|
steinrokkan posted:It should be 60 % of median income, after adding welfare transfers. Mind, that's the median in each country, not over the whole EU.
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
In other words, it tracks income inequality. In that case, I am rather confused that Romania can have 41% of the population at less than 60% of that country's own median income. e: which is of course possible, but it seems unlikely from a statistical point of view unless I am misunderstanding basic concepts here Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 13:47 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
How do they define bases? My city alone has 3 bfg barracks.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:In other words, it tracks income inequality. In that case, I am rather confused that Romania can have 41% of the population at less than 60% of that country's own median income. I finally managed to track down the explanation from Eurostat. There are three criteria, and any or all of them can be met for a person to be included in the poverty statistics: At-risk-of-poverty income, which means people with an income below their national threshold (probably the 60% threshold mentioned earlier). Severely materially deprived - have trouble paying bills, can't heat home during winter, can't afford at least a weeks vacation away from home etc. Low work intensity - worked less than 20 percent of their potential during last year.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:And more balance, British/Russian/French overseas bases. This is a poo poo map because some countries have more than one foreign base - 3 for example refers to the British bases in Germany but ignores the US bases. It's pretty much got the British bases spot on though, except 1 which refers to British bases in Scotland. (?!?!?!?!)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:I'm not sure what exactly they're counting as bases here. For instance, there's a number of bases in Canada that host British and other NATO soldiers for training, but they're very much Canadian Forces bases. It'd be a stretch to call CFB Suffield an explicitly 'British' base. I think this is a disingenuous thing that lots of these maps use to make the American Empire look huge and scary and "holy poo poo America has 9,000,000,000 bases in 500 countries! It's the same as the British Empire in 1880!" When the map is marking a whole country as "American occupied" because the USAF is allowed to refuel jets at one airstrip.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I think this is a disingenuous thing that lots of these maps use to make the American Empire look huge and scary and "holy poo poo America has 9,000,000,000 bases in 500 countries! It's the same as the British Empire in 1880!" When the map is marking a whole country as "American occupied" because the USAF is allowed to refuel jets at one airstrip. It's Terrible that uncool fascist rightwing nazi trotskyite revanchists are allowed to post your naziism here. It makes D&D, like, nazi.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
What?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:US bases AND troops/advisors, also with some interesting info about number of countries with US troops. When they say a country "has U.S. troops," what do they mean? Any embassy with a few marines could fit that description.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:When they say a country "has U.S. troops," what do they mean? Any embassy with a few marines could fit that description. Yeah I really want to know what troops we have in Russia right now other than embassy guards. In fact with the "156 countries with US Troops" bit I'd say they'd have to count either embassy guards or soldiers on leave to get those numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Does that map show North Korea as having a US military presence? Edit: misread the key because I couldn't believe that the color showing China meant there was a US military presence. Even the embassy in Beijing is guarded by Chinese nationals. I understand there are marines somewhere inside the building for ceremonial purposes, but they're not actively guarding the embassy because no way is the Chinese government letting armed United States Marines patrol on the streets of Beijing. Deep State of Mind fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
I think that map made the exact same Hainan/Taiwan mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:40
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Hey does this count as a politically charged map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CSA_only.gif Making an animated map of the history of the CSA has proved uniquely difficult, since it has a *lot* of different definitions to deal with. I made this one on a lark to see what a map from the purely-CSA point of view would look like. I've been meaning to redo my CSA map, but there are many different categories that regions can be in. First of all, all of the land is claimed by the U.S., so that simplifies it a little. So we only need to take into account C.S. claims. But, then we get into the question of control. My goal is not at all to create a military map; the day-to-day movements would be near-impossible for me. What my plan has been is to go purely by representation in congress. So with that, we have the following categories: 1) Unambiguously U.S. states [Represented in U.S. congress, not claimed by C.S.] 2) Unambiguously U.S. territories [Represented in U.S. congress, not claimed by C.S.] 3) Unambiguously C.S. states [Represented solely in C.S. congress] 4) Unambiguously C.S. territories [Represented solely in C.S. congress] 5) States represented in both. This includes Virginia, Louisiana, and Tennessee, all of which had various portions represented in the U.S. congress even after they joined the C.S. 6) States represented in whole by both. This applies to Missouri and Kentucky, which were admitted to the C.S. but they never held any genuine control. They were wholly in the U.S. congress. This is to be considered the weakest possible C.S. linkage. 7) West Virginia. Because what the hell do I do with this? According to the C.S., it never existed. According to the U.S., it did. How do I properly represent this in what is supposed to be an unbiased, third party map? Well, that leads to one idea I had: Doing a map of the actual congressional districts and when they had representation and where. But that's for another version. 8) The seceded states [Representation in neither congress] 9) The military districts [No representation in U.S., C.S. ceased to exist] I'm open to ideas, or a better place to ask this, but really I just wanted to change the topic from bad American Empire maps and Serbs. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:What? He's a shitposter who think he's fightimg the good fight against the Stalin-worshipping goon hivemind
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:He's a shitposter who think he's fightimg the good fight against the Stalin-worshipping goon hivemind Lifeless muppet, you will leave my Beloved Thread immediately. Go.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Okay, but I don't understand what his reply had to do with Bloodnose's post. It just seemed like a non sequitur. Am I going crazy here?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
No it was definitely weird and had nothing to do with what I was saying.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I'm open to ideas, or a better place to ask this, but really I just wanted to change the topic from bad American Empire maps and Serbs. Maybe use different colors for states like Missouri/Kentucky/West Virginia that were claimed by the CSA but never had complete control of.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:Maybe use different colors for states like Missouri/Kentucky/West Virginia that were claimed by the CSA but never had complete control of. Oh, absolutely for Missouri and Kentucky. But West Virginia is an interesting issue. Do I even draw the border between it and Virginia? Because that would be asserting the USA's version is the only version. I mean, let's look at the situation. Both sides claimed all of Virginia, and both sides had partial control in the state. When West Virginia seceded from Virginia and was admitted into the USA, none of the above changed at all. All that changed is one side decided another internal border existed. And I'm struggling to figure out how to represent this on a neutral map. Maybe a blurry or dotted line, much like I could for Arizona Territory...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:No it was definitely weird and had nothing to do with what I was saying. Casting doubt on the reality of the American empire is threatening the D&D Stalinist consensus.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Oh, absolutely for Missouri and Kentucky. But West Virginia is an interesting issue. Do I even draw the border between it and Virginia? Because that would be asserting the USA's version is the only version. You may want to use a striped grey/beige for regions that had two competing governments, like for KY and MO. West Virginia could be represented as a dotted-line region that breaks off from VA and is striped grey/beige. I don't know if Maryland would need its own color or sign of martial law being declared. EDIT: Also, maybe a separate color for regions that are independent of both the CSA and USA would be good. The Reconstruction military districts controlled by the US shouldn't have the same color as the Pre-CSA seceded states. Spiderfist Island fucked around with this message at 21:42 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:You may want to use a striped grey/beige for regions that had two competing governments, like for KY and MO. West Virginia could be represented as a dotted-line region that breaks off from VA and is striped grey/beige. I don't know if Maryland would need its own color or sign of martial law being declared. I wouldn't say KY and MO had truly competing governments; the Bowling Green and Neosho governments never really held any power. But nonetheless they were admitted into the CSA, and that has to be shown. I wouldn't consider Maryland anything but a pure U.S. state for this. I mean, it's easy to do a map from the USA's POV: Nothing changed, except WV was admitted as a state in 1863. And you see above what the CSA's POV would be. What I'm trying to do is present as neutral a POV as possible. It's a difficult project, and perhaps I shouldn't expect to do everything in one map. Maybe do one using congressional representation as the criteria, one using general military control (a major difference between these two would be Arizona Territory, for example), etc.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
 Neo-nazi parties in Europe 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:
Were there too many in Russia to depict?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
I think if I were going to found a political party then I would look to hire a neo-nazi to design my logo.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
withak posted:I think if I were going to found a political party then I would look to hire a neo-nazi to design my logo. I'm really surprised the Finnish one (whatever it is) isn't facing East  Maybe just an oversight? Or maybe their main enemy is the muslimbögs of Sweden 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
I think the British one looks silly.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:
What are Czech neo-nazis doing with a Nordic Cross in their flag? (Still laughing at Albania with their double-headed eagle.)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:
What's that thing in Belgium supposed to be? I'm Belgian and I don't think I've ever seen that symbol before. e: Oh okay it's Verdinaso, a movement that died with WW2. Come on, should've picked something more relevant for today's age.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:I'm really surprised the Finnish one (whatever it is) It's the emblem of Lapuan Liike, so, uhh, I think the map needs updating.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I think the British one looks silly.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
I have no idea what the UK one is. It isn't the BNP, National Front or Combat 18 logo. Edit- ah explained above.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Lycus posted:I think the British one looks silly. It's not even a neo-nazi symbol, on account of it being pretty hard to be neo-anything when you ceased to exist five years before the thing you are the supposed successor to. It would be nice, though, if the last nazi party we'd had died in 1940. Sadly that is not this universe.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
XMNN posted:It's the flag of the British Union of Fascists (Oswald Moseley's outfit) which didn't make it very long into WWII. I'm not sure why it's on that map unless some successor party is still kicking around using it. I guess the BNP or EDL don't really have a unique symbol, at least not that I can think of. That makes me think it's only using organizations that have self-identified as fascist, no matter how old they are, but I don't know if the Golden Dawn has ever done that. Lycus fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Seems quite likely, the Romanian one is the symbol of the Iron Guard, i.e. their homegrown brand of pre-WWII fascists.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
I'm assuming it's supposed to be interbellum-themed. They really ruined all the cool symbols, some of those look pretty badass.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Ah, I didn't realize it was so out of date  I might try my hand at making an updated one soon, then.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Romanian fascists were known for enjoying Advanced Tic-Tac-Toe.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
I was going to say, not a fan of Romania's hashtag.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
Ras Het posted:It's the emblem of Lapuan Liike, so, uhh, I think the map needs updating.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 23:06
|
|