Yeah but these are often accompanied by us flying all of our military aircraft over London. I think the analogy holds, even if ours is a bit eccentric.
I'm not American (but we do get a lot of US Pol foisted on us), so forgive me if I'm missing something...
I thought the US democratic party was basically everyone more left wing than Joe Manchin. There are 'third parties', but in general the broad church argument applies... Anyway aren't USians able to actually pick the candidates that stand for those parties?
So wouldn't you use the generals to vote 'against' Republicans, but then use the primaries process to vote for the shape of D you wanted? Here that's not an option, the party puts up candidates. But you have the ability to pressure the candidates even after they are elected.
Might be a long shot, but is inherently less fatalistic than just giving up, or even (as seems disturbingly popular these days) calling for some form of civil war.
My version of the take is; The world will be on average easier if more people are pleasant to each other. You can't make everyone join in, but you can make the world better on average, which surely is good enough?
I think a lot of people in this thread are overstating the suspicion of outsiders. International trade has existed for thousands of years. There was even limited tourism in the middle ages. It would be rare to encounter people that you couldn't communicate with, but I don't think you'd be automatically sacrificed.
I'm in London, so would fare better than most as they would definitely be familiar with outsiders. That said people in many of the old European cities would likely be able to blag their way to local universities. Oxford definitely already existed 650 years ago so I'd start by heading there.
I think all scholarly writing was in Latin at the time, so I'd need somebody to translate, but (with luck) I could move maths on a couple of hundred years. I reckon I could get basic electricity going too. Obviously the more you said upfront the more suspicious people would be, but if you drip-fed knowledge over a few years, trying to let the steps rest upon each other you could probably share a lot of what we know today.
I love how memes (in the Dawkinsian sense) work. Lots of people have enjoyed this, but I can imagine this being quoted as the original is lost to the sands of time.
Young people everywhere thinking that Aquaman was someone who just bought failing assets from everyone.
I'm not sure this is fair. I don't think this is in lieu of such a conversation, but about some ideas on how to pitch the conversation. If you don't have any friends in similar circumstances, it's worth finding out what other people do.
That said, the range of suggestions here is so broad that I'm not sure it's going to help!
I'm hardly a biblical scholar, but that interpretation doesn't feel like it fits with the rest of the passage...
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
It says turn them the other cheek also, after 'do not resist'. So it's about offering even to the worst, rather than resisting.
Jumping on here, because this is often overlooked. If you didn't know the title of the film, and someone played the first 20 mins to you you'd expect a hallmark film. Going to see the estranged wife, trying to repair a relationship, the awkwardness at the Christmas party.
The whole thing subverts Christmas movie tropes. It's not just an action movie set at Christmas. It's a Christmas movie which gets hijacked.
Even the final scene plays on the parody with the 'snow' falling, the comedy comeuppance for the nuisance bad guy, and then they kiss and drive off as 'let it snow' plays.
There's another issue too. In perfect conditions, self-driving cars are a lot safer, but they aren't 100% safe. So when an incident occurs it's newsworthy. (In the same way that we hear about plane crashes anywhere in the world, but won't necessarily hear about someone getting run over in the next city).
My hypothesis is that adoption would be throttled in even near perfect conditions. Just because we've internalised the risks of driving, but haven't for the risks of being driven by a computer.
The point seems to have gone quite a long way over your head. The person above is advocating for a system where transit/active travel is the easy option. Not one where you have to up your commute by 500% to do the right thing.
It's not, "just use transit", it's "please make it easier to do so".
Does nobody else find the framing of this article a little weird?
I thought the argument for boosting the economy, was because it correlated well with people's well being. (Not that I personally but that, but I understand the line of thought).
Now instead we're suggesting that human outcomes are important because it boosts an arbitrary measure? I feel like the cart is now dragging the horse along the ground.
I think the author comes to the same conclusion as you, but then rules it out because Labour themselves seem unwilling to do it.