|
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 December 24 2015 22:23 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 16:34 Nyxisto wrote:On December 24 2015 16:23 xM(Z wrote:the new ruling party moved to change the nation's system of checks and balances what does that even mean?; or are they just protesting to protest against something they feel they can't control?. The government refused to appoint the constitutional judges and is systematically replacing any bureaucrat not adhering to party line. but in that context: where's the connection?. have they figured out that adding women's rights in there, somehow validates their point more?(i mean, right off the bat it stinks of neo-bullshit). anyway, (maybe)it was just a bad article.
Feminists hate the current ruling party because it was against the ratification of "Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence". I wasnt interested in that so I don't know the details but apparently the convention has some leftist definitions so Catholics didn't like it and tried to stop it's ratification. Feminists claimed that PiS is evil, supports beating women and everything they do is against women's rights.
On December 24 2015 22:01 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 19:53 Sent. wrote:
I also find it ironic that Martin Schulz is expressing his concerns about the situation in my country while he represents an organisation consistently criticised for being undemocratic. So what exactly is the EU parliament undemocratic criticism? I have not heard much of this alleged 'consistent critique' you talk about, care to elaborate?
I said organisation so I meant EU as a whole, not that particular institution.
|
On December 24 2015 19:53 Sent. wrote:
I'm far from supporting PiS but I'm trying to avoid taking a side because it's really hard to take seriously people who say that the democracy is somehow endangered in Poland and that Kaczyński is literally worse than Putin. I also find it ironic that Martin Schulz is expressing his concerns about the situation in my country while he represents an organisation consistently criticised for being undemocratic.
Martin Schulz is one of the more vocal proponents of more parliamentary rights in the EU so I don't think it's so appropriate to single him out, after all he can't just change the institutions at will.
Also I'd really like to see the polish reaction when we get actual majority decisions and Poland is simply being voted over.
|
I find that it's generally impossible to understand the domestic politics of other nations as a foreigner when you read only your own news and not that of the country in question. This tends to lead to mind-numbingly ignorant statements by those who simply don't know any better.
A lot of what a thread like this does is gives people a chance to hear the interpretation of events from the point of view of someone who actually knows what is happening within the country. Refusing to acknowledge different perspectives is generally a sign of being brainwashed by your own government's propaganda.
|
Oh come on, imagine every-time WhiteDog barks at a German here they'd respond with "oh you just don't understand the intricacies and sensibilities of the German soul". It's nonsense. It's a butthurt reaction when a country does something stupid and you run out of things to say. I don't know what the point of debating stuff is when every time you say something serious each side falls back to "yeah, yeah I hear you but actually you don't have any real idea because you're just a foreigner".
|
On December 25 2015 01:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Oh come on, imagine every-time WhiteDog barks at a German here they'd respond with "oh you just don't understand the intricacies and sensibilities of the German soul". It's nonsense. It's a butthurt reaction when a country does something stupid and you run out of things to say. I don't know what the point of debating stuff is when every time you say something serious each side falls back to "yeah, yeah I hear you but actually you don't have any real idea because you're just a foreigner".
Debating with Whitedog can be... tough but he does make a lot of valid points though.
Edit: Merry Christmas guys!
|
I didn't want to imply otherwise, I'm just saying it doesn't make much sense to discuss anything when people fall back to their 'national sensibility' as soon as someone brings something remotely meaningful up.
|
On December 25 2015 01:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Oh come on, imagine every-time WhiteDog barks at a German here they'd respond with "oh you just don't understand the intricacies and sensibilities of the German soul". It's nonsense. It's a butthurt reaction when a country does something stupid and you run out of things to say. I don't know what the point of debating stuff is when every time you say something serious each side falls back to "yeah, yeah I hear you but actually you don't have any real idea because you're just a foreigner".
I barely ever talk about the german soul but whatever. Most of my favorite thinkers are german, I know full well the german culture is much more than the authoritarism german politicians are showing towards europeans right now, nor that I believe that germany or even german politicians desired this position of dominance.
The problem with germans in this thread is that some cannot seem accept any criticism.
Well, merry christmas my fellow liquidians.
|
On December 25 2015 01:37 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 01:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Oh come on, imagine every-time WhiteDog barks at a German here they'd respond with "oh you just don't understand the intricacies and sensibilities of the German soul". It's nonsense. It's a butthurt reaction when a country does something stupid and you run out of things to say. I don't know what the point of debating stuff is when every time you say something serious each side falls back to "yeah, yeah I hear you but actually you don't have any real idea because you're just a foreigner". Debating with Whitedog can be... tough but he does make a lot of valid points though. Edit: Merry Christmas guys!
That's why I usually only respond when something he says really bothers me :p. Although that might just be the case for anything I respond to in this thread ^^.
merry christmas guys.
|
On December 25 2015 02:06 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 01:37 maartendq wrote:On December 25 2015 01:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Oh come on, imagine every-time WhiteDog barks at a German here they'd respond with "oh you just don't understand the intricacies and sensibilities of the German soul". It's nonsense. It's a butthurt reaction when a country does something stupid and you run out of things to say. I don't know what the point of debating stuff is when every time you say something serious each side falls back to "yeah, yeah I hear you but actually you don't have any real idea because you're just a foreigner". Debating with Whitedog can be... tough but he does make a lot of valid points though. Edit: Merry Christmas guys! That's why I usually only respond when something he says really bothers me :p. Although that might just be the case for anything I respond to in this thread ^^. merry christmas guys.
Whitedog asking tough questions is life, Whitedog not in line with conventional thought is love.
merry christmas you guys 
|
On December 25 2015 01:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Oh come on, imagine every-time WhiteDog barks at a German here they'd respond with "oh you just don't understand the intricacies and sensibilities of the German soul".
You could always try actually explaining the discrepancies instead of giving a cop out like that. That's part of what makes this a discussion.
Your tendency to make blanket statements about other cultures without even having any interest in understanding them is quite telling.
|
Like there are two ways two have a discussion. You can either agree that there are some objective things about which we can talk, or we can act like we're at a conference for Rabbis, Priests and Imams, everybody recites their scripture, at the end of the day we'll say that we agree to disagree and go home. I don't treat culture or much else like that because I frankly don't see what the point of it is.
And in a discussion about this stuff people make blanket statements about other cultures all the time, especially because stuff on the internet gets a little out of hand sometimes, it's really no reason to act like I have genuinely no interest to understand other cultures or whatever. I just don't treat them like they're sacred.
|
On December 25 2015 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:
Like there are two ways two have a discussion. You can either agree that there are some objective things about which we can talk, or we can act like we're at a conference for Rabbis, Priests and Imams, everybody recites their scripture, at the end of the day we'll say that we agree to disagree and go home. I don't treat culture or much else like that because I frankly don't see what the point of it is.
And in a discussion about this stuff people make blanket statements about other cultures all the time, especially because stuff on the internet gets a little out of hand sometimes, it's really no reason to act like I have genuinely no interest to understand other cultures or whatever. I just don't treat them like they're sacred.
You're stressing on the term culture, then replace it by choice. Is it true that most nations have less and less political choice to make ? That the superstructure that is the liberalism is dictating most of what any government is able to do ? And if it is true, is it a political problem ?
You seem to discard all of that, and desire for all nations to accept what you believe is the most optimal choice, and everytime a nation or a party does not follow your vision you instantly give it names and caricature its position. Isn't there a problem in this vision of the world and politics, where everything is reduced to a simple choice between good and bad (saudi arabia) and nothing in between, so much that in the end there is nothing but one rational choice ?
Don't you think that, by instantly pointing out anything or anyone that does not go along with your vision of the world, you will quickly end up surrounded with people that you consider irrational and dangerous ?
|
If you define liberalism broadly as a social democratic order with public institutions, state of law, inclusive secularism, equal rights a balance between individual and collective interest and so on, then yes I think it's the only worthwhile organisation of society we have yet come up with. I think of the government as a tool that provides checks and balances, not as an organic body of society that does whatever its people want. That's actually kind of a fascist view of the state.
I don't think living in a absolutist theocratic monarchy that only survives because they are sitting on a giant pot of gold is just as viable of a social model and I don't think that giving only a certain percent of your population special rights is viable at all. That by the way still leaves a lot of room for discussion.
And sure I do perceive some people as irrational and dangerous, maybe they are? If I'd accept every social organisation equally valid by definition I couldn't consider anybody irrational. Not because they're less dangerous but because I'd just be indifferent.
And regarding the availability of political choices, I don't think it has decreased at all. A few decades ago when the EU was formed it was done so completely behind closed doors by statesmen who didn't trust their population even the tiniest bit. The French-German coal and steel union was formed at a time when people in Germany still thought that the German Empire was the best form of government. I remember seeing a poll in a history book from the early fifties with 80% of the population believing that the Empire or the Third Reich were the most fitting form of government, the Federal and Weimar Republic enjoyed no confidence at all. The difference was simply that no one was reading the poll numbers.
|
Such a distinction is easy in these extreme examples. But in day-to-day politics in a democratic country, there is plenty of room for disagreement between reasonable parties, particularly in economics. Not as much to the effects of policies, but in regard to the standards by which they are judged. Is it better for a country to have a 38h-week compared to a 44h-week? The answer will depend on the value you attach to "quality of life" vs. general wealth. And if people in Schlaraffia come to a different answer than the hardworking chinese, it doesn't mean per se that one of them is irrational.
You're stressing on the term culture, then replace it by choice. Is it true that most nations have less and less political choice to make ? That the superstructure that is the liberalism is dictating most of what any government is able to do ? And if it is true, is it a political problem ?
I assume you are talking about the situation in Europe. What do you mean exactly by "dictating"? Making a choice implies living with the consequences. If you cannot make a choice because you cannot afford it, that is something entirely different than coercion.
|
Such a distinction is easy in these extreme examples. But in day-to-day politics in a democratic country, there is plenty of room for disagreement between reasonable parties, particularly in economics. Not as much to the effects of policies, but in regard to the standards by which they are judged.
yeah, you can chose between capitalism, capitalism and capitalism. such choice, much wow.
Is it better for a country to have a 38h-week compared to a 44h-week? The answer will depend on the value you attach to "quality of life" vs. general wealth.
See, and that is the problem. That people ask what is best for a country in the current system, and that questions which go beyond this not only dont get attention, but dont even get asked anymore.
|
On December 26 2015 05:31 Trurl wrote:Show nested quote +
You're stressing on the term culture, then replace it by choice. Is it true that most nations have less and less political choice to make ? That the superstructure that is the liberalism is dictating most of what any government is able to do ? And if it is true, is it a political problem ?
I assume you are talking about the situation in Europe. What do you mean exactly by "dictating"? Making a choice implies living with the consequences. If you cannot make a choice because you cannot afford it, that is something entirely different than coercion.
No I think it's true for the entire world : when the only goal is to increase GDP whatever the social cost and when there are no way for your government to go back on specific matters, like opening borders for goods and services or the private property allowed for everything possible, then yes the choice you can make are pretty limited. See what happened after the 2007 crisis, we all saved the banks. Did we really have a say in this ? was it democratic ?
On December 26 2015 05:02 Nyxisto wrote:
If you define liberalism broadly as a social democratic order with public institutions, state of law, inclusive secularism, equal rights a balance between individual and collective interest and so on, then yes I think it's the only worthwhile organisation of society we have yet come up with. I think of the government as a tool that provides checks and balances, not as an organic body of society that does whatever its people want. That's actually kind of a fascist view of the state.
It's Orwell novlanguage already, as believing the people should discuss and decide what it wants the state to do is, to you, facist. Democracy is facism, and freedom is slavery ?
Social democratic doesn't mean anything to me, I've yet to see it in action in any country. But putting that aside, it is not your choice to consider anything to be the only worthwhile organisation of society, it is up to the collective to decide through the institutions and the rules it created. That is democracy. As Chirac said : "I would remind that politics, in a democracy, is honesty and respect for others. That politics is to defend an ideal, it is to serve his fellow citizens. That the end does not in any way justify the means."
|
Whether the role of the state is always to reinforce public opinion and just serve is very debatable, I think it's a bad idea. And radical egalitarianism can degrade into violence and oppression. Democracy as some kind of blind collective machine is a pretty hollow definition of the term. This is not about Orwell, the most oppressive governments on this planet actually use exactly that definition of democracy and have it in their name.
|
On December 26 2015 08:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Whether the role of the state is always to reinforce public opinion and just serve is very debatable, I think it's a bad idea. And radical egalitarianism can degrade into violence and oppression. Democracy as some kind of blind collective machine is a pretty hollow definition of the term. This is not about Orwell, the most oppressive governments on this planet actually use exactly that definition of democracy and have it in their name.
That's totally untrue. The most oppressive government don't believe the state to be the way for the "will of the people" to express itself, nor do they have the right institutions to permit the state to be anything close to it. Oppressive government come with a personnification of power (more Merkel than anything else in fact), a deficience in the separation of powers, a constitution that is lacking, not public debate.
Your discurse is Orwellian in the pure sense. I'm amazed.
|
Local media here reports that mass rapes/sexual assaults by "north african looking men" have happened on New Year Eve in Cologne. Can a German shed some light on what has really happened/
|
What i found is this Spiegel article:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/koeln-60-frauen-erstatten-anzeige-nach-sexuellen-uebergriffen-an-silvester-a-1070418.html
Apparently investigations are still ongoing. Currently the story looks like this:
-Around 23:00 the police noticed ~ 1000 north african/arab men in front of the main train station. They were very drunk and some fireworks were thrown at other party-goers out of the group.
-police arrived, and the group disbanded.
-between midnight and 4 AM, stuff happened: There are 60 reports, about 15 of them involving something sexual. In total ~80 victims, possibly more that haven't reported anything. Stuff was stolen, women got surrounded by 20-40 men. Women were touched, there were sex crimes, some of them massive. Rapes are not mentioned, so i assume that means a lot of grabbing and things like that, but there are no details.
-The police has started a special investigation commission to deal with these crimes, they are currently looking at camera footage. They have arrested 5 suspects after similar incidents on sunday, but no idea if they are connected to the sylvester incidents.
Edit: Correction:
This: http://www1.wdr.de/themen/aktuell/koeln-uebergriffe-silvester-hauptbahnhof-100.html tells a similar story, but mentions massive sexual crimes and one rape. But overall, the story seems to be mostly about theft of stuff. Also, for some reason a police speaker is certain that these people have nothing to do with the current refugee wave, but there is no elaboration as to how they come to this conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
