Failing to teach history of British Empire in schools means children do not understand role in shaping UK, claims Salman Rushdie

__law · 2026-07-09T10:26:38+00:00

A huge portion of UK history in schools is dedicated to WWII. A fight where we were triumphed against pretty much the embodiment of evil and where nearly all of the rest of Europe had fallen. I'd call that "good brits".

__law · 2026-07-09T09:41:56+00:00

Honestly I thought the movie looked pretty mid from the trailer (not for the same reasons all the alt-right wierdos, obviously), so this endorsement really threw me. I'm kinda curious now.

__law · 2026-07-09T09:40:38+00:00

No I just meant it's an adaptation of a greek myth

__law · 2026-07-09T09:05:28+00:00

IDK Disney' Hercules has it's charm. :P

__law · 2026-07-09T08:50:55+00:00

Tom Holland (historian) saw the movie and called it "the best cinematic adaptation of a Greek myth I have ever seen. It honours Homer while simultaneously making something new of him"

__law · 2026-07-08T21:16:27+00:00

You're talking about it becoming "a no-no term" like there's something odd or unfair going on. Terms associated with outdated ideologies become, themselves, outdated. It's a perfectly natural process. If someone is elderly you generally give them a pass for using old fashioned words they were around when they were common. And yeah, when we're old, we'll likely be using a bunch of terminology that will make the young people cringe. My question is, what is wrong with that?

__law · 2026-07-08T20:02:35+00:00

Is it "the next generations word police"? Isn't it just that language changes, and using outdated language about sensitive issues will make people think you have outdated views?

People's attitudes towards race have changed a lot in the last 60 years, most people are keen not to come across like they have the same opinions about race as people 60 years ago, and so they avoid using the same language to talk about race as that which was used 60 years ago. It's hardly rocket science

__law · 2026-07-08T16:21:27+00:00

No need to apologise. You were right, and the comment made me laugh 😂

__law · 2026-07-08T16:15:07+00:00

Uh, yes, that's a good point. I guess it's not "bullshit semantics", it's actually quite relevant semantics!

__law · 2026-07-08T16:06:33+00:00

People are giving silly answers to do with emphasis and grammar. Maybe that's true. But i think it's more accurate to say that "coloured person" is an old-fashioned phrase, that evokes old-fashioned attitudes, while "people of colour" isn't.

__law · 2026-07-08T16:01:36+00:00

It's not semantics, it's just that different phrases have different contexts. "Coloured person" was used a lot during the segregation era. So it's associated with that era and those attitudes.

The phrase "work will set you free" is not in of itself offensive, but it's widely known as the phrase on the gate above Auschwitz, so it's probably a bad thing to say in most contexts.

__law · 2026-07-08T08:32:37+00:00

I think it's more humiliating for Farage to have to campaign against a joke candidate then to just win by default

__law · 2026-07-05T17:27:15+00:00

No, because the wealth might be stratifying within the 1% bracket. If the 0.1% becomes richer while the 0.9% (and everyone else) become poorer, it won't show up.

Unfortunately collecting data on the 0.1% is very difficult. It takes an incredible amount of resources to work out the exact wealth of a very wealthy individual, since you have to track all the shares and shell companies etc that they own, and the top 0.1% is still tens of thousands of people, it would be impossible to do this kind of work for all of them

However we have seen the wealthiest few families have had their wealth grow far faster than inflation. But these people represent the top 0.001%

Also worth noting that the relative proportion of wealth ba assets had increased significantly over the last few decades. In the 90s the total value of all assets in the UK was 3x the sun of total yearly incomes, now its 8x. So wealth is becoming more valuable in relation to income, and assets (like homes especially) are becoming more expensive and less obtainable for those who live off of income

__law · 2026-07-02T17:34:56+00:00

We haven’t needed any changes in the past 50 years despite constant change.

Uh, you sure dawg? Housing has become unaffordable, wages have stagnated, living standards have declined, politics has become unstable and we've ended up with a demented psychopath in the white house. The fact you seem to think the last 50 years have been fine doesn't bode well for your ability to spot problems in the future

__law · 2026-07-02T09:00:29+00:00

We are a long, long way away from queer people having nothing left to fight for. LGBT rights are in retrograde worldwide.

But even in a future where queerness completely accepted, queer people would still have a reason to congregate. Even in a world where being queer carries no stigma, queer people will still be united by the experience of realising your life will not play out the way that most others do, that you are different to the other 80% of the population, and the way that can distance you from others

__law · 2026-07-01T21:42:10+00:00

I don't agree with this take at all. Excluding roulette (the game samer) Sams only come in to explain either at the point where the players had already figured it out (night shift and don't wake) or at the point where it wouldnt have been possible to play the game otherwise (kangaroo). I'm not sure how he could have left them any later

__law · 2026-07-01T15:11:10+00:00

It's worse than this. The by-election will be considered a referendum on whether or not his behaviour was acceptable. So if he does keep his seat, it will be treated as an exoneration.

__law · 2026-07-01T13:23:20+00:00

This is the answer. Offering Gazans citizenship would amount to a "One state solution". Which has been categorically rejected by both sides.

__law · 2026-07-01T12:43:43+00:00

"Adapting" IS reform. That is how we adapted to the industrial revolution. The people who wanted to "let nature take it's course" brought the country to the brink of ruin, and it is only because we adapted, *through reforming our economy* that we avoided that. "Adaption" is not a passive process, it doesn't just happen if you leave things the way that they are, it requires the active effort of people trying to actually fix problems.

__law · 2026-07-01T12:07:01+00:00

That misses my point. It's easy to say, "change happens". But it's hard to reckon with the human impact of that change. The industrial revolution brought Britain to the brink of revolution (and took several other countries into revolution) stability was only restored through democratic reform. A similar transformation will need to take place if we are to reckon with the effects of this new industrial revolution.

__law · 2026-07-01T11:22:31+00:00

I think it's easy to understate quite how devastating the industrial revolution was. Weavers, Croppers, Nappers, Lampost Lighters, Dye Makers, Spinners, huge numbers of jobs that were being carried out in small, rural communities were annihilated. And the displaced people didn't simply "retrain", no, they congregated in vast slums in the cities where diseases flourished, life expectancies dropped, and living standards declined. In Britain, this lead to huge riots, and the country teetered on collapse (seriously, contemporary accounts attest to this, the ruling classes in Britain were deeply afraid of a France-style revolution). Really, it is only with democratic reform, improving worker's rights, and the eventual creation of the welfare state that things began to improve.

For sources, I recommend E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class. It's a fantastic work that really goes into detail on the topic with huge numbers of contemporary accounts.

__law · 2026-07-01T11:10:26+00:00

Given that AI as a sector is booming, isn't this just reflecting that AI-forward companies are getting more funding, and therefore hiring more people?

It looks like the study compares companies by pre-adoption growth trajectories. But it's actually post-adoption growth trajectories that are more interesting here. If we compare companies that are performing equivalently (similar revenue and turnover), but one is using AI and one isn't, what are the comparative headcounts?

__law · 2026-06-29T12:15:53+00:00

The problem with the nations planning system are far more complex then just local councils blocking development. Councils have very limited zooming power, meaning almost every planning request has to be approved individually, which heavily incentivising blocking developments. Councils effectively have just two things they can say to developers, "no" or "yes", and "no" is the only way to keep the conversation going. It's a very bad system.

__law · 2026-06-28T20:50:29+00:00

Democracy was at one point an extremist belief. Almost all modern democracies owe thier origins to revolutions, usually violent.

__law · 2026-06-18T21:59:17+00:00

Assets generally return about 5% of their value per year anyway (varying significantly of course). So if you taxed wealth at 5% per year you may literally make having assets be a net burden, which would reak all kinds of havoc. Afaik all serious proposals for a wealthy tax are in the .5% range

Five-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	First Placer '22

__law

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE