Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

How the best educated turn out so rotten is beyond me

Often sacrifices must be made to advance the cause of the Greater Good.

Or if you're less generous, "what does it matter what happens to the peasants? We've got plenty of them as it is."

There is a book that provides a possible answer... a Lawyer written it and is about the corruption within Lawyer ranks and not the typical "Lawyers defense the guilty" swill but things like Lawyers sleeping with their clients.

Basically you are training you entire life for a prestigious position, being told of the riches and accolades of even reaching that pinnacle. Then you FINALLY reach it and...

It is nothing like what you thought it was. Politics SUCKS! By its very nature it is gridlocked to hell and back.

Which not only kind of crushes spirits but... think of it... They were offered something... and they will get it! even if they have to bend a few rules to do it.

THAT and well... Lawyers and politicians have genuine power over people.

At least that is what I think the book talks about >_<... basically the problem with politicians can be seen with other "Top tier" jobs (Ignoring CEOs... that is another beast)

[Loud Whispers]

Often sacrifices must be made to advance the cause of the Greater Good.

Or if you're less generous, "what does it matter what happens to a few of the peasants? We've got plenty of them as it is."

There's always moments in warfare when an army officer has to order one of his men to make an action that will in all likelihood result in his death, and this soldier will go forth and follow this command with the full knowledge that they'll not see the next day. Why does the officer give this command, why does the soldier follow it? Because their sacrifice will bring the war closer to its end and closer to victory.
In Western militaries the whole force consists of well-trained and elite volunteers, who follow their commanders because they want to. If they stop wanting to follow their leaders, the whole structure falls apart as a fighting force. Thus one cannot treat their soldiers like a Chinese warlord treated his peasant conscripts, or they will soon cease to be your soldiers.

That is the practicality of sacrificing for the greater good. There is an objective to work towards, and self-sacrifice is not enough - a leader must sacrifice others to advance to this goal, using all means possible to inspire their followers to achieve this good regardless of their own interests. It just so happens to be fortunate that was is pragmatic is also morally righteous, you're not going to want to follow a leader that is in plain terms a complete bellend.

Looking at the actions of Spanish or British leaders who sabotaged their own people's healthcares in order to advance their goals, it fails to be seen through this lens as advancing towards a greater good. These leaders are responsible for providing (in one of the most direct ways possible) for the welfare of their citizens, yet are actively willing to sabotage the welfare and destroy the lives of their own citizens just to discredit their political opponents' arguments. When the debates are over and they are reviewing their political careers, their citizens who had their lives ruined in such squabbling will have little consolation that any greater good was achieved in their sacrifice, all that was achieved was one bloke got to score more political points on the polling charts.

That is what separates those who are ruthless from those who are merely rotten. It is why I also believe the defeated leaders of last year, as distant as that year feels, failed so miserably - looking at how to destroy their opponents, not how to inspire their followers.

[Baffler]

Often sacrifices must be made to advance the cause of the Greater Good.

Or if you're less generous, "what does it matter what happens to a few of the peasants? We've got plenty of them as it is."

There's always moments in warfare when an army officer has to order one of his men to make an action that will in all likelihood result in his death, and this soldier will go forth and follow this command with the full knowledge that they'll not see the next day. Why does the officer give this command, why does the soldier follow it? Because their sacrifice will bring the war closer to its end and closer to victory.
In Western militaries the whole force consists of well-trained and elite volunteers, who follow their commanders because they want to. If they stop wanting to follow their leaders, the whole structure falls apart as a fighting force. Thus one cannot treat their soldiers like a Chinese warlord treated his peasant conscripts, or they will soon cease to be your soldiers.

That is the practicality of sacrificing for the greater good. There is an objective to work towards, and self-sacrifice is not enough - a leader must sacrifice others to advance to this goal, using all means possible to inspire their followers to achieve this good regardless of their own interests. It just so happens to be fortunate that was is pragmatic is also morally righteous, you're not going to want to follow a leader that is in plain terms a complete bellend.

Looking at the actions of Spanish or British leaders who sabotaged their own people's healthcares in order to advance their goals, it fails to be seen through this lens as advancing towards a greater good. These leaders are responsible for providing (in one of the most direct ways possible) for the welfare of their citizens, yet are actively willing to sabotage the welfare and destroy the lives of their own citizens just to discredit their political opponents' arguments. When the debates are over and they are reviewing their political careers, their citizens who had their lives ruined in such squabbling will have little consolation that any greater good was achieved in their sacrifice, all that was achieved was one bloke got to score more political points on the polling charts.

That is what separates those who are ruthless from those who are merely rotten. It is why I also believe the defeated leaders of last year, as distant as that year feels, failed so miserably - looking at how to destroy their opponents, not how to inspire their followers.

I hate to do devil's advocate like this, but discrediting their political opponents, from the perspective of a politician, is for the greater good. Higher polling numbers, however they got there, mean stronger public support and a stronger mandate, which means in turn a stronger majority in government, meaning that (their) ideology can be turned into policy more quickly and more purely. There's a reason the Golden Mean is considered a logical fallacy. Compromising with someone who is just plain wrong only dilutes the effectiveness of the end result. People are comfortable with the current system, and even though there's a better one available they're not willing to change out a known good for an unknown regardless of its promise. They needed a shakeup to get moving, so it was delivered to them in the best way they know how.

All that assumes, I guess, that the politician really does believe Neoliberal policy (which I pick because that's what these in particular believe) is the best way to prosperity for everyone and aren't just indulging some sort of sociopathic streak and using their office to get more money and power over others. It might seem petty but I personally think that it's important to separate Knights Templar from run of the mill narcissists. They act in the same way and deserve the same consequences (and I definitely can't tell one from the other from my office chair let alone do anything about it, heh) but one is misguided or perhaps corrupted by a toxic political landscape, while the other has a personality disorder.

[Leafsnail]

The Tory plan is basically to fuck up the NHS enough that privatisation options become attractive. I guess they don't care about the suffering caused in the process if they don't think people have a right to healthcare in the first place.

[TD1]

May went further than I thought she would in her speech.

[Loud Whispers]

Aw yiss she did it, she said we're leaving single market and pursuing bespoke free trade deal

Maintaining common travel with ROI, very good, very good

Intrigued that she's thrown her support for MPs voting on final deal but Lib dems are opposing it now, complete reversal of positions in the span of weeks for them all
Pound looking good, markets found her speech sexy
6/10, better than expected

[TD1]

Indeed. I'm quite pleased with her for the first time, though I have a friend who is very worried about science - he's looking for an Israel type deal, and believes this approach is dangerous to that.

[Loud Whispers]

I know that this, and the other reasons that Britain took such a decision are not always well understood by our friends and allies in Europe. And I know many fear that this might herald the beginning of a greater unraveling of the EU. But let me be clear, I do not want that to happen. It would not be in the best interest of Britain. It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain's national interest that the EU should succeed. And that is why I hope in the months and years ahead, we will all reflect on the lessons of Britain's decision to leave. So let me take this opportunity to set out the reasons for our decision, and to address the people of Europe directly.

It's not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is, many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom's place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world. There are other important reasons too.

Our political traditions our different, unlike other European countries we have no written constitution. But the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is the basis of our unwritten constitutional settlement. We have only a recent history of devolved governance, though it has rapidly embedded itself, and we have little history of coalition government. The public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly. As a result, supranational institutions as strong as those created by the European Union, sit very uneasily in relation to our political history, and way of life.

Mfw she gets the  L O C A L  P O L I T I C S

And while I know Britain might at times have been seen as an awkward member state, the European Union has struggled to deal with the diversity of its members and their interests. It bends towards uniformity, not flexibility. David Cameron's negotiation was a valiant final attempt at making it work for Britain, and I want to thank all those elsewhere who helped him to reach an agreement. But the blunt truth as we know, is that there was not enough flexibility on many important matters for a majority of British voters. Now I do not think these things uniquely apply to Britain, Britain is not the only member-state where there is a strong attachment to accountable and democratic government, such a strong internationalist mindset, or a belief that diversity in Europe should be celebrated. So I believe there is a lesson in Brexit, not just for Britain, but if it wants to succeed for the EU to ask itself, because our continent's great strength has always been its diversity. And there are two ways of dealing with different interests, you can respond by trying to hold things together by force, tightening a vice-like grip that ends up crushing into tiny pieces the very things you want to protect, or you can respect difference, cherish it even, and reform the EU so that it deals better with the wonderful diversity of its member states. So to our friends across Europe, let me say this, our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of the values we share. The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours. It was no attempt to harm the EU itself, or to any of its remaining member-states. We do not want to turn the clock back, to the days when Europe was less peaceful, less secure and less able to trade freely. It was a vote to restore as we see it, our parliamentary democracy, national self-determination and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.

Cheeky lesson to yurop, do not crush that you love

We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to buy your goods and services, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship. You will still be welcome in our country as we hope our citizens will be welcome in yours, at a time when together we face a serious threat from our enemies. Britain's unique intelligence capabilities will continue to help to keep people in Europe safe from terrorism.

007 BONGLAND SAVE YUROP

At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain's servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty.
We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.

Knocked it out the park

Full speech here

Indeed. I'm quite pleased with her for the first time, though I have a friend who is very worried about science - he's looking for an Israel type deal, and believes this approach is dangerous to that.

This kind of deal?

[TD1]

Yep.

Guess which epistemological pursuit he wishes to follow - hint: It's not the arts

[Sergarr]

Can someone update me on Brexit, because I've heard rumours that May may have just went full retard a few days ago and I want to know if that's true

[LoSboccacc]

"And by "full retard" I mean she has an opinion different from mine but because I'm infallible she must be dead wrong."

Right?

[Sergarr]

Last time I've heard not even Brexiteers themselves have campaigned for Hard "Leave the single market completely" Brexit

That's because it's an objectively dumb move in the lieu of Trump's "let's put a 35% import tariff on anything that's not produced in USA" ultra-protectionist proposal that hurts everyone and benefits no one.

[Neonivek]

Last time I've heard not even Brexiteers themselves have campaigned for Hard "Leave the single market completely" Brexit

That's because it's an objectively dumb move in the lieu of Trump's "let's put a 35% import tariff on anything that's not produced in USA" ultra-protectionist proposal that hurts everyone and benefits no one.

In fairness to Trump I don't think it is meant to benefit anyone. It is patriotic/nationalist diatribe.

[Sheb]

Peter Chase of the GMF has a nice idea: the US, UK and rEU could use the TTIP as a vehicle to negotiate the new trade relationships of the UK.

[Sheb]

Depend what it looks like in the end, after Trump has a say in it. A lot of it is actually decent.