|
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 October 14 2015 18:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 18:19 Velr wrote:
Uhm... most of the known world at the time was occupied by Romans. So we shouldn't trust Italy... And the muslim moors back then had a pretty open culture (especially compared to most european countries at the time) : when the christians took back spain and portugal, most jews fled with the muslim for obvious reasons. Those long historical arguments are pointless : there is enough in history to depict anyone as a criminal or an angel. Another exemple : in The Leviathan, Hobbes explain that the Jews are the only type of people that will not accept the authority of the state (the leviathan) because they're the only people that consider the rule of god to be above the rule of men. He even points out that the jewish culture basically burried the first atheist culture in history (their neighbor at the time) and use this as a proof of his arguments (which is they will not accept the leviathan's rule, they will not "integrate" in the modern language). It is exactly the same argument that people are now using for muslim : they consider that the shariah is above our laws, etc. Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 08:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 14 2015 07:48 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On October 13 2015 05:35 LegalLord wrote:
The historic tendencies of a group of people are not to be ignored. It's easy to try to say that "it's different this time" but history has shown that it really isn't - a group of people who have violent and destructive tendencies will have them again. In that case we should be extra careful of christian and european immigrants I guess. I mean take a look at a globe, white christian immigrants immigrated to 3 continents. Look at those white christian americans for example: didn't adapt to the new culture, instead murdered and marginalized the host culture and give smallpox blankets to your kids. URG! Wouldn't want those white christians as neighbours - worst immigrants ever! :/ Jokes aside, any nation that is not of European/Christian descent would indeed do well to be wary of that group. Probably not for religious reasons, but certainly for imperialistic tendencies (a tendency not shared by all cultures in the world). Tell me which culture has no imperialistic tendancies ? Just out of curiosity.
Thai, or more specifically the Kingdom of Siam seems pretty non-imperialist, managing to survive between belligerent Chinese and Japanese states through mostly agile diplomacy.
|
On October 15 2015 06:13 Nyxisto wrote:
because there are like 5 Amish people left. Give them three states next to each other and they'll bash their heads in in a month.
How about ancient and to a large degree current China? Once they consolidated their rule over the area we now call China, they were mostly occupied with defending their territory from invaders rather than colonising the tribes and civilisations around them (even though they did have the military power to do so). There is at least one period in Chinese history where China even went into a state of isolation. Even now, "do not meddle into other country's domestic affairs" is one of the main tenets of Chinese policy.
|
Uh. Have you heard of this place called Tibet? It's certainly part of the area that China calls China, but I'm not sure that definition is universal. Also the south China Sea.
China is a terrible example of a non-Imperialist power.
|
On October 15 2015 09:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2015 18:23 WhiteDog wrote:On October 14 2015 18:19 Velr wrote:
Uhm... most of the known world at the time was occupied by Romans. So we shouldn't trust Italy... And the muslim moors back then had a pretty open culture (especially compared to most european countries at the time) : when the christians took back spain and portugal, most jews fled with the muslim for obvious reasons. Those long historical arguments are pointless : there is enough in history to depict anyone as a criminal or an angel. Another exemple : in The Leviathan, Hobbes explain that the Jews are the only type of people that will not accept the authority of the state (the leviathan) because they're the only people that consider the rule of god to be above the rule of men. He even points out that the jewish culture basically burried the first atheist culture in history (their neighbor at the time) and use this as a proof of his arguments (which is they will not accept the leviathan's rule, they will not "integrate" in the modern language). It is exactly the same argument that people are now using for muslim : they consider that the shariah is above our laws, etc. On October 14 2015 08:24 LegalLord wrote:On October 14 2015 07:48 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On October 13 2015 05:35 LegalLord wrote:
The historic tendencies of a group of people are not to be ignored. It's easy to try to say that "it's different this time" but history has shown that it really isn't - a group of people who have violent and destructive tendencies will have them again. In that case we should be extra careful of christian and european immigrants I guess. I mean take a look at a globe, white christian immigrants immigrated to 3 continents. Look at those white christian americans for example: didn't adapt to the new culture, instead murdered and marginalized the host culture and give smallpox blankets to your kids. URG! Wouldn't want those white christians as neighbours - worst immigrants ever! :/ Jokes aside, any nation that is not of European/Christian descent would indeed do well to be wary of that group. Probably not for religious reasons, but certainly for imperialistic tendencies (a tendency not shared by all cultures in the world). Tell me which culture has no imperialistic tendancies ? Just out of curiosity. Thai, or more specifically the Kingdom of Siam seems pretty non-imperialist, managing to survive between belligerent Chinese and Japanese states through mostly agile diplomacy.
thailand was founded on the idea of conquering other thai-tribes.
|
On October 17 2015 16:49 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2015 06:13 Nyxisto wrote:
because there are like 5 Amish people left. Give them three states next to each other and they'll bash their heads in in a month. How about ancient and to a large degree current China? Once they consolidated their rule over the area we now call China, they were mostly occupied with defending their territory from invaders rather than colonising the tribes and civilisations around them (even though they did have the military power to do so). There is at least one period in Chinese history where China even went into a state of isolation. Even now, "do not meddle into other country's domestic affairs" is one of the main tenets of Chinese policy.
They're heavily pushing their territorial claims in the China sea and investing in the military at the moment. I think it's a stretch to say they have no imperialistic tendencies.
edit: ah balisarius already said what I said =/ sorry.
|
The history of china is basically war, to stabilize its territory and after that against most of its neighbors...
Yeah the only exemple people can give are dominated countries / ethnies / cultures (and usually minorities). It's an effect of structure, the same effect of structure that push communist, socialist, or even catholic (it's in the bible) to argue that people at the bottom are morally superior to people at the top ("a rich has less chance to get to heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle" is written in the bible I believe) : it's very rare, if not impossible, to stay decent to your peers when you are structurally superior. It's the same idea that Lord Acton defend we he argue that "power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutly".
Sadly, it is easier for the human mind to forget this truth and caricature the opponent, finding the source of his behavior not in the structure of power but in an imaginary "essence".
|
i don't know dude, i think you choose the structure in some way then allow it to change you.
i don't believe in "we're only passengers in this world" kind of voodoo.
|
On October 18 2015 04:13 xM(Z wrote:
i don't know dude, i think you choose the structure in some way then allow it to change you.
i don't believe in "we're only passengers in this world" kind of voodoo.
Maybe. There is nothing religious about it, it's just that societies with power usually use this very power in order to fulfill their own interests.
The muslim world right now is very young, growing from a demographic standpoint (especially compared to the occident), has gained some kind of power with its control of oil reserve, and suffered domination for a very long time from the occidental superpowers. So what does Islam and the Quran has to do with what is happening in syria, iraq right now ?
|
On October 17 2015 16:49 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2015 06:13 Nyxisto wrote:
because there are like 5 Amish people left. Give them three states next to each other and they'll bash their heads in in a month. How about ancient and to a large degree current China? Once they consolidated their rule over the area we now call China, they were mostly occupied with defending their territory from invaders rather than colonising the tribes and civilisations around them (even though they did have the military power to do so). There is at least one period in Chinese history where China even went into a state of isolation. Even now, "do not meddle into other country's domestic affairs" is one of the main tenets of Chinese policy.
Ignoring current China which is currently building up a massive modern military to "protecting their national interests" how do you suppose ancient China consolidated their rule over the area we now call China? Hint: it wasn't from defending their territory invaders rather than colonising the tribes and civilisations around them. Your statement would be just as silly as to claim the same for the Roman or Byzantium Empire.
|
I heard that Germans are going to build their own border fence too, is that true? Would be funny after all that shit Hungary received for building their fence.
|
We're not going to build a fence, that statement came from a police official who thought that it would be a good idea, but it wasn't a policy decision.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
so, how big is the impending cloud of doom from TTIP with respect to your highly rational and working food regulation regime?
|
Congratz, you have unlocked the 'maximum loaded question' achievement here on Teamliquid. 
|
On October 19 2015 23:25 oneofthem wrote:
so, how big is the impending cloud of doom from TTIP with respect to your highly rational and working food regulation regime?
We'll see how well the TPP do and we'll call you back
|
Can someone explain to me what's going on in Poland? They've been doing really well over the last decade, much better than most other European countries. Why are they steering away from centrists towards populists?
|
On October 24 2015 04:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone explain to me what's going on in Poland? They've been doing really well over the last decade, much better than most other European countries. Why are they steering away from centrists towards populists?
Just because there is an increase in GDP does not mean that the situation is perfect. Just by simply looking at some stats, there is a 10% unemployment rate and the poverty rate / consumption barely changed for a big part of the society. Like all ex soviet countries, inequalities increased greatly in the last years.
|
There are several reasons. I already posted few times about it in last few months as the incoming change was quite obvious for a long time.
1.Economics: while it is true Poland as a whole is doing better the amount of people working in low pay/no job security positions is actualy very large and is growing, while liviing costs are steadily rising. Poland has become "China/Africa of Europe as populists claim - an assembly plant for foreign corporations -geting jobs by low costs not high efficciency or R&D. And with World becoming smaller and smaller people are getting more and more aware that they are being pay much less than their neighbors, Those low income people are going to vote PiS becuase they are being promised better life.
2.Social Conservatism: Poland is much more conservative than most people think. And its not necessary about religion (altough it is true that older people are often super religious). Younger people very often do not care much bout religion yet that doesnt mean they support Scandinavian style progressivism which our current governemnt and EU try to shove down our troat.
3.Foreign policy - our current governemnt is widely seen as being pro German (or german slave as some might say). They are regarded as being unable to maintain sovereign foreign policy, being afraid to stand up to germany and therfore hurting our national interests. NordStream and Migrant crisis are two prime examples. Polish society is almost uniformly against taking in migrants. That is in contrast to claims made by some media outlets. Also being pushed out from Ukraine conflict negotiations is being seen as huge political failure.
4.Media - some media outlets in Poland are so strongly antiPiS that their bias became ridiculous. Everyone but PO politicians can see it, almost noone is buying this twisted narrative. And while proPiS outlets are equally biased they are much more niche and therefore their ridiculousness(is that a word???) is less obvious.
5.Change- PO is ruling for very long time already. So long that it has accumulated A LOT of fuckups, scandals, incompetence stories and corruption accusations/investigations. People want change and frankly there are no good options. A lot of people are voting for PiS simply becaus they dont want PO in charge not because they like what PiS has to offer.
6.Arrogance - many PO politicians became super arrogant - being convinced that there is no way people will vote PiS no matter what they say or do. Guess what, they were wrong.
|
On October 24 2015 04:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 04:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone explain to me what's going on in Poland? They've been doing really well over the last decade, much better than most other European countries. Why are they steering away from centrists towards populists? Just because there is an increase in GDP does not mean that the situation is perfect. Just by simply looking at some stats, there is a 10% unemployment rate and the poverty rate / consumption barely changed for a big part of the society. Like all ex soviet countries, inequalities increased greatly in the last years.
Not perfect but Poland has seen 50% inflation adjusted growth over the last decade. Even if that hasn't reached everybody equally it's still really good.
From the post above me seems to be the case that the backlash is more of an emotional reaction and a clash between nationalism and what's necessary to run a modern economy. Some social conservatism is fine, but the rabid anti-immigrant sentiment and the fears of "German-enslavement" if that's actually widespread is ridiculous.
|
On October 24 2015 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2015 04:28 WhiteDog wrote:On October 24 2015 04:01 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone explain to me what's going on in Poland? They've been doing really well over the last decade, much better than most other European countries. Why are they steering away from centrists towards populists? Just because there is an increase in GDP does not mean that the situation is perfect. Just by simply looking at some stats, there is a 10% unemployment rate and the poverty rate / consumption barely changed for a big part of the society. Like all ex soviet countries, inequalities increased greatly in the last years. Not perfect but Poland has seen 50% inflation adjusted growth over the last decade. Even if that hasn't reached everybody equally it's still really good. From the post above me seems to be the case that the backlash is more of an emotional reaction and a clash between nationalism and what's necessary to run a modern economy. Some social conservatism is fine, but the rabid anti-immigrant sentiment and the fears of "German-enslavement" if that's actually widespread is ridiculous.
You lack consistency. In many of your post you - rightfully - pointed out that GDP growth is not a good measure and is an ideological objective. In this regard, GDP growth is a measure that does not consider inequality, unemployment, living condition, it's only a way to evaluate the efficiency of the production of one country during one period. A country with such a high growth should not have 10 % unemployment - that our unemployment and we've barely had any growth in the last ten years. In the same vein, the gini barely moved despite the growth.
You can't always put aside the argumen that you don't like - here that the economic situation of poland is not as good as it is suggested by the GDP numbers - and only pick out the few that goes hand in hand with your own vision of the situation. What good is growth if it does not increase the living and working condition of the poorest and if a good part of your population leave to work abroad ?
|
Yes I've said before that GDP isn't always the best indicator to estimate standard of living, but in the context of fully developed nations where we're talking about 1% or 2% growth or whatever and where other indicators like median household income and so on have not gone up. You can leave the numbers aside and literally look at the big cities in Poland today and go back five years, ten years and so on and you can see the rapid positive change. I don't know why Poland's unemployment is at 10% but the country has clearly changed a lot over the last two decades.
The rise in inequality might be perception more than anything else. Thirty years ago almost everybody was doing poorly. Know some people are still doing poorly. Which is still bad obviously but no reason to disregard the success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
