• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:18
CEST 06:18
KST 13:18
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation5$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced4Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles5[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
i aint gon lie to u bruh... ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 617 users

European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 32

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 30 31 32 33 34 1413 Next
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.
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-14 16:14:31
January 14 2015 16:13 GMT
#621
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
January 14 2015 17:37 GMT
#622
good post whitedoge
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
January 14 2015 19:48 GMT
#623
On January 15 2015 02:37 oneofthem wrote:
good post whitedoge

Thank you my dear.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
L1ghtning
Profile Joined July 2013
Sweden353 Posts
January 14 2015 19:56 GMT
#624
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian.
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-14 20:10:04
January 14 2015 20:03 GMT
#625
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian.

Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty.
But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference".
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
lord_nibbler
Profile Joined March 2004
Germany591 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-14 20:49:48
January 14 2015 20:48 GMT
#626
On January 15 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian.

Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty.
But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference".

What the hell?
By what kind of measure is the Anglo-saxon political system more democratic? Like seriously, the US voting system is a bad 18th century joke. Or the English 'House of Lords', don't make me laugh...

And how is the US media controlled by 5 rich oligarchs (and a 4 to 1 ratio of journalist to 'PR specialist') better than my German journalism exactly?

The last point I don't get, sorry. What do you actually mean by intellectual diversity? How do you measure it? And why should Anglo-Saxons be better at it?
L1ghtning
Profile Joined July 2013
Sweden353 Posts
January 14 2015 21:11 GMT
#627
On January 15 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian.

Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty.
But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference".

So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.
Acertos
Profile Joined February 2012
France852 Posts
January 14 2015 21:12 GMT
#628
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

Maybe voluntary aid is just something foreign to you even tough your country is one who gives the most.
The idea that Americans give away the most is another myth, just like the American dream and the fictional American social ladder.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid
Acertos
Profile Joined February 2012
France852 Posts
January 14 2015 21:22 GMT
#629
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian.

Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty.
But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference".

So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.

We talk about egalitarianism as regards to opportunities and treatment, the focus isn't on freedom. The goal isn't to have everybody have as much freedom as possible but that everybody should have the same rights and should be treated equally. It's you who doesn't understand egalitarianism.

And the concept of freedom is also very abstract, maybe you have never heard of the social contract, here you go: basic principle of democracies, giving away some freedom to gain more freedom. Sounds like magic heh? Maybe if you follow the ultra liberals narrative http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
L1ghtning
Profile Joined July 2013
Sweden353 Posts
January 14 2015 21:43 GMT
#630
On January 15 2015 06:12 Acertos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

Maybe voluntary aid is just something foreign to you even tough your country is one who gives the most.
The idea that Americans give away the most is another myth, just like the American dream and the fictional American social ladder.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid

That's governmental aid. It's not the same thing. Also, that's aid given to developing countries, which is not what we're talking about. Those numbers would probably give a good estimation for how big the welfare state is in said countries though. Anglo-saxon societies are by far the most giving when it comes to money taken directly out of your own pockets.
lord_nibbler
Profile Joined March 2004
Germany591 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-14 22:02:28
January 14 2015 21:46 GMT
#631
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.

I have got a news flash for you:
Redistribution of wealth is the highest in a Laissez-faire economy. By far!
Redistribution is happening all the time and it is predominantly from the bottom to the top!
And it is not hard to see why: interests, dividends, rents are all pumping money to the top of the pyramid in any capitalist economy.
Any dimwit can see that you can not form a society on such a flawed system. (Unless he is a total hermit) Any individual is always part of a group that support him and his way of life. A doctor can not operate if the janitor has not cleaned up the operating room. An financier can not get interests on his investment without a couple of laborers working hard for it. We are all in it together! That is why people came up with the 'welfare state' as a counter weight / band aid.
But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...
Sub40APM
Profile Joined August 2010
6336 Posts
January 14 2015 21:50 GMT
#632
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.


But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...

You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state.
But keep stoking that anti-Americanism.
lord_nibbler
Profile Joined March 2004
Germany591 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-14 22:03:28
January 14 2015 22:00 GMT
#633
On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.


But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...

You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state.
But keep stoking that anti-Americanism.

1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later.
2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic.
So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.
L1ghtning
Profile Joined July 2013
Sweden353 Posts
January 14 2015 22:18 GMT
#634
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.

I have got a news flash for you:
Redistribution of wealth is the highest in a Laissez-faire economy. By far!
Redistribution is happening all the time and it is predominantly from the bottom to the top!
And it is not hard to see why: interests, dividends, rents are all pumping money to the top of the pyramid in any capitalist economy.
Any dimwit can see that you can not form a society on such a flawed system. (Unless he is a total hermit) Any individual is always part of a group that support him and his way of life. A doctor can not operate if the janitor has not cleaned up the operating room. An financier can not get interests on his investment without a couple of laborers working hard for it. We are all in it together! That is why people came up with the 'welfare state' as a counter weight / band aid.
But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...

OK. I get, it, you're a marxist. You believe that in a laissez faire economy, despite the fact that you're personally in control of your own resources, and how you exchange it for other resources, "the man" will still find a way to screw you over.
I don't see the value in debating with someone who believes in such crazy conspiracy-theories.


2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic.
So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.

Anyway. I have NEVER EVER said that taxes are undemocratic.The whole statement is a contradition. How could possibly taxes, supported by a majority be undemocratic? I'm pretty sure you were looking for another word there.
Sub40APM
Profile Joined August 2010
6336 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-14 22:20:39
January 14 2015 22:19 GMT
#635
On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.


But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...

You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state.
But keep stoking that anti-Americanism.

1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later.
2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic.
So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.

Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America."
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
January 14 2015 22:20 GMT
#636
On January 15 2015 06:12 Acertos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

Maybe voluntary aid is just something foreign to you even tough your country is one who gives the most.
The idea that Americans give away the most is another myth, just like the American dream and the fictional American social ladder.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid

Charities Aid Foundation ranked US no.1 in their 'World Giving Index' for what it's worth.

https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/CAF_WGI2014_Report_1555AWEBFinal.pdf

From the same org, different report:
[image loading]
Link

I didn't read through them, so let me know if any of the data / interpretation is smelly.
Acertos
Profile Joined February 2012
France852 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-14 22:59:54
January 14 2015 22:47 GMT
#637
On January 15 2015 07:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 06:12 Acertos wrote:
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:
On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:
On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:
On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:
On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon.


On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright.


Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africa

The countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda.


However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces.

What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover


To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case.

The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it.


Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence.

It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.

The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?

In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".

There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.

Maybe voluntary aid is just something foreign to you even tough your country is one who gives the most.
The idea that Americans give away the most is another myth, just like the American dream and the fictional American social ladder.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid

Charities Aid Foundation ranked US no.1 in their 'World Giving Index' for what it's worth.

https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/CAF_WGI2014_Report_1555AWEBFinal.pdf

From the same org, different report:
[image loading]
Link

I didn't read through them, so let me know if any of the data / interpretation is smelly.

Uuummm,I don't know...
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/humanitarian-aid-in-2009-headlines-from-the-latest-dac-data-release-2200.html
Look at donors by citizens.
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GHA-Report-2013.pdf
That one says that (after page 30) it is actually impossible to know where the money from private donors come from.
Mmmm, well we can't know for sure but it looks like US citizens indeed give more to charities by % of their country's Gdp than their European counterpart.
edit: there was another table in your pdf with the % of Gdp per capita given by citizens to charities.In that one, everything is much closer so I don't know what to take from that.
lord_nibbler
Profile Joined March 2004
Germany591 Posts
January 14 2015 22:56 GMT
#638
On January 15 2015 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.


But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...

You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state.
But keep stoking that anti-Americanism.

1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later.
2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic.
So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.

Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America."

I was wrong, in that he is apparently a Swede not a US citizen (could still have grown up in USA but whatever).
But you act like this it not the reality in the US. Like Ron Paul is not actually seen as a viable candidate for presidency.
'Defending liberty' became a code word for the 'right to exploit', but ordinary people actually go along with it, because 'Freedom, USA USA USA'...
Sub40APM
Profile Joined August 2010
6336 Posts
January 14 2015 22:59 GMT
#639
On January 15 2015 07:56 lord_nibbler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.


But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...

You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state.
But keep stoking that anti-Americanism.

1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later.
2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic.
So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.

Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America."

I was wrong, in that he is apparently a Swede not a US citizen (could still have grown up in USA but whatever).
But you act like this it not the reality in the US. Like Ron Paul is not actually seen as a viable candidate for presidency.
'Defending liberty' became a code word for the 'right to exploit', but ordinary people actually go along with it, because 'Freedom, USA USA USA'...

I am not acting like anything, I am just pointing out to you that your attack on America was out of line in the context of your exchange with him. Ron Paul is as viable as the former East German communists inside Linke people are in taking the Chancellorship. But you are right broadly that there is a large minority of Americans, maybe 20%, who believe in libertarian-fantasies. But attacking the US education system because of a Swede libertarian is out of line.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
January 14 2015 23:16 GMT
#640
On January 15 2015 07:56 lord_nibbler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 15 2015 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.

Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.

What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?

Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.


But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...

You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state.
But keep stoking that anti-Americanism.

1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later.
2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic.
So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.

Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America."

I was wrong, in that he is apparently a Swede not a US citizen (could still have grown up in USA but whatever).
But you act like this it not the reality in the US. Like Ron Paul is not actually seen as a viable candidate for presidency.
'Defending liberty' became a code word for the 'right to exploit', but ordinary people actually go along with it, because 'Freedom, USA USA USA'...

There aren't many people in the US who actually act like "freedom, USA USA USA". It's a cultural given that we're very individualistic, but we may not actually be.

For many years now, researchers worldwide have been conducting surveys to compare the values of people in different countries. And when it comes to questions about how much the respondents value the individual against the collective — that is, how much they give priority to individual interest over the demand of groups, or personal conscience over the orders of authority — Americans consistently answer in a way that favors the group over the individual. In fact, we are more likely to favor the group than Europeans are.


Link

Make of that article what you will, but I'd encourage you to not build your opinion off of common stereotypes.
Prev 1 30 31 32 33 34 1413 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
PiGosaur Monday
00:00
#39
PiGStarcraft474
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft474
WinterStarcraft406
Nina 178
RuFF_SC2 118
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 186
Sharp 53
Icarus 12
Dota 2
monkeys_forever696
League of Legends
JimRising 854
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox532
Other Games
summit1g6606
shahzam907
ViBE196
Maynarde167
CosmosSc2 22
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick44336
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH314
• Hupsaiya 71
• practicex 21
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos1952
• masondota2346
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
5h 42m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
11h 42m
WardiTV European League
11h 42m
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
Replay Cast
19h 42m
RSL Revival
1d 5h
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
1d 8h
Replay Cast
1d 19h
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
2 days
OSC
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
FEL
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.