• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:58
CEST 20:58
KST 03:58
  • 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
[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5TL.net Map Contest #21 - Finalists4Team TLMC #5: Vote to Decide Ladder Maps!0[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt1: Mile High15
Community News
Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up2PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition245.0.15 Balance Patch Notes (Live version)102$2,500 WardiTV TL Map Contest Tournament 151Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada11
StarCraft 2
General
5.0.15 Balance Patch Notes (Live version) Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition ZvT - Army Composition - Slow Lings + Fast Banes Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada
Tourneys
Tenacious Turtle Tussle Stellar Fest $2,500 WardiTV TL Map Contest Tournament 15 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament LANified! 37: Groundswell, BYOC LAN, Nov 28-30 2025
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers Mutation # 492 Get Out More Mutation # 491 Night Drive
Brood War
General
RepMastered™: replay sharing and analyzer site BW General Discussion Question regarding recent ASL Bisu vs Larva game BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Ro8 Day 4 [ASL20] Ro8 Day 3 Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Proposed Glossary of Strategic Uncertainty Current Meta TvZ Theorycraft - Improving on State of the Art 9 hatch vs 10 hatch vs 12 hatch
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Recent Gifted Posts The Automated Ban List BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final
Blogs
[AI] From Comfort Women to …
Peanutsc
Mental Health In Esports: Wo…
TrAiDoS
Try to reverse getting fired …
Garnet
[ASL20] Players bad at pi…
pullarius1
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1435 users

European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 481

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 479 480 481 482 483 1415 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.
Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10777 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-10 10:04:46
June 10 2016 09:17 GMT
#9601
On June 10 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 01 2016 14:20 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:
On June 01 2016 12:26 SK.Testie wrote:
What private companies do is fine, agreed. But this is to lead you into:
When Merkel tells Zuckerberg to stop anti-Migrant FB posts, what does that entail?
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
This is a government body telling a private company to do something

And my question to you: Is the hashtag itself - #stopislam a hashtag of hate?

In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people.


so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse?

No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved.

The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials).

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm


again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers.

There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'.

What countries seem to agree to is that it's part of their criminal code that incitement to hatred/violence by speech is punishable. Like a prosecutor takes a case to the courts and tries to convict someone of a crime under the law, right? Who agreed to appointed international executives partnering with megacorps to determine what "hate speech" is and then censor people for it? If it were TV and newspapers, maybe people would know it was wrong.


And who agreed that Boobies on Facebook aren't allowed? Because that actually wouldn't be the slightest Problem under the law in many (big!) european countries.
Censoring People from showing their own Body is somehow allright but censoring blatant hatespeak isn't?

Thats where i get problems with understanding american/anglosaxon "free speak"... We need to protect children wherever possible from seeing Boobies (or dicks/vaginas/whatever) but what they can hear or read? Who cares.

Its retarded beyond belief.
zatic
Profile Blog Joined September 2007
Zurich15352 Posts
June 10 2016 09:19 GMT
#9602
On June 10 2016 18:17 Velr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 10 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:
On June 01 2016 14:20 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:
On June 01 2016 12:26 SK.Testie wrote:
What private companies do is fine, agreed. But this is to lead you into:
When Merkel tells Zuckerberg to stop anti-Migrant FB posts, what does that entail?
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
This is a government body telling a private company to do something

And my question to you: Is the hashtag itself - #stopislam a hashtag of hate?

In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people.


so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse?

No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved.

The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials).

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm


again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers.

There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'.

What countries seem to agree to is that it's part of their criminal code that incitement to hatred/violence by speech is punishable. Like a prosecutor takes a case to the courts and tries to convict someone of a crime under the law, right? Who agreed to appointed international executives partnering with megacorps to determine what "hate speech" is and then censor people for it? If it were TV and newspapers, maybe people would know it was wrong.


And wo agreed that Boobies on Facebook aren't allowed? Because that actually wouldn't be the slightest Problem under the law in many (big!) european countries.
Censoring People from showing their own Body is somehow allright but censoring blatant hatespeak isn't?

Thats were i get Problems with understanding american/anglosaxon "free speak"... We need to protect children wherever possible from seeing Boobies (or dicks/vaginas whatever) but what they can hear or read? Who cares.

Its retarded beyond belief.

signed by every continental European
ModeratorI know Teamliquid is known as a massive building
opisska
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Poland8852 Posts
June 10 2016 09:59 GMT
#9603
On June 10 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:
On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.

The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same.


But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality.

As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do:
- accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here
- let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods
- remove them forcibly from the area

I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful.

Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions.

Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers?

Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse.


One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious.
"Jeez, that's far from ideal." - Serral, the king of mild trashtalk
TL+ Member
DickMcFanny
Profile Blog Joined September 2015
Ireland1076 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-10 16:08:38
June 10 2016 16:01 GMT
#9604
I listened to Stephan Molyneux on my way to work today*, and I'm usually opposed to 100% of what he says.

But he makes one point that I don't think you can explain away:

When you have a welfare system open to anyone, you attract immigrants whose lives will be improved by welfare, whereas if you don't have a welfare system, you attract immigrants who want to improve their lot by seizing better opportunities than they had at home.

That's why American Muslims are such a well integrated, successful minority.

* Just a disclaimer, I listen to that guy for the same reason I listen to Trump speeches and that fat Republican gun nut radio host whose name eludes me right now.
| (• ◡•)|╯ ╰(❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
Mafe
Profile Joined February 2011
Germany5966 Posts
June 10 2016 17:26 GMT
#9605
On June 11 2016 01:01 DickMcFanny wrote:
I listened to Stephan Molyneux on my way to work today*, and I'm usually opposed to 100% of what he says.

But he makes one point that I don't think you can explain away:

When you have a welfare system open to anyone, you attract immigrants whose lives will be improved by welfare, whereas if you don't have a welfare system, you attract immigrants who want to improve their lot by seizing better opportunities than they had at home.

That's why American Muslims are such a well integrated, successful minority.

* Just a disclaimer, I listen to that guy for the same reason I listen to Trump speeches and that fat Republican gun nut radio host whose name eludes me right now.

I dont know this guy, but I have some issues with the second point:I cannot imagine that not having a welfare system doesnt attrack anyone; it just prevents those people from being attracted who only come for free welfare.

Imagine there are 2 countries: One where you can succeed, but without a welfare system; and one where you can succeed, but the country also has a welfare system. Where would you rather want to live? I dont mean to say there is a definite answer for most migrants. But I would imagine more prefer the latter than the former.
iPlaY.NettleS
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Australia4341 Posts
June 11 2016 00:35 GMT
#9606
On June 10 2016 18:59 opisska wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 10 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:
On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.

The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same.


But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality.

As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do:
- accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here
- let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods
- remove them forcibly from the area

I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful.

Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions.

Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers?

Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse.


One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious.

There are already numerous ghettos under the current unsustainable welfare system.Unless you want to argue that places like Molenbeek are not ghettos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7PvoI6gvQs
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-11 20:51:45
June 11 2016 20:46 GMT
#9607
On June 11 2016 09:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 10 2016 18:59 opisska wrote:
On June 10 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:
On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.

The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same.


But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality.

As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do:
- accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here
- let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods
- remove them forcibly from the area

I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful.

Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions.

Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers?

Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse.


One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious.

There are already numerous ghettos under the current unsustainable welfare system.Unless you want to argue that places like Molenbeek are not ghettos?

They are not ghettos in the american way tho, the concentration of poverty, the segregation are, according to all possible indicator, way lower than what you have in the US. Molenbeek is not such a bad place from what I've heard, it's just that the authority are way too easy on radical muslim for some stupid reasons.

By the way, why did Kwark decided to become the ennemy of free speach ? We need democracy on TL ... Free the US politics megathread.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
RvB
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
Netherlands6237 Posts
June 11 2016 21:02 GMT
#9608
TL has never had free speech. The fact that the US thread stayed open for so long is a miracle already.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21854 Posts
June 11 2016 21:02 GMT
#9609
On June 12 2016 05:46 WhiteDog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 11 2016 09:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On June 10 2016 18:59 opisska wrote:
On June 10 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On June 10 2016 01:11 opisska wrote:
On June 10 2016 00:58 Ghostcom wrote:
I'm not prescribing what people are supposed to think. And this discussion is going to go nowhere before you accept that. I'm prescribing what expectations people should have when they apply for citizenship. Being granted citizenship in a country is a privilege - which is something that seems to have been forgotten. The immigrants need the host country to a far greater degree than the other way around.

The approach that more tolerance and freedom will prevail is idealistic but at the same time incredibly naive and trusting it to succeed flies in the face of all current available data - the past 20 years of immigration attempts in the EU have had less than stellar success. I do not pretend to have a magic bullet to fix it, but the reasonable approach sure as hell can't be more of the same.


But then, what are the practical policies you would implement to these ends - short of just building a wall and letting the rest of the world pay for it? The abstract concepts you say about citizenships sound nice, but what does it mean in practice? How is that different from the current situation? What steps do you suggests in determining whether the immigrants have accepted the values you want them to accept? Opinions are worth nothing if they can't be translated into day-to-day reality.

As long as the refugees enter Europe, there are exactly three things you can do:
- accept them and eventually grant them full rights, equal to the people who already live here
- let them in, but let them be second-class citizens for extended periods
- remove them forcibly from the area

I my opinion, option 2 is seen as practical only by people who have zero understanding of human nature and would lead to a disaster no matter what. Option 3 is partly immoral (when concerning real refugees of war, of which there are millions), partly impractical (because there is nowhere to relocate the people to, or because they will simply come back). Do you see any other option? I don't believe we will be ever able to close the borders and any attempt to do so only increases the impetus on people trafficking, making the whole thing an absurd competition in not dying in the process, which I don't really see as helpful.

Do you see any other option? If not, then what is the point of even discussing how much immigrants are a problem, if we are stuck with them anyway? Or specific details of citizenship requirements, if there is no better course of action than to grant the citizenship to most of the people that are coming? It really is the time to stop talking in bloated words and start talking actual actions.

Clearly the best option is do not grant any welfare benefits to non citizens and grant them only to citizens who have resided for 5 years or more in that country.Why do you think these migrants are gravitating to Sweden in such large numbers?

Very basic fact that i feel the far left may slowly be realising : you cannot have both open borders and a generous welfare system.One maximum or the system will eventually collapse.


One hand, I obviously agree that money and resources do not come out of thin air, so there needs to be some balance. On the other hand, I am not so sure whether outright excluding a group of people from welfare system is a very good idea. Together with their worse employability (people will obviously prefer locals for most things, if they can), it inevitable leads towards establishing an impoverished social layer, which will increase crime, lead to creation of ghettos and generally hinder any effort in integrating the people into our culture. All of that will then incur a lot of additional expenses on the rest of the society anyway, making the initial savings at least dubious.

There are already numerous ghettos under the current unsustainable welfare system.Unless you want to argue that places like Molenbeek are not ghettos?

They are not ghettos in the american way tho, the concentration of poverty, the segregation are, according to all possible indicator, way lower than what you have in the US. Molenbeek is not such a bad place from what I've heard, it's just that the authority are way too easy on radical muslim for some stupid reasons.

By the way, why did Kwark decided to become the ennemy of free speach ? We need democracy on TL ... Free the US politics megathread.

Last night conversations were not exactly a high point for the US thread. It was already pretty bad when I went to sleep and oh man did it get worse later on ><
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
June 11 2016 21:04 GMT
#9610
the incarceration and drug cycle is really a great scourge that afaik isnt replicated in europe
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
June 12 2016 00:15 GMT
#9611
On June 10 2016 18:19 zatic wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 10 2016 18:17 Velr wrote:
On June 10 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:
On June 01 2016 14:20 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:56 oBlade wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote:
On June 01 2016 13:03 oBlade wrote:
On June 01 2016 12:26 SK.Testie wrote:
What private companies do is fine, agreed. But this is to lead you into:
When Merkel tells Zuckerberg to stop anti-Migrant FB posts, what does that entail?
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
This is a government body telling a private company to do something

And my question to you: Is the hashtag itself - #stopislam a hashtag of hate?

In the past, when people have raised concerns about the control internet giants have over speech, in my experience the rebuttals have been how it's not an issue because private companies worth multiple billions have the right to do as they please - and if people don't like it, they should make their own social networks. And that seemed like a convenient deference to the free market to me, but whatever. Now the cartel of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are explicitly working with the EU commission (in other words, government bureaucracy), and I'm being told this isn't an issue because it's up to a government to restrict "hate" speech. It's apparently a cause that just isn't important to some people.


so you were okay with censorship as long as it was done for arbitrary or economic reasons but when it's the result of the democratic process in the form of government institutions it's somehow worse?

No, I'm saying I don't like censorship. In prior instances when SNS control of speech was criticized, free speech advocates got dismissed with the rationale that companies can do what they want, and your rights are only an issue when the government is involved. Now the government is directly and publicly involved.

The EC is an appointed bureaucracy with a less than stellar record - the same body responsible for a controversial handling of the migrant crisis coincidentally wants to expand censorship under the pretense of protecting people. Even if this was a policy by direct referendum instead of a convoluted international bureaucracy, "democracy" is hardly a singular descriptor of Europe. Embedded in the countries are other ideas, like liberalism, which are supposed to protect people from voting their rights away (which again isn't what this is, the EC are appointed officials).

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm


again, it's not like it isn't consensus on the national level already. Even in the UK which is arguably the most classical liberal country in the Union hate speech, especially against the typical protected classes (religion, ethnicity, sex and so on) is clearly forbidden. This isn't a new thing. What's new is that it's actually being enforced in the digital sphere given that we've seen what can happen in internet echo chambers.

There has been a certain degree of trust that companies like Facebook adhere to European standards on their own. They haven't delivered so now the European institutions get involved, but it's not in principle a top down thing initiated by 'the bureaucracy'.

What countries seem to agree to is that it's part of their criminal code that incitement to hatred/violence by speech is punishable. Like a prosecutor takes a case to the courts and tries to convict someone of a crime under the law, right? Who agreed to appointed international executives partnering with megacorps to determine what "hate speech" is and then censor people for it? If it were TV and newspapers, maybe people would know it was wrong.


And wo agreed that Boobies on Facebook aren't allowed? Because that actually wouldn't be the slightest Problem under the law in many (big!) european countries.
Censoring People from showing their own Body is somehow allright but censoring blatant hatespeak isn't?

Thats were i get Problems with understanding american/anglosaxon "free speak"... We need to protect children wherever possible from seeing Boobies (or dicks/vaginas whatever) but what they can hear or read? Who cares.

Its retarded beyond belief.

signed by every continental European

I don't sign it.
I have question : do you believe the boobs and pussy censorship in the US had any kind of good effect on their sexual / social behavior overall ? And if so, why do you believe that a censorship on ideas and political comments will have any good effect of polical thinking ?
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
June 12 2016 00:18 GMT
#9612
I think all consensual sexual activity should be considered to be equal and so I don't think there's any moderation required there, it wouldn't produce anything of merit. Not all discourse is created equal though. We don't let the students decide the curriculum because they're simply not qualified to do that and we moderate debates because else you end up with everybody screaming and kicking.
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-12 00:27:55
June 12 2016 00:23 GMT
#9613
On June 12 2016 09:18 Nyxisto wrote:
I think all consensual sexual activity should be considered to be equal and so I don't think there's any moderation required there, it wouldn't produce anything of merit. Not all discourse is created equal though. We don't let the students decide the curriculum because they're simply not qualified to do that and we moderate debates because else you end up with everybody screaming and kicking.

Untrue. Sex without feelings aside from constraints, like consuming endless (and nameless) bodies is not equal to love between two mates who know each others. In fact, there are psychological pathologies in regards to sex : hypersexuality and addiction to sex, where the endless desire to consume more and more unamed individuals is a problematic experience that usually comes with suffering.
If discourse are not equal, then lesser discourse should crumble through discussion and debate, through the use of logic and not through the authority of the law.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-12 00:33:18
June 12 2016 00:31 GMT
#9614
But if we extend this to harmful sexual behavior we actually do censor and moderate. We wouldn't allow say rape fantasies on public media, or pedophilia, just like we put age requirements on violent video games and movies. (which of course is also regularly protested but there's pretty strong evidence that early consumption of this stuff can produce adverse behaviour)

And regarding debate vs law, with debate it's not clear whether the desired outcome is actually achieved. It might be the case that the discussion turns so vile that it produces simply more extreme positions or even violence. That's why we have legal force in the first place, to put an absolute limit around democratic decisions.
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-12 00:58:57
June 12 2016 00:42 GMT
#9615
On June 12 2016 09:31 Nyxisto wrote:
But if we extend this to harmful sexual behavior we actually do censor and moderate. We wouldn't allow say rape fantasies on public media, or pedophilia, just like we put age requirements on violent video games and movies. (which of course is also regularly protested but there's pretty strong evidence that early consumption of this stuff can produce adverse behaviour)

And regarding debate vs law, with debate it's not clear whether the desired outcome is actually achieved. It might be the case that the discussion turns so vile that it procudes simply more extreme positions in violence. That's why we have legal force in the first place, to put an absolute limit around democratic decisions.

I'm just saying, according to any kind of psychologue you can talk too, repetitive sex without any kind of feelings (I'm talking about none at all) and with a huge number of partner is usually the result of a traumatic experience or some form of addiction, to the point that there are brain pattern in regards to some sex addictions that are similar to drug addiction (not as severe, but similar) : there are indeed some form of consensual sex that are problematic.

There is a huge difference between what people do and what people think. When you declare a specific thinking as "forbidden by state" or a specific idea as "state truth", you instantly fuel a counter movement, exactly like sex censorship or alcohol prohibition.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
June 12 2016 08:45 GMT
#9616
any, more deutsch -ish details on this?: http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2016/06/12/759703/story.html
A regional German court has recognised as valid the marriage of a 14-year-old Syrian girl to her 20-year-old cousin, despite the legal age for marriage in Germany being 16. The case represents a landmark ruling, with the Federal Court set to adjudicate on the implications for the country as a whole.
...
In what is likely to become a landmark ruling, the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Higher Regional Court in Bamberg, Bavaria) has this week decided that the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 20-year-old husband must be recognised as the wedding has already taken place, was recognised as legal in their native Syria, and was conducted in accordance with Sunni marriage rites.
...
There are no official figures on the number of child bride migrants living in Europe, but the number is thought to be in the hundreds. Although in some cases the girls have been separated from their husbands and placed in child protection facilities, in others, the authorities have been content to let them remain with their husbands for fear of traumatising them.

“Minors seeking asylum are in a difficult situation where they have left their homeland, family and friends, and the partner they have travelled with can be the only person they know and trust in Norway,” said Heidi Vibeke Pedersen, a senior official at the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration.

But charities have countered that line of argument, pointing out the sharp increase in forced marriages in Syria and in concentration camps. According to Die Welt, just 13 per cent of marriages in Syria involved a partner under the age of 18 before the war. Now the figure is around 51 per cent.

Robin Classen of the Criticising Immigration blog has called the verdict a “scandal”, highlighting that the judge “openly and completely uncritically quoted sharia law, applying it directly to this case.

“Therefore ‘only a marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim is void,’ in the judge’s own words, because Islamic law forbids this.”

Mr. Classen argues that the case is a prime example of Germany importing a foreign culture through mass migration.

“With mass immigration has come not only the sort of terrorism seen in Paris and Brussels and the sexual offences of New Year’s Eve, but also a completely different set of social values ideas,” he says.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
RoomOfMush
Profile Joined March 2015
1296 Posts
June 12 2016 10:00 GMT
#9617
I am no expert on german laws but it seems the judges do not want to punish foreign people for doing something in the past (while they were in their home country) which is illegal in germany but legal in their homecountry. Perhaps the german law states that its illegal to marry while you are 14 but doesnt say anything about being married while being 14.
SoSexy
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Italy3725 Posts
June 12 2016 10:45 GMT
#9618
I'm not shocked. After Cologne, it's clear that Germany bowed down. I would have been way more surprised by 'Judge declares that marriage invalid'.

+ Show Spoiler +
4chan would simply say: Germany is cucked
Dating thread on TL LUL
m4ini
Profile Joined February 2014
4215 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-12 11:22:52
June 12 2016 11:16 GMT
#9619
Well who doesn't like legal pedophiles. I mean, it's not like those kids are unhappy about being raped, and beaten by a dude that's double the age.

The hypocrisy is cute, considering that a german politician had to flee germany (literally), after being caught purchasing pictures of underage girls (no sexual activities) - but since "other countries, other manners", a fricking kid-fucker is okay as long as he's syrian.

They're pedophiles. They should be considered pedophiles. They should be handled like pedophiles. They're legally screwing girls at age 12 and younger. Like.. How can someone look at that and say "yeah, our laws somehow allow for that".

edit: although it's misleading. They didn't rule the marriage "lawful" or "unlawful", they ruled that the Jugendamt ("Youth office"?) can't interfere with choices that the kid makes, other than for example a german kid.
On track to MA1950A.
lastpuritan
Profile Joined December 2014
United States540 Posts
June 12 2016 12:13 GMT
#9620
On June 09 2016 22:48 DickMcFanny wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 09 2016 22:36 Plansix wrote:
On June 09 2016 22:29 DickMcFanny wrote:
Right. Idiots exist. Now if you multiply the average idiocy with a cancerous, fundamentalist ideology and you get what we're going to have to deal with more and more.

I see nothing stupider in this than Christians intimidating and attacking abortion clinics. It is terrible, but also nothing that humanity has not dealt with before. Claims that “this is what appeasement gets you” are just hyperbolic. Do you really expect a productive discussion about tolerance when you lump all 1.5 billion Muslim in with these two idiots?


At what point do all those isolated incidents become a trend?

I mean, if 60% of Republicans believe that abortion is murder and that abortion doctors should be killed, would you still use the phrase "lumping in"?

What does it take for people to consider that there might be something wrong with the underlying ideology of Islam?

You think because the Turkish family in your neighborhood is well integrated, there can't be anything wrong with the ideology. But it's a fact that most (as in: a majority of, more than 50%) of Muslims believe that Sharia law should be the law of the land. And that's not a single poll in Saudi Arabia. More than 50% believe that apostates should be killed. More than 15% of English (i. e. living in England) Muslims think that people who insult the prophet should be killed.

The overwhelming majority have an ideology that if it were expressed by a political party, we would call them right wing extremists.


These aren't "isolated incidents", this is systemic insanity.


Here are 2 good examples of Islamic rooted ideologies.

[image loading]

And please quit your bad sampling. Nearly all of the turkic countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan etc. and many of the African muslim countries have secular laws instead of sharia law. That means the only integration they will need would be on soft cultural things like how to respect personal space of a US citizen lol. I never intend to believe when people start talking polls says these, polls say that, UK has many muslims integrated in their working society and no one is beheading brits ( though I hear some Bangladeshi and Pakistani cause problems) or Germans has millions of Turks that we hear integrations problems occur mainly on language issues. You need to quit using Muslim as if you're referring to a race. I believe it's still the point where the problem starts.
Prev 1 479 480 481 482 483 1415 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Monday Night Weeklies
16:00
#25
Clem vs herOLIVE!
RotterdaM1508
TKL 440
SteadfastSC373
IndyStarCraft 332
BRAT_OK 159
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 1508
TKL 440
SteadfastSC 373
IndyStarCraft 332
BRAT_OK 159
Hui .156
Livibee 141
MindelVK 25
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 23938
Larva 156
firebathero 118
sas.Sziky 63
Backho 57
scan(afreeca) 36
NaDa 6
Counter-Strike
fl0m3225
ScreaM749
pashabiceps348
Stewie2K79
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu461
Khaldor221
Other Games
qojqva3201
Grubby3176
FrodaN2232
ceh9923
Beastyqt756
B2W.Neo386
ToD184
mouzStarbuck73
Trikslyr61
UpATreeSC47
Chillindude20
JuggernautJason5
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Psz 17
• Hupsaiya 7
• Reevou 4
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV777
• masondota2658
League of Legends
• Nemesis3742
• Jankos1844
• TFBlade717
Other Games
• imaqtpie921
• Shiphtur270
Upcoming Events
Map Test Tournament
16h 2m
PiGosaur Monday
1d 5h
Map Test Tournament
1d 16h
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
Map Test Tournament
2 days
Map Test Tournament
3 days
OSC
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
[ Show More ]
Map Test Tournament
4 days
OSC
4 days
[BSL 2025] Weekly
4 days
Safe House 2
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Map Test Tournament
5 days
OSC
5 days
IPSL
6 days
dxtr13 vs Napoleon
Doodle vs OldBoy
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Team Wars
Maestros of the Game
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
Acropolis #4 - TS2
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
ESL Pro League S22
Frag Blocktober 2025
Urban Riga Open #1
FERJEE Rush 2025
Birch Cup 2025
DraculaN #2
LanDaLan #3
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

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
WardiTV TLMC #15
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
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.