|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 05 2018 22:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 22:44 Silvanel wrote:
Well Your feeling is wrong. I know the difference perfectly well. Theres nothing contradictory in economic immigrant who cant find the job (for whatever reason) and as results need to rely on teh support of state to survive. Economic immigrant = person that is likely due to exposure, starvation or treatable disease in their home country.
Not necessarily for example polish/romanian/turkish migration to UK/Germany or ukrainian to Poland is a perfect example of people moving not because of threat of starvation/disease but of the desire to improve their material situation. I am suspecting it is similiar for migrants (not refugees) from African/Asian countries but i dont have data on that so lets just leave it at "not necessarily".
|
trying to put immigrants into neat little boxes is futile anyway and I don't really see the point. You can be both a refugee and an 'economic immigrant' at the same time. People running from Cuba to America or from impoverished states to Europe certainly might qualify for both.
I don't get it anyway, what's bad about moving to another place to work and live there if you see economic opportunity? Is there some iron law that people only are allowed to move freely if they starve? Engaging in this weird right-wing taxonomy about immigrants is stupid in and of itself.
|
On July 06 2018 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
trying to put immigrants into neat little boxes is futile anyway and I don't really see the point. You can be both a refugee and an 'economic immigrant' at the same time. People running from Cuba to America or from impoverished states to Europe certainly might qualify for both.
I don't get it anyway, what's bad about moving to another place to work and live there if you see economic opportunity? Is there some iron law that people only are allowed to move freely if they starve? Engaging in this weird right-wing taxonomy about immigrants is stupid in and of itself.
It seems like coded language to say the immigrant isn’t different from a refugee because they NEED to be saved or provided with a place. It implies the immigrant is here for purely economic reasons, which can be to work hard and make a better life for themselves. Or to the cynic it can mean the immigrant has arrived to mooch off the system they played no part in making. An immigrant that is moving to the country to take something, either services or a job.
|
I find the whole immigration thing pretty puzzling to be honest. The left accuses the right that they dont care about the immigrants because they don't want them, the right then claims moral superiority because its about protecting their country, workforce, the citizens whatnot, to which the left counters them by claiming an even higher moral high ground that they are so concerned about their well being and they have a moral duty to help (a noble thought), however they are being content about how these immigrants come to Europe: on over crowded boats which they pay a small fortune to get onto, or by foot though the Balkan route (my town is actually on the border with Greece and I see them every day) for which they pay again a lot of money for transport to get to EU or die trying, and some of them actually do either they drown or get sick, exhaustion etc, I think I read earlier this week that in 2018 alone there have been 1000 deaths so far.
Absurd.
|
On July 06 2018 06:49 FreakyDroid wrote:
I find the whole immigration thing pretty puzzling to be honest. The left accuses the right that they dont care about the immigrants because they don't want them, the right then claims moral superiority because its about protecting their country, workforce, the citizens whatnot, to which the left counters them by claiming an even higher moral high ground that they are so concerned about their well being and they have a moral duty to help (a noble thought), however they are being content about how these immigrants come to Europe: on over crowded boats which they pay a small fortune to get onto, or by foot though the Balkan route (my town is actually on the border with Greece and I see them every day) for which they pay again a lot of money for transport to get to EU or die trying, and some of them actually do either they drown or get sick, exhaustion etc, I think I read earlier this week that in 2018 alone there have been 1000 deaths so far.
Absurd.
which part is puzzling? just all of it in general? politics is always local; and factions make arguments that work for their sides.
you raise a bunch of different points, so i'ts no clear which parts are puzzling.
also, their actual arguments (on all sides) are often misrepresented or just not covered; coverage mostly comes for the arguments that get votes. of course most arguments aren't about the actual substance of the issue anyways, but are just ways to get votes.
I'd be glad to go over any part that you'd like more explanation on (or others in the thread could as well).
|
the puzzling part is that if the lefties really wanted refugees, they'd board them on planes from their country of residence then flew/ship them to wherever place it wanted/needed them.
|
|
|
Yes, and to the people who voted in the idiots that apparently voted against transparency in some kind of committee where my country apparently had 0 say:
Vice Presidents who voted IN FAVOUR of the reform:
(1) David-Maria SASSOLI (S&D, Italian)
(2) Sylvie GUILLAUME (S&D, French)
(3) Pavel TELIČKA (ALDE, Czech)
(4) Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS (GUE, Greek)
(5) Heidi HAUTALA (Green, Finnish)
(6) Fabio Massimo CASTALDO (EFDD, Italian)
Vice Presidents who voted AGAINST the reform:
(1) Mairead McGUINNESS (EPP, Irish)
(2) Bogusław LIBERADZKI (S&D, Polish)
(3) Rainer WIELAND (EPP, German)
(4) Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI (ECR, Polish)
(5) Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO (EPP, Spanish)
(6) Evelyne GEBHARDT (S&D, German)
(7) Lívia JÁRÓKA (EPP, Hungarian)
(8) Ioan Mircea PAŞCU (S&D, Romanian)
Please get rid of them, as I have 0 chance to vote those individuals away.
#democracy ...
I get the whole shtick around European political parties (Heidi HAUTALA would be the closest thing I have to a representative, and she voted my way), but this sort of stuff is really discouraging. But at least the EU copyright reform was blocked by parliament where everybody gets a say, right?
|
well one could see it as a victory(copyright law was blocked for now) but also as MEPs just opened up the lobby war to fatten their pockets....
Bring on more lobbyists
Thursday's decision opens up the possibility for MEPs to introduce amendments to the parliament's text.
This also means that the race is on for lobbyists to convince MEPs that are not necessarily experts on copyright or how the internet works. Copyright is a controversial topic with vested interests new and old.
Immediately after the vote, interest groups started flooding mailboxes with press statements.
These emails also give some indication of how heated the debate has become and how entrenched are the positions.
Four lobby groups representing magazines, newspapers, and publishers said that MEPs "voted to obstruct" the copyright reform, "succumbing to an intense lobby of manipulative anti-copyright campaigners, US internet giants and vested interests who benefit from stealing and monetising publishers' valuable content".
September
The issue will return on the plenary agenda in September.
The full chamber will then be able to debate the bill, before its rapporteur Voss is sent to negotiate with the Council of the EU – which represents national governments – and the European Commission.
The negotiators will have to find a compromise between the commission's original text, the to-be-determined parliament text, and the council's text, which was agreed last May.
It will be the outcome of these so-called trilogue talks which will determine who will benefit from the 'directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market'.
|
The business models of old, non-digital firms are based on the principle of exclusive ownership that a state guarantees. That principle is necessary in a world with scarce resources.
In the digital world where everything can be reproduced easily the same business model - using certain resources that are physically exclusive and having the state guarantee that only you can use them - does not work. Young and innovative people who have created the internet and filled it with life have found better business models, like social media platforms, market places, forums etc. It's a prime example of the process of creative destruction, the old oligarchy is losing to a new, superior, better adapted type of businesses. So their reaction is the same as everytime: they run to daddy conservativism and ask to change the rules of the game to such, that make them win again. And then people wonder why we have such extreme tax rates, when all conservative parties of the left and right do is to invest more and more energy to prevent change.
|
On July 06 2018 19:26 xM(Z wrote:well one could see it as a victory(copyright law was blocked for now) but also as MEPs just opened up the lobby war to fatten their pockets .Show nested quote +...
Bring on more lobbyists
Thursday's decision opens up the possibility for MEPs to introduce amendments to the parliament's text.
This also means that the race is on for lobbyists to convince MEPs that are not necessarily experts on copyright or how the internet works. Copyright is a controversial topic with vested interests new and old.
Immediately after the vote, interest groups started flooding mailboxes with press statements.
These emails also give some indication of how heated the debate has become and how entrenched are the positions.
Four lobby groups representing magazines, newspapers, and publishers said that MEPs "voted to obstruct" the copyright reform, "succumbing to an intense lobby of manipulative anti-copyright campaigners, US internet giants and vested interests who benefit from stealing and monetising publishers' valuable content".
September
The issue will return on the plenary agenda in September.
The full chamber will then be able to debate the bill, before its rapporteur Voss is sent to negotiate with the Council of the EU – which represents national governments – and the European Commission.
The negotiators will have to find a compromise between the commission's original text, the to-be-determined parliament text, and the council's text, which was agreed last May.
It will be the outcome of these so-called trilogue talks which will determine who will benefit from the 'directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market'.
I am still a bit flabberghasted by how this became a thing. I hope the MEPs resist these shitty lobby groups trying to maintain their troglodyte view of what media is and how it works.
|
On July 06 2018 18:45 a_flayer wrote:Yes, and to the people who voted in the idiots that apparently voted against transparency in some kind of committee where my country apparently had 0 say: Show nested quote +Vice Presidents who voted IN FAVOUR of the reform:
(1) David-Maria SASSOLI (S&D, Italian)
(2) Sylvie GUILLAUME (S&D, French)
(3) Pavel TELIČKA (ALDE, Czech)
(4) Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS (GUE, Greek)
(5) Heidi HAUTALA (Green, Finnish)
(6) Fabio Massimo CASTALDO (EFDD, Italian)
Vice Presidents who voted AGAINST the reform:
(1) Mairead McGUINNESS (EPP, Irish)
(2) Bogusław LIBERADZKI (S&D, Polish)
(3) Rainer WIELAND (EPP, German)
(4) Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI (ECR, Polish)
(5) Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO (EPP, Spanish)
(6) Evelyne GEBHARDT (S&D, German)
(7) Lívia JÁRÓKA (EPP, Hungarian)
(8) Ioan Mircea PAŞCU (S&D, Romanian) Please get rid of them, as I have 0 chance to vote those individuals away. #democracy ... I get the whole shtick around European political parties (Heidi HAUTALA would be the closest thing I have to a representative, and she voted my way), but this sort of stuff is really discouraging. But at least the EU copyright reform was blocked by parliament where everybody gets a say, right?
Nevermind. Sry about post.
|
On July 06 2018 16:39 xM(Z wrote:
the puzzling part is that if the lefties really wanted refugees, they'd board them on planes from their country of residence then flew/ship them to wherever place it wanted/needed them.
Pretty much. Instead these people pay on average 3k euro to get to their destination and this money ends up in "legal smugglers" so to speak. Im pretty sure they'd be happier if EU charges them 1k and put them on a plane or a boat and get them here safely.
The puzzling part about the Right wingers is that they dont want migrants, except the good ones (whatever that means). But when over crowded boats flips over in the Mediterranean and 1000 people die, they cant wait to get on the news to say how sorry they are for the loss of life and are quick to point their fingers towards the left. Or use any wrong doings of migrants to paint them all negatively with a broader brush.
From where I stand, all this charade of trying to claim a moral high ground and pretending that its about human rights or protecting one's country is silly. While I did say that Im puzzled by all of this, in fact Im not at all. Im more puzzled that both the left and right are quick to swallow the respective blue pill served their way by the leaders of their political ideologies and their biased media.
That is not to say neither side makes valid arguments. Sure they do, but overall this migrant crisis looks more like a show than anything else and more emphasis is placed on side problems rather than addressing the real one.
|
aye; that's how it is. that's the nature of politics; alot of problems are like that once you look closely. (at least ones that get discussed by politicians).
getting into why people think and vote the way they in fact do can help explain such things; there's a lot of psych/sociology/political research on the topic, I'm not sure what the best reads are on that; I know and have read a few, but some are quite dense and long. I could point toward some links if wanted;
|
That is not to say neither side makes valid arguments. Sure they do, but overall this migrant crisis looks more like a show than anything else and more emphasis is placed on side problems rather than addressing the real one.
That's the point. Only by endlessly discussing this and other "social topics" the neoliberal and conservative parties have a chance to distinguish themselves from each other, while marching hand in hand on economical issues.
|
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do?
|
On July 06 2018 23:23 SoSexy wrote:
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do?
I'm not Big J, but here's some more ramblings that people can completely ignore:
Elections should be held in a secure digital environment that I call a "Digital Democracy Platform" (DDP). The use of the platform should be taught in schools for new voters and could be taught in (state) television broadcasts to facilitate early usage. The platform would include not only voting, but the whole political process of parliamentary discussion and even lobbying at all levels -- public records of all meeting would be available to the public through this system, leaving out at most a few matters of "national security" (I hate myself for even writing that).
Every year, there'd be one month in which people are encouraged to use the platform to investigate and elect their representatives. In year 1 this would be at the city level, year 2 at the national level, and year 3 at the European level. Year 4 could be a rest year, whatever, I'm pretty flexible. Education at the later stages of high school would teach fairly in-depth usage of it. Schools could/would/should use the same system internally for their own mock democracies to teach it.
After you login with secure ID (same as with a bank), you'r presented with the platforms of the parties that you can vote for. They can all list their own issues that they care for, and the voter can simply select those issues to see how the parties voted on laws pertaining to those issues. If you click on a particular vote, you can see the votes of all of the people in such a party on that particular issue. There could optionally be some non-committal way to express your approval or disapproval of particular candidates and their votes.
The main point of the DDP would be to vote and to allow citizens to look directly at the processes and statistics about how their representatives vote on issues that they particularly care about as they choose who to vote for from the comfort of their own homes. Statistics would include things such as "how much does this party match with that party on that particular issue" based on the votes listed under the issue. They could see how the national parties are aligned with other European parties regarding particular issues, in general, or on specific parliamentary votes, and so on. How many meetings with lobbyists, optionally sorted by industry sector, and how did they end up voting on those issues regarding those laws? All that and far more would be available in the same interface where you vote on your representatives.
The DDP would be fully open source for transparency, so citizens have the ability to check whether the statistics generated are fair. The login would be the same as the European Digital Identity many countries have now. It would be phased in gradually (starting at city level) to improve usability and security. I'd expect it to happen over a span of 10-20 years if we started serious efforts today. You could even phase in huge chunks of the system without including a universal voting system initially.
I'd expect 60-90% voter turn out for elections at all levels (instead of the abysmal sub-40% we get now for European and municipal elections) as a result of easy accessibility and obtainable information about the parties that you can vote for. It would hopefully generate a much more increased sense of representation and accountability from the population. You could still rely on outside journalistic sources to research and present those statistics to you, just like non-coder citizens would rely on coders to verify the legitimacy of the software used.
I consider all arguments against it to be basically be FUD, even legitimate complaints can reasonably be addressed with current day technology if we invest sufficiently in the software that would be required. Last I heard (a few years ago, but still), most corporations were still doing their banking on dial-up systems developed in the 80s. That's fine, but somehow we can't develop a system secure enough voting? Give me a break. Yeah, there's going to be fraud. There's fraud now, it won't be any worse, just different. Mass-fraud should be fairly easily detected, and there's always cops to pursue suspicious behavior by government people who are supposed to enter the raw data into the system.
I think the kind of thing I'm describing has the potential, if executed well, to give us a change in government akin to when democracies granted full suffrage to their citizens. Tear down the walls, rise up, revolution.
|
It was a bit amusing to see filthy rich artists trying to convince the public that copyright reform is necessary. Nothing wrong with being rich, but artists (and their producers/publishers) are one of the groups which in my opinion earn way too much compared to the effort they put in their work, so I'm not going to support "ruining" the Internet just to give their income a slightly better protection.
Stars fail to convince politiciansThe combined clout of Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Placido Domingo and David Guetta wasn't enough to persuade MEPs to make sweeping changes to copyright law. They were among 1,300 musicians who urged politicians to enact a law forcing sites like YouTube and Facebook to use filters that would stop users illegally uploading their music.Musicians were being cheated out of money, they argued, even though websites were making huge profits off their work. Critics said the laws would stifle creativity - with Creative Commons chief Ryan Merkley observing that The Beatles would have been prevented from performing cover versions under the proposed rules. For you and me, it could have resulted in text, music and videos posted to blogs, social networks and comment sections being yanked from the net at point of upload - somewhat like YouTube's controversial Content ID system on steroids. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44712475
|
On July 06 2018 23:23 SoSexy wrote:
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do?
Me and a lot of superhot, horny girls that all love me and do all the work for me (obviously because they freely want to, so I am not to blame).
And that's the reason why neither I nor anyone else should have a lot of power. In my dream society you would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL (not for personal dislike, but for lack of personal usefulness for myself).
So instead, I think I should rather interprete your question in a Rawl'sish sense, that I could choose a society with an accepted ruleset, that I want to be born in (as a random member). A quick draft would go along the lines of this:
1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or
1)b) only gives special rights (=capital) to idividuals, if those privileged people continuously pay for them according to their market value (or give them up again). Having a special right must never be a source of power itself, it must be met with an equal payment to the rest of society, which is the source of that power. The criterium for the size of the payment is to find equilibrium prices for capital/property rights, which guarantee that the summed (market-based) value (at a point in time) of income a person has acquired through production and free trade through his or her lifetime is the same as the value of capital they hold.
2) that demands of new applicants that they obviously agree to these rules, but invests into them by teaching them these values of liberty as well as the technical/practical skills required to acquire a higher income than what is implied through 1)b).
3) that has general insurance mechanisms against external (non-human) forces.
|
On July 07 2018 00:44 Sent. wrote:It was a bit amusing to see filthy rich artists trying to convince the public that copyright reform is necessary. Nothing wrong with being rich, but artists (and their producers/publishers) are one of the groups which in my opinion earn way too much compared to the effort they put in their work, so I'm not going to support "ruining" the Internet just to give their income a slightly better protection. Show nested quote +Stars fail to convince politiciansThe combined clout of Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Placido Domingo and David Guetta wasn't enough to persuade MEPs to make sweeping changes to copyright law. They were among 1,300 musicians who urged politicians to enact a law forcing sites like YouTube and Facebook to use filters that would stop users illegally uploading their music.Musicians were being cheated out of money, they argued, even though websites were making huge profits off their work. Critics said the laws would stifle creativity - with Creative Commons chief Ryan Merkley observing that The Beatles would have been prevented from performing cover versions under the proposed rules. For you and me, it could have resulted in text, music and videos posted to blogs, social networks and comment sections being yanked from the net at point of upload - somewhat like YouTube's controversial Content ID system on steroids. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44712475
There are valid complaints within the current music industry(people like song writers and sound engineers straight up not being able to make a living) about race to the bottom with the amount people are willing to pay for music, but this was not the way to handle it. These already rich artists are not the face to put on this problem and the solution sucked. But getting people to pay for your art is the fucking worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
