> I would guess that the British Army et al. killed at least as many people in India as were burned alive as part of funerary rites.
Interesting. What is this based on? When it comes to killings done by the British forces in India one of the most renowned, bloody and regrettable incidents in colonial history in India was the Massacre of Amritsar where British forces lost control and fired on a crowd of protesters. This resulted in around 400 deaths (many more injured). The reason this was such an infamous event is because of how uncharacteristic it was of British rule in India.
Like I said, it's a guess. I don't have firm numbers and I'm speculating. Aside from incidents like the one you described, I'm taking into account Wellington's military campaigns, which involved large-scale battles and entire kingdoms being conquered and subjugated. We are certainly talking about a death toll in the tens of thousands.
They did not lose control of a protest. The Indians were not permitted to assemble. When it was discovered that an assembly was meeting, the British entered the square where the assembly occurred and massacred those present.
British Empire has on the UK National Curriculum since 1988 and was taught in history classes before the introduction of the National Curriculum. This is conveniently forgotten by people looking to make a point. My impression is that a certain type of Brit likes to play this "I'm one of the good ones" role where they admonish their compatriots' ignorance as a strange virtue signal. It involves collecting damning factoids about the worst aspects of of empire (bengal, irish conflicts, slavery etc) with little interest in the subject as a whole.
This kind of intervention can be useful in the right groups but (as with NVC) also provides great cloaking for natural manipulators. For example saying "there is a lot of raised emotion in the room" after an individual has blown their top is a very pointed and passive aggressive thing to do. They will feel even more targeted by the faux neutrality
Procians bothered by the cost and status of Halikaarnian work. Its not about what "AI" can do, its a about what you can convince people AI can do (which to the Procian is one and the same)
I think old distinction between the words "unsociable" meaning not wanting to socialise, and "anti-social" meaning causing trouble to society, is useful. I guess I'm swimming against the tide with this one though
"Asocial" means being non-social. "Anti-social" means being a problem to society. It's terrible terminology to be sure, but those are the current definitions, and it's surprising that no one in the chain of publication for this article flagged that.
The article does describe how these changes are hurting our society, e.g. increased opioid overdoses, increased political polarization; so it could be an intentional word choice to call it "anti-social".
Interesting. What is this based on? When it comes to killings done by the British forces in India one of the most renowned, bloody and regrettable incidents in colonial history in India was the Massacre of Amritsar where British forces lost control and fired on a crowd of protesters. This resulted in around 400 deaths (many more injured). The reason this was such an infamous event is because of how uncharacteristic it was of British rule in India.