|
The Narrator posted:Although a quick bit of wiki-ing revealed they removed "Republic of" from the country's name at the start of 2012 Line two of the new Hungarian constitution states it is a republic. It is a big fuss about nothing. Lots of people are complaining about the changes the government introduced, while ignoring that it is done the same way in many other countries. The latest outrage was this change, quoting from the wiki: "While giving the Constitutional Court the power to review the constitution itself on procedural grounds, it stipulates that the court cannot annul a law passed by a two-thirds parliamentary majority." If that is considered undemocratic maybe they should tell countries like Austria and France. The irony here was that even Austria complained about the Hungarian change, while they have pretty much a political tradition of sticking everything into their constitution. There's like 600 laws as amendments in the Austrian constitution, dealing for example with such illustrious matters as the capital city's taxi law. Riso fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Jun 6, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 09:53
|
|
why would a modern democratic country even want to do that?
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
 I'm pretty sure a lot of the map should be yellow, but people don't realize what they're doing wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
It still doesn't meet the dreams of Hungarian nationalists, but Hungary practically doubled in size thanks to the two Vienna awards which gave it large swathes of Romania and Czechoslovakia as well as land transferred to it during the war  Romania was a German ally as well, and following the invasion of Russia, the losses to Hungary were compensated by the addition of what is roughly modern day Moldova: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
Wow "tonic" has been erased from the non-alcoholic carbonated beverage map entirely. When I was growing up in the 80's I had cousins in the Boston suburbs who called it tonic, that wasn't that long ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
Itious posted:It still doesn't meet the dreams of Hungarian nationalists, but Hungary practically doubled in size thanks to the two Vienna awards which gave it large swathes of Romania and Czechoslovakia as well as land transferred to it during the war 1. Stalin wanted it 2. Western Allies didn't give a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Also weird that "Coke" spills over some into New Mexico. I always just thought of the "Coke" thing as being in the Deep South (partly b/c Coke is from Atlanta). So do they distinguish between coke and cola? It would get a little confusing otherwise. PrinceRandom posted:Edit: I think that joke someone made about Hungarian Revanchism being a flashpoint for Europe is kind of a fear( maybe not to the extent of war, but Hungary has wanted their "ethnic lands" back for a while, and Romania is becoming a mid-size power in Europe). Are they worried about their rapidly declining population at all? You'd think they'd focus on that first. From Statistics Explained, which is basically Eurostat's wiki:  Also, look at Germany. It's really weird that you don't hear more about this, maybe their social security system is organized in such a way as to lessen the impact of an aging population. Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Iceland is spelt Island in Icelandic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Actually, yes: Ísland
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
quote:Are they worried about their rapidly declining population at all? You'd think they'd focus on that first. About 600k ethnic Hungarians live in surrounding countries so you could argue they do 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
Itious posted:Romania was a German ally as well, and following the invasion of Russia, the losses to Hungary were compensated by the addition of what is roughly modern day Moldova: Not quite. Romania had everything up to the Dniester (the river just under the words TRANSNISTRIA on the map above) up until 1940, when the Soviets pushed the border with Romania back to its modern form (the river with Cernauti, Iasi and Chilia on its banks); the map above shows what the Romanians were promised after Barbarossa began, including the return of Moldova and everything up to the Southern Bug (the easternmost river marked). Freudian fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:From Statistics Explained, which is basically Eurostat's wiki: Population decline in Germany was getting a bit of news several years ago, but since Germany is currently doing much better than most of Europe, it's been kind of forgotten. That said, the map exaggerates the problem by splitting Germany into smaller regions than the other countries. There's a major rural to urban shift taking place in Germany now, that's why the map of Germany looks like a sea of blue surrounding tiny orange islands. According to official statistics, Germany's population increased between 2011 and 2012 http://www.statistik-portal.de/Statistik-Portal/en/en_zs01_bund.asp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Riso posted:About 600k ethnic Hungarians live in surrounding countries so you could argue they do At this rate, 600K would only last them a decade at most. Current demographic trends aren't set in stone, though. I can see Eastern European fertility rates going back up in the near future, which is what happened for native Western Europeans in the past two decades (except Germans). Still lower than the replacement rate, but enough to stave off complete demographic collapse. Mu Cow posted:Population decline in Germany was getting a bit of news several years ago, but since Germany is currently doing much better than most of Europe, it's been kind of forgotten. That's true, a lot of those deep-blue areas are probably rural areas with a low population density. It's part of the general trend of people moving from the periphery to the center. Belgium and the Netherlands don't really have the equivalent of that kind of peripheral area, and that's why you don't see any blue zones there. Still, Germany has been losing population for years now. I wonder how that will affect its social security system, particularly pensions, once baby boomers start retiring. Will they be to able to cope with it? It looks like they'll be hit even harder than the rest of Western Europe. Here is the equivalent map for the USA, showing estimated population change at the county level between 2010 and 2012:  The interactive version of this map (detailing natural change and net migration) can be found here. At first glance you might think the country breaks even, but a lot of those gray counties had very low populations to begin with. It's the same phenomenon of people moving away from isolated rural areas to the cities. On that note, I wonder what's going on in the western part of North Dakota. Maybe they discovered more oil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:
They are crazy about fracking in North Dakota. Lots of money being made there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:So do they distinguish between coke and cola? It would get a little confusing otherwise. Nope, the generic term for any cola-style soft drink is Coke, at least in Texas. If someone asked you if you wanted a Coke, it would make perfect sense to respond, "Sure, I'll take a Dr Pepper (or Pepsi, actual Coke, Sprite, etc.)."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Alright, I got permission from this maps author to post this because I quite like him and think this is a rather humorous take on OTL. And actually, you can run a ponzi scheme using fish, because of quotas. Gods bless Iceland. :cryingwhale: More Later posted:Iceland is spelt Island in Icelandic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Elim Garak posted:Wow "tonic" has been erased from the non-alcoholic carbonated beverage map entirely. When I was growing up in the 80's I had cousins in the Boston suburbs who called it tonic, that wasn't that long ago. I've never heard anyone refer to soft drinks as "tonic" except maybe ads from the 1890s. Are you sure they didn't mean tonic water?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Fun fact after the war Hungary was forced to go back to Trianon borders and everybody got all their land back. Except for that Eastern bit of Czechoslovakia. The USSR got to keep that because
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:3. Majority Ukrainian. I'm sure Stalin was very concerned about the Ukrainian people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Kingsbury3 posted:CERN+Russia The interesting thing about the Roman Empire is that first, the Romans had strong presence in Central Europe (the region that is missing in your map); and Germanic chieftains bordering on the region were crucial in the political development of the young Empire. Here is an epigraphic evidence of Roman presence found in Slovakia:  It says: "Glory to the Emperor, and the garrison of Laugaricio, 855 soldiers of the II. legion of Marcus Vlaerius Maximianus, The Legate of the Second Auxiliary Legion, the Sponsor of this Message". Then when the first Roman Empire collapsed, the blank portion of the map became the chief part of the Holy Roman Empire, beginning with successful wars of the Piasts and Premyslids against German lords, and culminating with Charles IV. and his Golden Bull of 1356 which turned today's Bohemia into the politically most prestigious piece of land East of France for next few hundred years (realistically until the battle of Austerlitz).
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:I'm sure Stalin was very concerned about the Ukrainian people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
The interesting thing is that both Milwaukee and St. Louis are densely red, both are extremely German areas, and both are major beer brewing areas. I don't know if that matters but meh. Wisconsin/Minnesota also tends to the follow the East Coast in basically most of these maps. What up brothers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
What? The Germans want to buy back Kaliningrad and its surroundings ? I can't find a link for that, any help ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I've never heard anyone refer to soft drinks as "tonic" except maybe ads from the 1890s. Are you sure they didn't mean tonic water? Positive. To give some more information, it was my fathers side of the family, they grew up lower middle class in Waltham, MA. My grandfather was a marine in the Pacific theater in WWII, so maybe it came from there, but I tend to think not since my dad still occasionally said tonic into the early 90's. I'd think if it was something his peers weren't saying as a kid he would have dropped it. His father, sister and her children all said it at least until '94 or '95 when my grandfather died and a rift in the family prevented me from observing the evolution of the vernacular. But yeah, it was definitely all fizzy soft drinks. Edit: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/308-the-pop-vs-soda-map mentions it fading in popularity in the Boston area. This was the map I was thinking of when I said earlier that I guessed tonic wasn't showing up anymore, but it doesn't even show up on this map. Also if you google soda vs pop vs tonic there's a Boston Globe article about it but it's subscriber-only. Elim Garak fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:3. Majority Ukrainian. A Buttery Pastry posted:He was concerned about being more Russian than the Russians though. But really, does it matter why he did it? There's really no reason why Carpatian Ruthenia should be part of Czechoslovakia, and plenty of reason for it to be part of the Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
skipThings posted:What? The Germans want to buy back Kaliningrad and its surroundings ? I can't find a link for that, any help ? That was back in 1990 when the Soviets were desperate for cash. The Germans didn't want it; they were more worried about reunification. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/31/kalingrad-kant-home-return-german
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
texaholic posted:
 Whoa, I've never heard of this one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:He was concerned about being more Russian than the Russians though. But really, does it matter why he did it? There's really no reason why Carpatian Ruthenia should be part of Czechoslovakia, and plenty of reason for it to be part of the Ukraine. Actually, the western bit of Ukraine is much more pro-western than the rest of the country; they're also more fervently nationalist. This traces back to the period when they were ruled by the Hapsburgs - it's not like the Hapsburgs were objectively pro-democracy or pro-nationalism, but they were a much freer society than Tsarist Russia and were much more open to those ideas. This extends to the modern day; the main political cleavage in Ukraine is between the pro-West west and the pro-Russia east. (The red areas voted for pro-Western candidate Viktor Yuschenko, whereas the blue areas voted for pro-Russia candidate Viktor Yanukovich.) See for instance this map of the December 2004 Presidential election:  Even if we're looking at it from a purely ethnolinguistic perspective, western Ukraine is different; people are more likely to speak Ukrainian (as opposed to Russophones in the east), and are more likely to be (Greek) Catholic than the Orthodox east. That being said, I don't think the abstract norm of the Wilsonian nation-state is a good idea in the Eastern European context. Different ethnic groups are all jumbled together; it's impossible to create a contiguous, unicultural nation-state there without ethnic cleansing and/or genocide. So what particular reason was there for Ruthenians or Galicians to live in the USSR as opposed to Czechoslovakia or Poland? Either way, they would have been a minority with no way to actually express their cultural identity. Like Gogol Bordello says, "What are all these countries and how did they appear? And who cut up the cake and who brought up all this gear? Did it have to do anything with its people's will? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know my dear" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AguFIRq0R6U
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
With my last two posts, I was trying to communicate two things, in the context of an already-begun discussion about Hungarian national frontiers. Post #1. Traditional Western views of WW2 at their simplest trace the beginnings of the conflict to Munich and "appeasement", when Western powers allowed the Third Reich to annex Czech territory. This is seen as wrong. However, these same powers allowed the USSR to annex Czech territory after the war. This is either not paid any attention to at all or handwaved away. Post #2. It's wrong to allow murderous dictators to decide the borders of other countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
Speaking of countries that don't really work as an ethnic nation-state along traditional western European lines, I found some interesting maps about North American ethnic and cultural geography. First, the most prevalent ethnic backgrounds  Regional culture areas, I think this one is particularly problematic, especially because of the huge extent and variety of the areas labeled as "Midland." Philadelphia, northern Alabama and the Bay Area all belong to a single regional culture? I don't buy it. I'd also say that the area of the "Hispanic Borderland" region is underestimated here. Still, interesting.  This one's labeled "Surviving Folk Culture Regions." Presumably this has to do with folklore, cuisine, dialect, and other similar things and it would be interesting to get more detail on the map, especially concerning why the unshaded areas supposedly don't have their own folk culture, but unfortunately it was presented more or less without comment.  Finally, this one presents so-called ethnic homelands of the US and Canada. I think it's particularly interesting that the compiler of the map considers Utah to essentially function as a Mormon homeland, this was certainly the impression I got when I visited. Also interesting that there is apparently a huge concentration of ethnic islands in the Midwest and that northern New Mexico is singled out as a Hispanic homeland. I imagine that would be because the Spanish-speaking New Mexican culture in that region has been distinct from other Spanish speaking cultures for a long time but to be honest I'm not really all that knowledgeable about New Mexico. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:With my last two posts, I was trying to communicate two things, in the context of an already-begun discussion about Hungarian national frontiers. Oh, for sure. In fact, I would go a step further, and say it's morally wrong to decide the borders of countries on any criterion other than "what the inhabitants there want". Of course, there are sometimes pragmatic problems with that - what if the inhabitants (like the Sudeten Germans) democratically decide to join up with the murderous dictator? What if the inhabitants (like the short-lived, post-war government of Czechoslovakia) democratically decide to ethnically cleanse their country - to 'decide the borders of their own country', as it were? I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Stalin was a cock, or that the Western leaders betrayed their own pro-democratic rhetoric by letting him be one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 09:54
|
|
|
You're talking about self-determination, which is actually one of the reasons behind the existence of Czechoslovakia in the first place. Yes, self-determination does open up many cans of worms but I don't think it's ever truly been applied. Post-WW1 selective application of the principle of self-determination practically resulted in the ignorance of the will of several groups of people (mostly Germans or Hungarians) because the victors of that war really loving just vindictively wanted these people to suffer, and in the attempted subordination of certain nationalities to the will of other "good" ones. Like Croats to Serbs or Slovaks to Czechs. All that really happened was that I tried to throw in a little-known historical fact into a discussion, and then got my hackles up because I believed someone was defending one of Stalin's horrible landgrabs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:He was concerned about being more Russian than the Russians though. But really, does it matter why he did it? There's really no reason why Carpatian Ruthenia should be part of Czechoslovakia, and plenty of reason for it to be part of the Ukraine. How about it being historically part of countries west of the Carpathians (Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania) but never part of the Ukraine, the majority of people being Greek Catholic like the Slovaks instead of orthodox like Ukrainians and Russians? What about the Carpathian mountains being a natural and cultural border? Hardly "no reason at all" for it being part of Slovakia, although probably not enough for anybody to wish for a redrawing of the borders (especially because the western Ukraine it now (still) is a shithole compared to eastern Slovakia, which on it's own is one of the poorest regions in the Euro-zone).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 10:53
|
|
|
Meme Emulator posted:
Bwahahaha Los Angeles, California:  "So what do you call it when the rain falls while the sun is shining?" "What? Nothing, I guess." "Yeah, most don't."New York, New York: "So what do you call it when the rain falls while the sun is shining?" "Uhh, sunshower?" "That's pretty clever!"Buttfuck, Mississippi: "So what do you call it when the rain falls while the sun is shining?" "WHY THAT'S THE DEVIL BEATING HIS WIFE THAT IS, OH LORD INDEED HE'S BEATING THA LIVING PISS OUT OF THE POOR WOMAN, MHM YES YES JUST SMACKING HER UNTIL SHE CAN'T STAND NO MORE!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:Actually, the western bit of Ukraine is much more pro-western than the rest of the country; they're also more fervently nationalist. This traces back to the period when they were ruled by the Hapsburgs - it's not like the Hapsburgs were objectively pro-democracy or pro-nationalism, but they were a much freer society than Tsarist Russia and were much more open to those ideas. This extends to the modern day; the main political cleavage in Ukraine is between the pro-West west and the pro-Russia east. (The red areas voted for pro-Western candidate Viktor Yuschenko, whereas the blue areas voted for pro-Russia candidate Viktor Yanukovich.) Ponsonby Britt posted:Even if we're looking at it from a purely ethnolinguistic perspective, western Ukraine is different; people are more likely to speak Ukrainian (as opposed to Russophones in the east), and are more likely to be (Greek) Catholic than the Orthodox east. That being said, I don't think the abstract norm of the Wilsonian nation-state is a good idea in the Eastern European context. Different ethnic groups are all jumbled together; it's impossible to create a contiguous, unicultural nation-state there without ethnic cleansing and/or genocide. So what particular reason was there for Ruthenians or Galicians to live in the USSR as opposed to Czechoslovakia or Poland? Either way, they would have been a minority with no way to actually express their cultural identity. cheerfullydrab posted:You're talking about self-determination, which is actually one of the reasons behind the existence of Czechoslovakia in the first place. Yes, self-determination does open up many cans of worms but I don't think it's ever truly been applied. Post-WW1 selective application of the principle of self-determination practically resulted in the ignorance of the will of several groups of people (mostly Germans or Hungarians) because the victors of that war really loving just vindictively wanted these people to suffer, and in the attempted subordination of certain nationalities to the will of other "good" ones. Like Croats to Serbs or Slovaks to Czechs.  Should be noted that in 1947, 57% of people native* to the remaining German Schleswig voted for the SSV, the party of the Danish-minded minority, though the Danish government declined any idea of another plebiscite. If it had gone through, the border could have been pushed quite a bit further south. It's probably a good thing it wasn't though, since the current situation seems to be pretty satisfactory for all three historical ethnic groups. *As there were a lot of refugees in Schleswig at that point, enough to reduce that to only 35% of the total. cheerfullydrab posted:All that really happened was that I tried to throw in a little-known historical fact into a discussion, and then got my hackles up because I believed someone was defending one of Stalin's horrible landgrabs. goethe42 posted:How about it being historically part of countries west of the Carpathians (Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania) but never part of the Ukraine, the majority of people being Greek Catholic like the Slovaks instead of orthodox like Ukrainians and Russians?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
Schleswig is also linguistically quite interesting, because it has five officially recognised languages: Standard German, Low German (still spoken by many people especially in rural areas), Northern Frisian (spoken by about 8-10,000 people along Schleswig's western coast), Danish (spoken by perhaps 50,000 people mostly along the northern border) and Romanes (the language of the Roma and Sinti, spoken by at the most 5,000 people). Some linguists claim that South Jutlandic, a variant of Danish with a strong Low German influence, is actually a language of its own. There is also Petuh, a strange mixture of German, Low German, Standard Danish and South Jutlandic spoken by a handful of older people in Flensburg. A study done in the 1970s German border town of Rodenäs came to the conclusion that 28% of the population spoke all five local languages or dialects (i.e. Standard German, Low German, Standard Danish, South Jutlandic and Northern Frisian) more or less fluently. I'm loving stuff like this 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Schleswig is also linguistically quite interesting, because it has five officially recognised languages: Standard German, Low German (still spoken by many people especially in rural areas), Northern Frisian (spoken by about 8-10,000 people along Schleswig's western coast), Danish (spoken by perhaps 50,000 people mostly along the northern border) and Romanes (the language of the Roma and Sinti, spoken by at the most 5,000 people). Some linguists claim that South Jutlandic, a variant of Danish with a strong Low German influence, is actually a language of its own. There is also Petuh, a strange mixture of German, Low German, Standard Danish and South Jutlandic spoken by a handful of older people in Flensburg. A study done in the 1970s German border town of Rodenäs came to the conclusion that 28% of the population spoke all five local languages or dialects (i.e. Standard German, Low German, Standard Danish, South Jutlandic and Northern Frisian) more or less fluently. I'm loving stuff like this E:In regards to the Low German influence on South Jutlandic, that's true of the whole language really, which is probably why the Swedes have such a hard time understanding us. I've even seen some North German goons say that Danish is much easier to understand than German speakers in the south. (Though I think it was Swiss German they really had trouble with, which I can't blame them.) Speaking of South Jutlandic, here's a map of the major Danish dialects:  Which looks sensible enough, until you look at the various ways those major dialects break apart. Not sure how easy it is to make sense of for someone that doesn't speak Danish though, I don't think the site has an English version unfortunately. http://dialekt.ku.dk/dialektkort/ A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
Just saw this from my friend on Facebook:
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Just saw this from my friend on Facebook: Another argument in favor of the Pacific Northwest. I've gotta find a company to relocate me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
Wow, so the South really hasn't been dealt that good of a hand to start with, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:00 |
|
computer parts posted:Just saw this from my friend on Facebook: How are the risks weight? The danger of a drought is probably not as bad for the normal, non-farmer, then say a major earthquake. It also gives a new meaning to red state.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:02
|
|