Rayvin

Given that Pandora's Box is open on Islamic Extremism (and I agree with you on why we are targetted), it does seem that the solution has to be pragmatic rather than perhaps balanced. While very very few of us ever will be killed by terrorism, it's an absolutely toxic issue in society that hurts everyone, including Muslims. The only 'strategy' I can see for dealing with it is to eliminate Islam through a battle of ideologies. But this involves just enduring the terrorism and hoping we can stop it pre-emptively. Maybe we can infect Islam with identity politics and have them turn on each other (as we have with other groups) but who knows. Either way, just tolerating it certainly won't be popular.

Just needs time though. Eventually people will have to conclude that they can't, based on the fact that they haven't.

Are you suggesting that the 4 reviewers collude with the author, whose name they don't know at the time of reviewing? They also don't know who each other are, and moreover know nothing about the project until I ask them. How could it be a conspiracy? You'd have to have literally every academic in the world connected to this. There are thousands of them per discipline these days, 10s of thousands in some.

For me the issue is whether or not any other club would have gone anywhere near that amount. It's all well and good saying it makes sense but if no one else would have paid more than half that, then they've overpaid.

Congrats to her mate! Tough job but I'd imagine very rewarding.

We publish across all areas so it will cover stuff in yours along with plenty unrelated to this. I assume the material is well researched and makes solid conclusions based on evidence provided, if the 4 independent reviewers (who are otherwise entirely unconnected to the project, and each other) inform me of this.

I don't actually make academic judgements, I just assign the manuscripts to other people and then harass them until they return the stuff So I don't know what they look at, but I do know that the process isn't an active conspiracy by academics. It can't be if a layman like me is involved in deciding who reviews what.

But I assign reviewers to manuscripts myself, based on the expertise in particular academic areas - I literally make these decisions myself. So unless I'm in on the conspiracy too, we're back to everyone just going along with each other because they're too stupid to actually work anything out.

They use peer review. I often send manuscripts to random academics across the world to have them judge it.

I think that's the same as what I was saying mind. Not quite as on the nose, but it's something that is perhaps just an extreme version of what many other people do. See also Brexit.

I'm not the one who said you were mentally ill. That was Renton (I think). I've not said anything to you aside from trying to understand why you think the way you do. I don't think you're mentally ill.

Yeah, they're talking as if it's a network they're dealing with. I think the big risk with a network is that if they get close to these people, desperation will kick in and we might see some more attacks flushed to the surface.

The real one for me that has no firm answer from Wolfy is why anyone would have gone to the bother of arranging all of this 'cover up'. He's said before that people don't deviate from the official line because they're afraid of stepping out of received wisdom, which is consistent with his overall view about his outlook versus everyone else's. Wolfy absolutely does believe that he is intellectually superior to most people, in that he can 'see the world for what it is'. The proof and evidence doesn't come into it, because to accept those, he would have to accept the possibility of other people's intellects outdoing his own. That'd be right, wouldn't it Wolfy? I say this not to bait you, it's literally because this simply must be true.

It's not peer pressure though. We don't all sit here nodding in agreement with each other continuously. We very frequently have differing views on all sorts of things, coming to different conclusions even from the same evidence. If peer pressure was an overriding factor, we'd simply agree on everything.

I'm open to changing my mind with sufficient evidence. I suspect that's the difference.

I can't imagine getting myself to a point where I was that distrustful of modern life/society. Has to be an echo chamber mentality.

Not that I've seen...

An unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

To be fair to Defoe in this, he's managed his career superbly. Still going to be a PL player at 38 with £130k/week wages because he had the right deal inserted into his Sunderland contract.

Knowing the PL, I would imagine it'll be something like £50m.

How on earth has he managed to fall this hard. It's actually incredible. He could have just kept his head down, been a league 1/championship level forward, picked up at least £10k/week for basically his entire career, and then retired with a comfy nest egg to fall back on. Instead he's thrown it all away. Wouldn't be surprised to hear of him again in future - in fact, I suspect this is all because he knows he's fucked it up.

I'll try and join you for some of it!

Hang on though, I'm familiar with that poll too and I'm fairly certain that the 34% statistic is in reference to Muslims who would report someone going to Syria to become a terrorist. Now, we could argue that's still wrong but they'd see it as picking sides in a war. As far as I'm aware, the poll makes no mention of how Muslims would respond to domestic terror incidents. I can't check it atm so let me know if I'm wrong. Moreover, this remains 'not the time' for assuming blame. There's plenty of it to go around anyway.

Agreed. Have been somewhat impressed by this statement from Paul Ryan of all people. Far better than Trump's equivalent: The whole House of Representatives extends its condolences to the families of the victims. Our prayers are especially with those who are still searching for their children. I don’t know – maybe it’s because I am a father of teenagers, but that is the part that keeps me coming back to this. I mean, think about the kids who had this date on their calendar circled. Think about the kids who got their parents to agree to take them to the concert. Or maybe it was a birthday present, or maybe it was a surprise. Or think about the kids who went to the concert with their friends on the agreement that they would get together and meet their parents outside right after it. Those are the kinds of conversations that go on in families with teenagers. And then all those moms and dads waiting outside when disaster struck – think about that for a second. Many rushing in, hoping to God and fearing the worst. To deliberately target innocent children is cowardice in its most heinous form. So we should not be surprised that Isis has claimed responsibility for this attack. But we will never bow or bend to radical Islamic terror. In Manchester, we have seen hotels taking in survivors. We have seen local residents offering beds to those who are stranded. We have seen taxi cabs driving back and forth through the night, offering free rides to bring people to safety. And as we speak, people on social media are reaching out to connect families with their loved ones. Terror is a threat that we all face together – and with our might, and with our humanity too. In that spirit, I want to express solidarity of the whole House of Representatives to prime minister May and her government. We stand ready to help in any way we can. Because freedom, compassion, and peace will always prevail over violence and hate.

This is from a columnist for the Telegraph...