Fuzzy McDoom posted:

https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1227947757857538048?s=20

Samurai Sanders posted:

Is this where the Economist advocates a unified Ireland? I mean, that magazine has been around for like 200 years or something, so I wonder if they have directly incited any other bloodshed before.

oliwan posted:

Dravs posted:

Nice to see that the media actually pushed back just a tiny bit when they realised that Dom Cummings calls to recruit weirdos at Whitehall was just a coded way of him saying he wants to recruit literal Nazis.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/boris-johnson-adviser-quits-over-race-and-eugenics-writings

Grauniad blog posted:

Sabisky, a 27-year-old who describes himself as a “superforecaster”

Private Speech posted:

Apparently they can stay in yokohama instead since they tested negative, even.

They'd have to pay for their own food and accomodation though, that might be the issue.

ynohtna posted:

That's a funny way of auto-correcting "superfascist."

quote:

Sabisky, a 27-year-old who describes himself as a “superforecaster”, had been contracted to work on special projects for Cummings, who had said in a job ad that he was seeking a team “to find and exploit, without worrying about media noise… ‘very high leverage ideas’ [that] these will almost inevitably seem bad to most.”

Private Speech posted:

Apparently they can stay in yokohama instead since they tested negative, even.

They'd have to pay for their own food and accomodation though, that might be the issue.

Dravs posted:

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Cummings hiring someone into eugenics for ideas that seem bad to most..... Getting definite 'final solution' vibes from this.

Doccykins posted:

They tested positive today lol

Samurai Sanders posted:

Is this where the Economist advocates a unified Ireland? I mean, that magazine has been around for like 200 years or something, so I wonder if they have directly incited any other bloodshed before.

quote:

The Economist is going through a firestorm of criticism because it reviewed a book on slavery and suggested it was biased for taking the slaves’ side. The Economist furthermore suggested that slaves’ accounts of cruel treatment from their masters were an unreliable guide to reality because:

quote:

Slave owners surely had a vested interest in keeping their “hands” ever fitter and stronger to pick more cotton. Some of the rise in productivity could have come from better treatment.

The Economist has since apologized for this review and withdrawn it. Even so, its extraordinary blindness to how real life economic power relations work is reminiscent of the magazine’s beginnings in the 19th century, when it fulminated at the very idea that the British government should do anything about the Irish famine that was happening on its doorstep. After all, it was the peasants’ own fault that they were starving. [see quote below]

In both instances, The Economist’s deep-rooted fondness of laissez faire slipped into a shameful tendency to minimize the human costs of those at the wrong end of the system, whether it was those who suffered and were murdered beneath the whip of slavery or those who starved to death, in part thanks to The Economist’s own vigorous advocacy.

Communist Thoughts posted:

i'd need to dig up the quote but theres a real juicy one from the economist telling the government to let indians starve by the millions so that "the indian race will learn that its not the responsibility of the government to keep them alive"

Dravs posted:

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Cummings hiring someone into eugenics for ideas that seem bad to most..... Getting definite 'final solution' vibes from this.

twoday posted:

https://twitter.com/dailystar/status/1229271253300592640?s=20

Bryter posted:

https://twitter.com/AhirShah/status/1229832568822009856

Bryter posted:

https://twitter.com/AhirShah/status/1229832568822009856

Bust Rodd posted:

wasn’t this Churchill’s, like, entire UK-Indian foreign policy?

Bryter posted:

https://twitter.com/AhirShah/status/1229832568822009856

quote:

In 2014, UNESCO offered to mediate between Greece and the United Kingdom to resolve the dispute, although this was later turned down by the British Museum on the basis that UNESCO works with government bodies, not trustees of museums.

Bryter posted:

https://twitter.com/AhirShah/status/1229832568822009856

PostNouveau posted:

hahahahahahaha get hosed british museum send back all the poo poo you stole

Egypt needs to get on the phone with the EU leaders

Yinlock posted:

https://twitter.com/AhirShah/status/1229871249523970050?s=20

Yinlock posted:

https://twitter.com/AhirShah/status/1229871249523970050?s=20

quote:

The British Museum is Europe’s Western front in the global war over cultural patrimony, on account of the marbles. The pamphlets give the museum’s version for why they should stay in Britain, as they have for two centuries — ever since Lord Elgin, the British ambassador to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople, and with the consent of the ruling Ottomans (not to mention a blithe disregard for whatever may have been the wishes of the Greek populace), spirited them from the Acropolis in Athens. The pamphlet stresses that the British Museum is free and attracts millions of visitors every year from around the world, making the sculptures available to, and putting them in the context of, a wide swath of human civilization.

For their part the Greeks, before their economy collapsed, finally opened the long-delayed New Acropolis Museum last year to much fanfare: it’s an up-to-date facility, forbidding and frankly ugly outside, but airy and light-filled inside, a home-in-waiting for the marbles, whose absence is clearly advertised by bone-white plaster casts of what Elgin took, alongside yellowed originals that he left behind. The view through a broad picture window, eloquent but baleful under the circumstances, looks onto the ruined Parthenon, playing on visitors’ heartstrings. Greeks deem the museum a slam-dunk argument for the marbles’ return.

It’s definitely compelling.

But the British still make the better case.

[...]

But the general question, looting and tourist dollars aside, is why should any objects necessarily reside in the modern nation-state controlling the plot of land where, at one time, perhaps thousands of years earlier, they came from?

[...]

We’re all custodians of global culture for posterity.

Neither today’s Greeks nor Britons own the Parthenon marbles, really.

Ursine Catastrophe posted:

I went hunting for the pamphlet and found this because of course I did


lmao forever

Olympic Mathlete posted:

Wait so they're more often called the Elgin marbles after the dude that stole them rather than the Greek name for them? Wow.

Dravs posted:

Just googled the elgin marbles and was surprised to find that it is just like a fresco of sculptured (presumably) marble? Is it weird I just assumed they would be little spheres like the marbles you would play with back in school?

Just give them back to Greece, goodness me, if Brexit is the thing that causes the UK to lose the last echos of its imperialism then that sounds like an unintended good thing.

Also it will make the gammons super mad, maybe Mark Francois will finally blow the blood vessel that causes his face to go that colour.

Olympic Mathlete posted:

Wait so they're more often called the Elgin marbles after the dude that stole them rather than the Greek name for them? Wow.

Party Boat posted:

Found ur twitter account Dravs

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1229863611457245184?s=19