
The problem isn't with so much pissing contests. The problem is that these are often fields used to justify ideologies masquerading as disciplines. A degree in economics, the hardest social science, can be achieved by pure intellectual dishonesty. A dishonesty of such level that you convince yourself of the explanations for the allocation of resources to match what the conclusion of your own ideology would state anyway. Going back through my own work I realised this is all I achieved, moreover going through much of the research coming out of universities with a critical bent and you find their explanations often are convenient to their own beliefs rather than aligned with reality. Such fields make claims to truths that are in fact far beyond our comprehension and therefore produce solutions that involve interventions that cause more harm than is good. Going though the history of macroeconomic interventions and all have caused more volatility and usually a decrease in economic performance over the long run when in fact they were supposed to do the opposite. Other fields are much worse in many ways as they also posses an ideological monoculture and echochamber of which economics is at least not totally beholden to. (Edit: An anecdote I found worrying in relation to this was a friend who went back to university to study for social work and I remember him talking about having a self identified Marxist feminist professor and what was clear about this persons teachings was that it was simply sociology looked at through one ideological bent and of course most people don't critically analyse their education so it is very worrying for the future when in effect the people running and working in institutions are stuck to some degree in such a world view. Especially worrying in social care because of marx's and marxist veiws on the family. the prevalence of ideologues in non science fields is disturbing to say the least. It is becoming clear that such failings are leading to outcomes like this : http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/10/27/judge-calls-review-social-work-response-boy-lived-girl/) The issue when it comes down to it is that these subjects are often trying to bring order to the chaos of the natural interactions of human beings on a scale of eliminating harm which is impossible and moreover even if we could control things in such a way with government policy we shouldn't. This is when we come to the trade off between physical and mental safety and liberty. And don't get me wrong these are very intelligent people but more importantly the most very intelligent among us are only relatively intelligent and only in narrow fields of knowledge. Humans are incredibly limited creatures, my mind boggles lately on a daily basis of what I can't do, don't know and even those who use their intelligence to accomplish greater things than I ever will can't do and don't know. Most importantly from this is the problem with intelligence in regards to social issues is that it only makes one more capable of arguing their own delusions and biases both to themselves and to the world. It does not necessitate that one is correct.
Just as an aside: any clinical psychologist could and would have challenged that situation based on sound scientific knowledge.
Problem is that there are too many people with ideology based degrees and ideologically warped institutions and not enough dispassionate (at least as far as the facts go) clinical psychologists. But I think that in reality it would be plain to anyone who was being honest to the reality of the situation out side of ideology. Tbh I'm far from convinced that such things like transsexuality is anything more than a dysmorphic delusion and that the current methods of treating adults is in any way beneficial and that's before getting to societies worrying move towards trying to treat children with hormones that permanently sterilise or hormone blockers which even when puberty is initiated later there would be a sub optimal development as far as I can tell.
My default position here is that while this may exist. I think internet echo chambers amplify the extent and influence that these things have. As a note when I visited the campus of the last place I attended there was some of the "SJW bs" going on which amounted to two people sitting at a stand and literally 1000's of students walking past doing their own thing and not giving any notice or credence to it. There is intellectual dishonesty in all fields. Much of acedemia is not that important or influential. Only the absolute upper echelons of research has any real impact.