It is a depressing truth, but the majority of people simply do not care about men beating up women. It’s not just Diddy who gets away with it - Chris Brown and John Lennon are other examples where the violence is well-documented and fans do not care.
In the interview with The Weis, Weis suggests that maybe the process of getting places like Mars or rockets is people like Musk, people for whom, maybe, many of the rules don’t apply. The subtext of the question seems to be that expecting decency and rule following is some kind of barrier to achieving amazing breakthroughs.
This seems like an incredibly naive view of how things are accomplished to begin with, and with the very history technological and intellectual achievement.
Leaving aside the strange interplay between personality, proximity to wealth, luck of being born into a social context that allows a person to flourish, there is a long line of achievement that existed before the Silicon Valley ethos of “go fast; break things.”
The space race, and a great deal of the American race for education and research superiority are accomplishments not of singular geniuses, but of lost or smart people given some support and freedom to pursue a lot of questions they found interesting. NASA used to do fascinating and big projects.
I’m not saying one approach is better than another private or public sector but it is the case that the “geniuses” of previous eras could work fine within more accountable systems.
I just found Bari’s question here lacked a great deal of nuance.
Re: Jenrick - Is sounding mean a big problem on immigration? Focus groups seem to be coming out with some rather choice solutions to migrant crossings and the Northern Irish small boat effigy seems to have raised no widespread popular uproar whatsoever.
The problem is that the right just don't know what to believe with the Conservatives. They spent 14 years delivering more Blair, while telling the right they were going to be about tax cuts and immigration. The burden of taxation never went below Tony Blair in 14 years, and at the end, was the highest rate of taxation since WW2. They promoted foreign aid and net zero, which the right do not prioritise, and they performed a lot of theatre around immigration.
Whether you agree or disagree with the righties, in terms of what they want, and who they trust, they're being quite rational about the Conservatives. And this is a problem for the Conservatives because no-one wants to risk voting for a government that are going to do the same again. Even if Jenrick pursues this with honour and seriousness, what about all those backbenchers who are quite clear where they stand on the ECHR? Are they going to follow the manifesto promise? What's the action voters can take if they don't? Well, it's sit on your hands for 5 years to vote them out.
None of this is to say that I think Reform are a better choice for the right, but their rise has been out of despair of voters on the right to have anyone representing them. And by "the right" I don't mean a few extreme acolytes of Ayn Rand, but at least a quarter of voters. The Conservatives are full of the most ridiculous lightweights like Boris and Cameron.
During the last Tory leadership contest, I heard both Badenock and Jendrick on the These Times podcast. Jendrick was almost laughably shallow; when asked about thinkers who have shaped his outlook, he managed Thatcher and…erm…people very close to Thatcher like Keith Joseph. Badenock was far more wide-ranging, curious and interesting. Based on the podcasts I was sure Badenock would be an effective leader of the opposition and a deep, serious thinker. Sigh.
One positive about Jendrick though - those (admittedly barmy) videos of him in civilian clothes having a go at fare dodgers on the Tube showed a bit of personal, if not political, courage.
It is a depressing truth, but the majority of people simply do not care about men beating up women. It’s not just Diddy who gets away with it - Chris Brown and John Lennon are other examples where the violence is well-documented and fans do not care.
In the interview with The Weis, Weis suggests that maybe the process of getting places like Mars or rockets is people like Musk, people for whom, maybe, many of the rules don’t apply. The subtext of the question seems to be that expecting decency and rule following is some kind of barrier to achieving amazing breakthroughs.
This seems like an incredibly naive view of how things are accomplished to begin with, and with the very history technological and intellectual achievement.
Leaving aside the strange interplay between personality, proximity to wealth, luck of being born into a social context that allows a person to flourish, there is a long line of achievement that existed before the Silicon Valley ethos of “go fast; break things.”
The space race, and a great deal of the American race for education and research superiority are accomplishments not of singular geniuses, but of lost or smart people given some support and freedom to pursue a lot of questions they found interesting. NASA used to do fascinating and big projects.
I’m not saying one approach is better than another private or public sector but it is the case that the “geniuses” of previous eras could work fine within more accountable systems.
I just found Bari’s question here lacked a great deal of nuance.
FWIW I started reading The Salt Path the day after I got my terminal diagnosis. I’m still alive too.
I think James Orr would more properly be considered a philosopher, not a theologian. His work is in philosophy of religion.
Re: Jenrick - Is sounding mean a big problem on immigration? Focus groups seem to be coming out with some rather choice solutions to migrant crossings and the Northern Irish small boat effigy seems to have raised no widespread popular uproar whatsoever.
(i assume by 'torn' you meant unsure how he is going to do, rather than unsure if you support him)
The problem is that the right just don't know what to believe with the Conservatives. They spent 14 years delivering more Blair, while telling the right they were going to be about tax cuts and immigration. The burden of taxation never went below Tony Blair in 14 years, and at the end, was the highest rate of taxation since WW2. They promoted foreign aid and net zero, which the right do not prioritise, and they performed a lot of theatre around immigration.
Whether you agree or disagree with the righties, in terms of what they want, and who they trust, they're being quite rational about the Conservatives. And this is a problem for the Conservatives because no-one wants to risk voting for a government that are going to do the same again. Even if Jenrick pursues this with honour and seriousness, what about all those backbenchers who are quite clear where they stand on the ECHR? Are they going to follow the manifesto promise? What's the action voters can take if they don't? Well, it's sit on your hands for 5 years to vote them out.
None of this is to say that I think Reform are a better choice for the right, but their rise has been out of despair of voters on the right to have anyone representing them. And by "the right" I don't mean a few extreme acolytes of Ayn Rand, but at least a quarter of voters. The Conservatives are full of the most ridiculous lightweights like Boris and Cameron.
Thanks Helen. Btw. I am enjoying the book greatly. There's a lot to understand in it, which makes it a brilliant read.
During the last Tory leadership contest, I heard both Badenock and Jendrick on the These Times podcast. Jendrick was almost laughably shallow; when asked about thinkers who have shaped his outlook, he managed Thatcher and…erm…people very close to Thatcher like Keith Joseph. Badenock was far more wide-ranging, curious and interesting. Based on the podcasts I was sure Badenock would be an effective leader of the opposition and a deep, serious thinker. Sigh.
One positive about Jendrick though - those (admittedly barmy) videos of him in civilian clothes having a go at fare dodgers on the Tube showed a bit of personal, if not political, courage.