Also in the news

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62602913

 

An armchair misogynist actually getting some kind of consequence for his actions? Glory be.

[Facecloth]

53 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62602913

 

An armchair misogynist actually getting some kind of consequence for his actions? Glory be.

Now claiming it was all a comedy character. 

 

Well OK, but that "comedy character" is filling young lads with stupid ideas and dangerous misogynistic attitudes.

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Now claiming it was all a comedy character. 

 

Well OK, but that "comedy character" is filling young lads with stupid ideas and dangerous misogynistic attitudes.

I know six year old students that come up with better excuses regarding undone homework than that.

 

And English isn't their first language, too.

[ClaphamFox]

 

[urban.spaceman]

27 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

She was sanctioned by the UK recently, here's her entry:

 

 

 

 

Well if it isn't the consequences of my actions.

[I am Rod Hull]

On 20/08/2022 at 12:33, leicsmac said:

I know six year old students that come up with better excuses regarding undone homework than that.

 

And English isn't their first language, too.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, I am Rod Hull said:

......???

[thursday_next]

According to the BBC, the colonial-era law banning gay sex in Singapore has now been repealed. Why do the BBC do this? Do they really hate Britain so much that everything is our fault? It's clearly nothing to do with the Singapore government, who are most remarkably liberal and would, had they noticed the statute remaining on their books, have instantly repealed it, along with the death penalty for drug offences and caning people for messing around with parking meters 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, thursday_next said:

According to the BBC, the colonial-era law banning gay sex in Singapore has now been repealed. Why do the BBC do this? Do they really hate Britain so much that everything is our fault? It's clearly nothing to do with the Singapore government, who are most remarkably liberal and would, had they noticed the statute remaining on their books, have instantly repealed it, along with the death penalty for drug offences and caning people for messing around with parking meters 

More on this:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62545577

 

Is the expectation now that the BBC should lie (either directly or by omission) about such things? Of course, the Singapore government could have repealed it before now (however it appears that for a while they simply didn't enforce it) and for that they are culpable, but it is a simple matter of record that the law first came onto the books as a result of British colonial rule. 

 

That the expansion of the British Empire came with a certain fundamentalist religious tenet that thought homosexuality was an abomination before a deity is a fact (that still lingers in a few places) and IMO that should be acknowledged rather than simply ignored out of embarrassment or distaste.

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

More on this:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62545577

 

Is the expectation now that the BBC should lie (either directly or by omission) about such things? Of course, the Singapore government could have repealed it before now (however it appears that for a while they simply didn't enforce it) and for that they are culpable, but it is a simple matter of record that the law first came onto the books as a result of British colonial rule. 

 

That the expansion of the British Empire came with a certain fundamentalist religious tenet that thought homosexuality was an abomination before a deity is a fact (that still lingers in a few places) and IMO that should be acknowledged rather than simply ignored out of embarrassment or distaste.

You would think that British rule ending 80 years ago, in which time the British have dramatically improved the legal treatment of homosexuality, might make this an irrelevant side point not worthy of inclusion.  The suggestion the Singaporeans don't have agency which is both nonsense and feels a little racist.  Edit:  Although I note this probably came from the original statement by the Singaporean leader - Politicians do like to blame others for things they should have done years ago!

Edited 22 August 2022 by Jon the Hat

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You would think that British rule ending 80 years ago, in which time the British have dramatically improved the legal treatment of homosexuality, might make this an irrelevant side point not worthy of inclusion.  The suggestion the Singaporeans don't have agency which is both nonsense and feels a little racist.  Edit:  Although I note this probably came from the original statement by the Singaporean leader - Politicians do like to blame others for things they should have done years ago!

Yeah, fair enough. I just take issue with the inference that the original British origination of the law has no culpability on the present circumstances of the story whatsoever, when that's clearly inaccurate.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62587445

 

Just down the road!

 

I think that the article overstates the risk here, though, the situation remains as it was a while ago; the NK's know they can't win a war against the South Koreans/US (the best they can do is destroy both halves of the peninsula), so they won't start one in the name of their own self-interest.

[Jon the Hat]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62587445

 

Just down the road!

 

I think that the article overstates the risk here, though, the situation remains as it was a while ago; the NK's know they can't win a war against the South Koreans/US (the best they can do is destroy both halves of the peninsula), so they won't start one in the name of their own self-interest.

I do worry that if China find themselves in conflict with the US over Taiwan that they might use NK as a distraction.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I do worry that if China find themselves in conflict with the US over Taiwan that they might use NK as a distraction.

I'd say two things about that:

 

- If the Chinese would ask the NK's to do something that is tantamount to national suicide to help them as a distraction, one would hope that the NK leadership would take a look at it, then a look at what they have for themselves right now, and just say 아니요.

- If shit does get real between the US and China regarding Taiwan, then I think what happens in Korea is not going to matter much in the global picture anyway because such a conflict where members of the nuclear club directly face each other in the field could easily escalate to a very bad place.

[thursday_next]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, fair enough. I just take issue with the inference that the original British origination of the law has no culpability on the present circumstances of the story whatsoever, when that's clearly inaccurate.

I don't know enough about the origins of homosexuality in Singapore before the British came, but I'm reasonably convinced that the Singapore government would have taken a dim view of it, rather than encourage the Singaporeans to promote themselves as a gay sex paradise. It's of it's time, like human sacrifice and Christianity and the burning of witches. I do note that we are advocated not to go down the Singaporean route as regards labour relations, and that appears to be all right.

 

On a separate note, I don't think the Chinese would invade Taiwan. They don't need Taiwan to become a smoking ruin, which is what would inevitably happen. They are understandably concerned that the US don't poke their noses in it, much as the US would regard armed Chinese intervention in Mexico or Canada. I may be wrong, but that's my view.

[Captain...]

8 hours ago, thursday_next said:

According to the BBC, the colonial-era law banning gay sex in Singapore has now been repealed. Why do the BBC do this? Do they really hate Britain so much that everything is our fault? It's clearly nothing to do with the Singapore government, who are most remarkably liberal and would, had they noticed the statute remaining on their books, have instantly repealed it, along with the death penalty for drug offences and caning people for messing around with parking meters 

That was in the 3rd sub heading providing history and background to the law not the main focus of this article. However they did link to an article from 2021 which does explain the background and the colonial legacy in Asia. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57606847 it is as a direct result of British colonial rule. It's just a fact and an interesting read. I don't see any reason to be upset by an expansive article with background and history.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62630034

 

Hmmmm.

[Countryfox]

Olaf Sholz is obviously VERY annoyed about this topless young lady protesting whilst he is talking ..  

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, thursday_next said:

I don't know enough about the origins of homosexuality in Singapore before the British came, but I'm reasonably convinced that the Singapore government would have taken a dim view of it, rather than encourage the Singaporeans to promote themselves as a gay sex paradise. It's of it's time, like human sacrifice and Christianity and the burning of witches. I do note that we are advocated not to go down the Singaporean route as regards labour relations, and that appears to be all right.

 

On a separate note, I don't think the Chinese would invade Taiwan. They don't need Taiwan to become a smoking ruin, which is what would inevitably happen. They are understandably concerned that the US don't poke their noses in it, much as the US would regard armed Chinese intervention in Mexico or Canada. I may be wrong, but that's my view.

From what records remain of what might be loosely defined as "native" cultures around the world in history, their views on LBGT matters pretty much run the gamut from acceptance to strict forbiddance. I'm not really sure about what Singapore was like before British colonisation either in that regard, but what is certainly a fact is that while those "native" cultures had ranging views on it, the European colonisers, backed by their belief in certain parts of Scripture, certainly did not.

 

On the second paragraph, I'd agree with that assessment of the situation and I hope we're both right.

[Countryfox]

Headline today .. 

 

"China planning to carry out 'cloud seeding' following weeks of extreme heat which government have blamed on climate change" 

 

Irony isn't a strong enough word ..  

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Countryfox said:

Headline today .. 

 

"China planning to carry out 'cloud seeding' following weeks of extreme heat which government have blamed on climate change" 

 

Irony isn't a strong enough word ..  

 

 

It would be ironic if the consequences weren't going to be felt everywhere rather than just there. That just makes it sad and anger-inducing in equal measure.

 

China far from being the only big contributor in town right now or in history, of course.

[Countryfox]

And while we're at it ..  in the same article ..

 

"The country is suffering a serious growth slow down and food and power shortages following disruption caused by COVID restrictions"

 

Well you shouldn't try and develop weapons from bat blood you bunch of clowns !!

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

And while we're at it ..  in the same article ..

 

"The country is suffering a serious growth slow down and food and power shortages following disruption caused by COVID restrictions"

 

Well you shouldn't try and develop weapons from bat blood you bunch of clowns !!

It's like the powers that be both in China and elsewhere have never watched any science fiction disaster movie.

 

Rule 1: "You mess with or fail to understand forces of nature at your extreme peril."

 

Actually, Rule 1 might be "actually believe the scientists telling you what is going on right at the start" but you get the idea.

[foxes1988]

16 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Headline today .. 

 

"China planning to carry out 'cloud seeding' following weeks of extreme heat which government have blamed on climate change" 

 

Irony isn't a strong enough word ..  

 

 

We cannot solely blame them though.  I think pinning down greenhouse gases to particular countries is troublesome with the interconnected nature of globalisation.  All the stuff we buy from China, if they didn't make it someone else would.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

We cannot solely blame them though.  I think pinning down greenhouse gases to particular countries is troublesome with the interconnected nature of globalisation.  All the stuff we buy from China, if they didn't make it someone else would.

Of course.

 

And to add to this, it's not like the Earth is going to exact retribution solely on the ones who have wronged it the most, is it? So while pointing fingers of accountability may well make one feel better and may indeed be accurate in some cases, it's also irrelevant unless humanity takes collective responsibility and acts on the matter anyway.

 

Or doesn't, and those who put the world into vastly reduced circumstances are recorded in infamy for posterity. Unfortunately, that list would likely include every single developed nation on the planet.

Edited 22 August 2022 by leicsmac