> I still can't understand the reason for an opinionated moderator. Ngl he/she seems like a reasonable person who always contributes to threads when he/she can, and stimulates interactions. You can still comment I mean from an alias or something like that.

Good question. It's quite simple, really. If you start a thread arguing: "We should have lower taxes for the rich", or "we should privatise more PSUs", go for it. But those posts are rare: most 'extreme' political views submitted for moderation on LI are basically on the 'far right' of the spectrum (if there is a binary spectrum). By contrast, for some reason, the 'lefties' generally neither seem that interested in pushing propaganda, nor in countering the RW posts over and over again, as I assume they, like most, are persons who are going to LI to discuss the legal profession, rather than be sucked into their uncles and aunties share on family WhatsApp chats.

Such normal readers, centrists or potential sensible 'righties' or 'lefties', or mainstream normies, or whatever, therefore understandably don't very often engage in repeatedly rebutting or fact-checking dog-whistles, outright lies or sometimes hateful posts, which are usually also made with very, very low effort and made with an intent to cause OUTRAGE or TRIGGER THE LIBS, rather than actually being interested in discussion. And indeed, responding would mean feeding those trolls (which is something you should never do).

Therefore, the only way for LI not to turn into 4chan or platform for unchecked propaganda or lies of those somehow motivated to spread them, is then the obvious decision for the poor moderator to engage by:

a) blocking the really odious and hateful stuff (and believe me, there is plenty), and

b) not allowing any borderline hateful, low-effort shitposts to stand unopposed, but to actually do the job of, you know, an interviewer or a moderator who takes their job seriously, and provide some intellectual pushback to some of the arguments made, in order to encourage a debate (which is the point of LI).

However, the fact is that very few OPs (as evidenced in nearly all the examples you list above) take advantage of this opportunity to actually debate or defend their politics or ideals and instead turn around and cry foul, saying: "Oh, the moderator does not agree with me, how dare they!"

Everyone has opinions, that's nothing special. But all of you are supposed to be lawyers: you're supposed to savour and relish intellectual debate about ideas and ideals. If a courtroom judge or arbitrator tells you they have a political opinion and rebuts or pokes holes in your arguments, but promises to judge your case fairly and on its own merits, you have several options:

a) try to get the judge to recuse themself (good luck), or

b) try to convince the judge of your position with the force of your argument and / or facts.

If neither of those are an option for you, then perhaps it is worth considering if you want to be a lawyer at all: other careers, such as politician or YouTuber, don't necessarily require the same love of argument and opposition.

Would be interested in why you would disagree with the above or if you have alternate solutions.

Perhaps true, I think all the trollish nonsense political posts are radicalising us! 😀

Seriously though, we still believe everyone's entitled to an opinion and yours will continue to be published on LI too, whether they are left or right, so long as they don't imply or espouse violence or hate against other people, and are made in good faith to have a discussion. For political shit posting there is zero tolerance.

Which post that has been published has been trollish though?

And which of our views are 'extreme left' (and how would you define that?)

What 'thing with Green Peace'? But agreed, billionaire 'charity' is mostly a PR move.

> Actual employment generative, increased skill based wages, everyone makes a profit business.

Technically, only the owners make a profit, everyone else just sells their time for money, which if left purely to the owners and free markets, is usually barely enough to live on (e.g. clothes manufacturing sweatshops in Bangladesh or natural resources mining in many parts of Africa).

Bump for late moderation / context: https://amp.scroll.in/latest/1042096/uk-team-said-modi-was-responsible-for-climate-of-impunity-in-2002-riots-claims-bbc-documentary

Please share videos from genuine sources, not YouTube channels were every video has things in capital letters along the lines of xyz OWNS / DESTROYS / EXPOSES zyx. Hyperbole and shouting online is not conducive to an actual bona fide discussion, and furthermore, anyone who actually talks like that is a troll or YouTuber, or both, trying to whore for clicks.

Please feel free to explain again if any of his arguments have not been addressed, but his climate change points were all variations of the above that have been made by the oil lobby and lots of western governments for decades (until relatively recently), and are fairly short sighted and easy to argue against with science or economics, yet again, please explain what this has to do with wokeness?

First of all, what has British engineering invented or built recently other than at most, overpriced vacuum cleaners (slight sarcasm, but only ever so slight)? That Britain will invent magic anti-global warming beans and tech is similar wishful thinking that got Brexiteers into the messes they got themselves into. And if his point is that the UK is irrelevant, because it only contributes 2% of emissions (despite housing much less than 1% of the world population), sure, the UK is irrelevant in many ways. But the UK is not irrelevant that if it wants to have its cake and eat it too on cutting emissions, because lots of other countries will then be right to say: look, the UK doesn't give a shit and is hoping for magic beans, why should we?

In terms of tech, the cheap solar and renewables power revolution has unfortunately mostly been coming out of China, if anything, and maybe India too if it plays its cards right.

But the reality is that if the entire world continues living as it currently is, and if rich countries abdicate their responsibility for the current emissions as well as future emissions, there is zero hope and scope to encourage developing economies to not follow the same path and shorcuts the West took to where it is now.

And places such as the US and Europe could have already been much much closer to carbon neutrality for years, if they'd really tried instead of investing in and supporting fossil fuel for all these years and by having been less intentionally wasteful.

Again though, this is a somewhat interesting discussion but it still has nothing to do with wokeness, does it?

Is this true? What kind of virus is it? And what do you mean by "it's difficult to count"? Approximately / at least how many should be possible to confirm? Marking this as contested for now and redacting the name of the law school until some more details can be provided, so as not to create a panic.

Good question. The 'IC' comes from the merger https://www.legallyindia.com/home/merger-between-universal-in-south-ic-legal-in-mumbai-creates-new-100-national-firm-hopes-for-excellent-synergies-20170920-8781 but not sure what it stands for...

Fair enough, maybe only half-listened to his rant and oversimplified his points that he had oversimplified into absurdity and gone off-topic, but fundamentally it sounded like he was espousing a techno-utopian wishful thinking argument of 'we'll fix it later through future magic bean technology solutions', which don't exist yet and are definitely going to cost especially developing countries and the world much more than any current fixes would cost, and may literally be impossible in potential doomsday scenarios once temperatures have risen by 1.5+ degrees (even if Elon Musk & Co manage to emigrate to Mars).

He also made an argument along the lines of 'poor countries contribute more on absolute terms than the UK', therefore the UK has no responsibility to cut its emissions, which is problematic and 1) ignores that it was the UK, US and countries like that, as well as the globalised economy built by those countries, that are nearly entirely to blame for the damage already done so far to the atmosphere and the path the world is on, and 2) ignores the reality of global treaties requiring everyone to buy in rather than the global North continuing to screw the rest of the world forever.

Regarding your point that 'poor countries contribute to most of the carbon footprint on absolute terms', that is not even half the story: developed economies still contribute a massively outsize amount per capita, and the problem is that if developing economies seek to emulate exactly the sort of wastefulness and economic models that developed economies have been indulging in or effectively forcing them to adopt in order to compete in a global market, even a 1.5 degrees rise in temperatures is unachievable.

But really, all of the above has very little to do with wokeness but mostly with denying current science or realities, or at least lobbying against it similarly to how energy and other companies have been doing when intentionally lying and lobbying about the crisis.

Of course he's free to have his opinions that economic development will magically fix what it broke in the first place, but then he shouldn't cry his 'oh Greta is so mean' tears when he gets called out on it.

Not a vestige at all, trolls are out in force in LI, which makes me wonder whether this is a genuine post or just a shadow PR campaign for this 2 hour interview. :)

If not, please make a start by picking out a point from the interview and critiquing it intelligently without ad hominem, and maybe offering another point from the interview for someone else to critique, who can do the same.

You're misrepresenting 'reservationists', which I suppose was the point of your post? Isn't their point that there is an obvious lack of representation at the top, which is an indication of systemic discrimination?

In most professions / corporate careers it is the same for men vs women: does this mean corporate ceo, partner, senior counsel and other career ladders are meritocratic for not letting more women in, or that the cards have been / are still stacked against them?

Other than the fact that this is hosted by a channel called 'triggernometry', which is a good sign it'll be nonsense, I'll save others a watch: this guy is not railing about wokism but effectively denying climate change or rather, saying the only solution to climate change is technology, and that Britain therefore does not need to reduce its carbon emissions but only poor countries with lots of people like India need to cut down.

How do you feel about that?

Also be said, don't judge whether someone is racist or not by what they say, but by their character? Really? How do you do that?

Also, he's right that freedom of speech is important, but should you or a government have the freedom to lie with an intent to cause physical harm to ethnic groups? Or provably lie in order to continue selling fossil fuels, despite being aware it will kill a lot of people in the decades to come and cause trillions of economic damage for future generations? And should social media platforms or academic institutions protect their right to tell such lies? Now that's the real crux of the debate, not getting triggered by woke 'culture', whatever that mean, or climate activists exercising their right to protest, free speech or civil disobedience.

Good points, billionaire philanthropy is basically outsourcing the decisions of which social ills deserve most fixing to an unelected and unaccountable billionaire class. Or they could just pay what should be much higher taxes and let the government decide where to spend it, rather than being grateful to them for handouts...?

Very good question, who pays him and civitas? Nobody knows, though likely some brexiteer billionaires and oil industry lobby types looking to save more taxes by making you think they care about you and the other peasants:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitas_(think_tank)

Wow, this guy needs to get a different hobby / maybe leave the house some time...

Why do these culture warriors get so triggered by what is apparent sensible documentation of reading materials or courses? Wouldn't you want to know that an archeology course might involve a boggy corpse before you sign up? Or if you're depressed, that Peter Pan might not be a fun book?

And isn't his entire report a trigger warning, that you shouldn't sign up to universities where you might get triggered by trigger warnings?

Flourished, perhaps by some metrics, but arguably at the expense of several other metrics such as causing significant pollution and permanent damage to the planet, eroding the middle class and widening the wealth gap and creating more billionaires, demoting entire economies to become globalised vassals providing cheap and inhumane / child labour in sweat shops / natural resource extraction, as well as the US ruining / neo-colonialising South and Central America and starting innumerable wars for resources to feed the domestic machine and influence. The question that should be asked is: was this worth it, and is it a model that can be / should be emulated / continued by everyone else, and what will happen to this planet if everyone does the same?

Maybe a ban might not work, but tax or other incentives for keeping families at 2 or fewer kids might be a helpful policy. India has the potential benefit of a huge young labour force, but without significant expansion of secondary and higher education and job creation and urban planning, this creates a ticking timebomb of unemployed, unemployable and homeless youths in cities.

Thanks for sharing, that's interesting. The Al Jaz article explicitly concludes with: "To be clear, I am not calling for Foucault to be “cancelled” or the reports of his child sexual abuse to be used to attack his scholarly work and academia in general."

Since you're suggesting neither Butler or Foucault should be 'named' in such lists, are you suggesting both be cancelled then and particularly Foucault's scholarly work should be disregarded? Or can Foucault still be named, but with an asterisk and footnote next to his name?

Most countries, including India, have laws of adverse possession, for good reason. Why shouldn't it apply there? Haven't some of the families lived long enough on this land for it to apply? Or do you agree with adverse possession as a fundamental legal principle, or its application here?

That seems to be Babones' only legitimate point and his self-admitted only area of expertise: such rankings are by their very nature flawed (and Sekhri claims he mostly agrees with him on that point, in the interview).

I mean, look at it this way: if India Today, Outlook and NIRF can't even come up with an Indian law school ranking that everyone can agree with, how do you expect a bunch of people sitting in Zurich or Oslo or wherever from condensing every single country's freedom of speech level into a single metric?

There will obviously be disagreements in methodology and the like. I do feel where those rankings do have a little bit of value though, is that rather than comparing countries to each other, is to give an indication of one country's rise and fall in rankings over the years against itself. And the important question to ask: do you think has India's freedom of speech fallen in the last years or stayed roughly the same, because it's not like Congress-led governments were not abusing Criminal Defamation, IT Acts and other draconian censorship when they were in power?

Perhaps what has arguably fundamentally changed in India is the corporate ownership and kow-towing of media, plus the well-funded organised disinformation campaigns. Views?

Your supposed 'cardinal rule' that an interviewer should never show their own opinion, is definitely false. There is no single type of interview in journalism. Some are purely factual Q&As, some are discussions between to opposing viewpoints or opinions, and most are a mixture of the two.

You might want to argue that you prefer one style over another, though Newslaundry expressly pitches itself as a cross of journalism that is also entertaining and opinionated, unlike most TV channels where anchors pretend to be journalists while they're holding opinionated sermons...

Regarding the UN point, you seem to imply that with respect to India there are UN "resolutions suggesting the country is fascist". Can you please share these, if there are such, which seems to be what Sekhri was asking?

The general line of questioning was going towards a legitimate question that no good response was provided for by Babones. If Babones suggests Indians shouldn't criticise the government because it could hurt India internationally in bodies like the UN or rankings, then how can any country's intellectuals in the world ever criticise their own country?

Democracy only exists because there is dissent and disagreement and information being available. Not criticising your own government for fear that other countries may think worse of you, is basically what China, Iran and Russia are requiring of their populations. So how would you (or how would you think Babones) would reconcile those positions?

One point to ponder in terms of lifestyle: when you're a judge, you won't really have quite the same normal life any more as you may be used to, particularly as you get more senior and you will need to publicly be seen to behave like a member of the judiciary. So probably no hanging out at 2am at 4S getting drunk anymore with other lawyers: instead much of your social circle may shrink towards other judges.

Saw that, was quite interesting, thanks for sharing.

It would be interesting for the same research to be done in India and whether Gen Y or even Z has similar outlooks or definitions here as in the UK / US.

I would suspect that if you were to look at most gen Z in India purely in terms of numbers, a larger number is supporting the BJP or leaning conservative - particularly in the Northern states - than compared to the US and UK. End of the day, a large number of gen Z in India obviously do NOT go to NLUs or top universities, so there is danger in anecdotally extrapolating from perceptions of NLU gen Z'ers to the wider country.

Not gonna waste too much time on 'critique' because there is nearly everything factually wrong with what he says, but fundamentally his argument that women need men because men do lots of things in society, is mostly circular.

If there was a society that was more equal and with fewer toxic men like Tate, we'd be having more women police officers, more women in the army, and more women in other male dominated professions. E.g., in Soviet Russia you had lots of women working in factories building cars, the Israeli army is full of women, and throughout history a lot of cool shit has been invented or built by women in disciplines and times were women were very few and far between back then (and often men stole the credit of female colleagues, due to aforementioned toxic broness - if you skipped history class or want to know more, just hit up your search engine of choice and search for female inventors, you'll soon stumble upon lots of examples as well as enlightening stories).

So yeah, sorry, despite your protestations, your comment / Tate's video is trollish and unfactual, unless you have a response of a more coherent standard than Tate's rant.