|
Yeah if that deal doesn't involve net reduction of migrants coming in it's an absolute non-starter and simply proposing it is just Erdogan being a prick
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:So many things here so I'm going to be a bit disorganized in my response: The political crisis is in the USA and the core Western Euro countries, the periphery countries have problems of their own of course, but the shattering of the neoliberal consensus is something endogenous to the economic and political core. Stagnating wages in the US is a real and massive problem, and is a reflection of political dysfunction rather than any necessary economic conditions (why are healthcare and education costs rising? and also no, population growth is a bullshit answer, US population grew about the same percent from 1940-1970 as it did from 1970-2000) As for Western Europe, France and Germany have their own political issues with multiculturalism which they do not appear prepared to solve anytime soon icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:We can just use the Rhine as a moat and work from there. The Rhine is the rightful natural frontier of the French Republic GaussianCopula posted:Can someone explain to me why this chart looks the way it does? Why was the Global Financial Crisis and Euro crisis only a hiccup for Germany while most other European nations seem to have a lot of trouble dealing with it? Germany has an old and shrinking workforce, so unemployment is lower. See also Japan, which has extremely low unemployment GaussianCopula posted:So basically German is proof positive that automatic stabilizers work and fiscal stimuli are not needed? It's proof that the investment-intensive export-manufacturing model dies quietly with a whimper rather than explosively like say France or southern Europe icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:Once again, no. a currency union of countries with a huge range of income levels and a huge range of structural characteristics is a terrible idea and always will be
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
pigdog posted:Stumbled upon this article on Haa'retz titled a little clickbaitily Why the American 'multicultural' model falls apart in Europe and Israel. I'm not very familiar to Israel's internal struggles, so I'm not sure about the application there, but the author makes a some great points to help untangle why are people in eachother's throats over "<insert category> rights" all the time. Copied for posterity because it might be paywalled. Leftist multiculturalism and Popper-style pluralist liberalism aren't the same thing. But it's no surprise that Israeli and European racists don't understand the difference Popper's argument is explicitly not that one ideology is superior, it's that all-encompassing ideologies are far too narrow to possibly accurately describe the full breadth of human existence, and that therefore pragmatism is the best solution. Pluralist liberal democracy is based on the fact that pluralist liberal democracy has worked well for a long time, and that's it icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
forget about lack of voting discipline, holding Churchill as a political paragon should be grounds for instant expulsion from any left-wing political party
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:That's a pretty stupid wordfilter. put a bold tab in the middle of it and it breaks the filter neoliberal
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That's why a Brexit is important for Europe. Getting rid of Britain could allow to give a less neolib direction to the EU. It's a long shot (I think we should also kick Germany out to have a real chance) but it's definitely impossible as long as the UK has a word to say. The chief austerity proponents in the EU are the Germans, not the Brits. Britain not being in the Euro is frankly one of the big problems with the EU, they were supposed to act as mediators between France and Germany, and they aren't, so that relationship is dysfunctional
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Heh. The argument that not appreciating EU is the same as being a xenophobe or a hitler. That is a well sold one for sure, but doesn't make much sense. laffo at suggesting japan is a well run or successful country the most important part of the EU, and the one UK racists have an issue with, is free movement of people
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 21:02
|
|
for a week or a month but will right themselves. Switzerland and Norway are doing just fine. You can have trade agreements without being in the EU. EFTA works. Germans sell cars to UK, no matter if the UK is in the EU or not. They don't want to gently caress up that business just "out of principle". Look, ya'll who think UK will become an isolated island without EU have been duped. In the world outside of that wierd bubble, commerce still works.
|
Brainiac Five posted:Japan is fairly successful by that metric though. japan's problems are caused almost entirely by lack of free immigration
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
are you in favor of the complete ayn randianization of all public services in your home country as well? or is that only for the filthy untermenschen foreigners?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Well, they cannot do that with Podemos alone, and not having paid much attention in Spanish politics I don't know if political discourse leaves any room for C's to join such a coalition. I don't know if they can scrape enough MPs from smaller parties to get the required number of MPs but I doubt it. As an uneducated observer, it feels like it's gonna be either PP-PSOE(-C's) or deadlock. But I guess we'll know in the coming days anyway. no, even if you add up all the left-wing parties you only get 170 or 171 seats, you need 176 for a majority. right wing parties add up to 177. it'll be either a grand coalition or a right-wing one
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think it's important to distinguish globalization from neo liberal policies. Increased trade has benefited both the rich and poor worlds; the distribution of those gains to the very top is not a natural law. It's just how the distributive policies worked out. The problem the left has now and has had for decades is that it does not have a workable implementation of socialism to put forwards as a full alternative to neoliberalism, merely small fixes and corrections
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:If I meant white I would have said white. 20% of the native population has an immigrant background, so a lot of them wouldn't be able to pass an AfD approved paper bag test. native french with immigrant background are mostly spanish/italian right? and i would say that's about how race works everywhere, the US just doesn't have a large middle eastern population, many of whom are light-skinned enough to count as white
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Tesseraction, do you think it is possible to argue against mass immigration from Middle East and not be racist? No. Free movement of people is a basic tenet of liberalism
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
They should reform the Crown of Aragon and give them Southern Italy too, solves that problem at the same time
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Second: This is sort of off topic, but does Portugal have much less influence lingering from the Franco/Salazar people because their regime was overthrown by the military itself? Is the Portuguese officer corps is more left-wing than the Spanish one still, or was it solely because of the war in Angola and Mozambique that it was at the time and all those people left?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So if it's racist to not let in >2% of your population in asylum seekers, what's the not-racist playbook look like? free movement of people
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What does that look like? Open borders to economic migrants and refugees of any kind. You could refuse people for pressing and extraordinary reasons like them being known criminals or disease control or whatever without being racist, but rejecting people for cultural reasons is racist, yes
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Sounds like a suicide pact vision of liberalism. If you consider liberalism to be a weak, degenerate ideology that cannot survive in the wild sure. It seems a very strong vote of no confidence in liberalism to suggest that it can't handle the stress generated by implementing one of its core principles
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Has there ever been a country, in any period of history, that allowed foreigners to come in in unlimited numbers, for indefinite time, regardless of their national/religious background and regardless of their motivation? The USA and a bunch of South American countries, at least before 1924 and ignoring Chinese
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:What's the vast majority of reputable research into the economic effects of immigration since the 50s, 'precious'? the babies are of pure aryan racial stock
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I mean Saudi Arabia would ban Western refugees from wearing swimwear they'd be comfortable in too, but it wouldn't be because of race. France genuinely does value secularism as a national characteristic, and while this law is a particularly clumsy overreach in that regard that wouldn't even be remotely constitutional in the US, there are reasons to oppose the burka beyond racism. Again, I'm not defending the law, but viewing everything through the lens of race can sometimes miss that there are other factors at play as well. You're right, laicite is a bad ideology completely independent of racism
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:It depends on how it's applied, I don't see the problem with having a secular environment in public spaces, but personal clothing choices probably shouldn't be regulated to that extent (I can see why the face covering argument can be controversial, security wise). It means a particular kind of secularism which seeks to use the power of the state to roll back the influence of religion on individuals as much as possible because it is seen as a negative influence on rational individualist values Cat Mattress posted:I agree that France should go back to being a Catholic nation, fille ainée de l'église, and have no tolerance for heathens and heretics. It's almost like there is an option other than totalitarian secularism and totalitarian theocracy
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:How is it possible for a garment that makes such a strong statement not to be politically charged? Because in a society which is not totalitarian, there is a distinction between the private sphere such as one's body and personal articles, where the state may not use its power, and the public, where it may icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I come from a country where we had plenty of theocracy without the (blatant) totalitarianism and let me tell you Laicite would have been way preferable. France did almost end up like Spain, though, and the Spanish left was vociferously laicitist, so I'm going to go with no not really on that one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Fran%C3%A7aise#Interwar_revival Turns out totalitarian ideologies are brittle and have trouble attracting support from people who disagree with them by even teeny tiny amounts
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Should yarmulkes be banned? For reference, historically modern France has said yes resoundingly to both of those
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:It will always be politically charged but dummies like you have charged it even further hopelessly unintentionally with elements of Muslim resistance to an intolerant west thanks to your brutally clumsy actions and rhetoric that can't even be squared with your oft cited love of freedom against the supposed oriental despotism. It's actually impossible for individual clothing to be politically charged (in a liberal democracy, anyways), because one of the central principles of pluralist liberalism is that the political sphere cannot extend into the personal one such that choice of clothing is a politicized issue
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Sounds like a pretty lovely place. *insert pithy comment about Continental European totalitarianism vs Anglosphere Liberty*
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:But they didn't end up like Spain, in the brief period where those who wanted to return France to the glory of a counter-revolutionary openly Catholic state found success they needed an outside Nazi invasion to achieve their five minutes in the sun, with the post war fallout being predictably disastrous for them. They'll have to wait until next year's election to do that, yes. And lol if you don't think laicite is a big part of why the French right is so awful
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I too think that french catholic nuns should be banned after they've been coerced into enforced celibacy after being indoctrinated and forced into never enjoying sex by a pretense of they chose it after being indoctrinated by Catholicism for their entire lives. By the way, another thing that modern France actually literally did. Nun's habits and Priest clothing was banned in public for a long time
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Being racist against Arabs is the main reason why they are so awful and the current crop like the Front National obviously descend from the Catholic Supremacism of the French Right, its notable that openly Catholic voters favor them more strongly. Some of their rhetoric has revolved around Catholicism being superior and more intrinsically French than Islam, while they tend to take a familiarly conservative view on things like Gay marriage and abortion. It doesn't change the fact that they spent most of their existence being furiously opposed to Laicite and everything it represented. When you define liberalism in such a way that necessarily excludes religious people, turns out a lot of them reject liberalism. Both in the 1800s and today cool and good posted:Yeah, as we've seen, adding religion to the mix calms down right-wingers I mean that by excluding religious people from liberalism it removes any incentive for them to uphold any sort of liberal values.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You don't seem to believe in much of anything at all since you're such a lovely socialist. I don't think fishmech ever claimed to be a socialist? Sinteres posted:You keep confusing secularism for racism because you're a patronizing poo poo who doesn't think people from the Middle East are capable of letting go of the lovely regressive beliefs practiced in many of their countries of origin. Laicitist secularism isn't racism, but by its nature it is very easy on racism
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'd like some examples People have a big ole hardon for French style secularism, despite the fact that France in the 1800s was not a particularly successful state, had a very weak democracy and a weak economy, and arguably still does to this day for the same reasons as then icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:hell, british anti-catholicism is a big one as well That's not opposed to religion in general, just Catholic religion And yeah, again, Bolshevism and Spanish Anarchism aren't particularly inspiring examples of successful, prosperous societies edit: Plus yeah, the Irish and all that
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Racism is bad, and various non-racist totalitarian ideologies (like using the power of the state to try and eliminate religion), are also bad
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this implies a rather radical definition of totalitarianism Not really, totalitarianism means authoritarianism plus ideological motivation. The state dictating to individuals what religious beliefs and practices than can do for ideological reasons is literally the definition of totalitarianism Are you saying the state using its power to eliminate religion is a good or acceptable thing?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this doesn't really follow, and does not seem to hold up to scrutiny You could argue that, yeah. I don't think that's worth caring about or anywhere near on the same level as banning Muslim dress, though V. Illych L. posted:sure, sometimes Could you give an example or criteria? Or is it purely "I know it when I see it"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:ok then i'm honestly fine with a bit of totalitarianism tbh That's obvious, yeah
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i mean, at a certain point you get farcical results from a "non-totalitarian" approach where you cannot use state violence to do things because it would be enforcing ideological discipline on society, e.g. using the secret police to blow up a hate group which a small minority of the members have been using to organise violent crime No, arresting people for violent, organized crime is not an ideological act. Unless you mean, like, arresting people who profess beliefs similar to unrelated individuals who have committed crimes and also profess similar beliefs. Which makes very little sense icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 02:15
|
|