EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 862
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
WASHINGTON — A white nationalist affiliated with a neo-Nazi website may have created fake documents about new French President Emmanuel Macron that circulated a week before Macron’s election victory. On May 3, an anonymous user on the message board 4chan posted a large cache of files allegedly showing that Macron, the center-right candidate running against far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen, maintained an offshore bank account in the Bahamas. Researchers quickly determined that the files were fake, but they spread widely online ahead of France’s May 7 president election. The 4chan user who posted the fake files also linked to a website, nouveaumartel.com. By forensically examining that web address, cyber analysts at VirtualRoad.org discovered links to the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, and to the site’s system administrator, the far-right internet troll Andrew Auernheimer, aka “Weev.” The Daily Stormer’s website shares IP addresses and a content delivery network with nouveaumartel.com, according to VirtualRoad’s analysis. And while the owner of nouveaumartel.com tried to mask its IP address by passing it through a “Tunnel broker” service, that service used the account name “weevlos.” “We have strong confidence that the ‘fake offshore documents’ known as #MacronGate are connected with” the Daily Stormer, VirtualRoad Chief Technology Officer Tord Lundström told POLITICO in an email. “There are several forensic pieces of evidence that point to the same.” While it is possible to fake some of the connections, Lundström argued that the extent of overlap between the Daily Stormer’s site and nouveaumartel.com suggests that it is not a coincidence or hoax. “We have also considered the possibility that the IPv6 overlap” — the sites’ shared use of an IPv6 address — “could be coincidental, but as the IPv6 address can only be used by the person that runs that Tunnel broker service ‘weev,’ we think that in this case that is not the case.” Source | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On May 20 2017 12:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Martin Luther King was actually in favor of things like Affirmative action. I suggest you actually do some research into his actual beliefs. As a white penis, I obviously don't give a shit about racism or sexism, but I can really find myself in some of these quotes from MLK. He had some neat views, especially the 3rd quote where he talks about economic and political power, and how it is all tied together: “I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” – Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952. “And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” –Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August of MLK:16, 1967. “We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967. “I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income… The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” – Where do We Go from Here?, 1967. I can already some posters going "I respect MLK for his views on society and his efforts in the civil rights movement, but he doesn't understand economic issues." Don't bother, I don't care. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6223 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On May 20 2017 19:31 RvB wrote: Why even share your opinion on a discussion forum when you're not willing to engage in one? If you have something to say beyond the obvious response that I anticipated, then you are free to do so (I also don't want to forbid you from stating the very thing I anticipated, but know that I still wouldn't care about it and would not bother responding to such a statement). | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On May 20 2017 11:31 Yoav wrote: What lines do you recommend we divide along? If you go with "economic" you're gonna get pretty much the same problem. You don't need to divide along arbitrary lines at all. If people are struggling through no fault of their own, you help them. If they're not, you don't. It helps nobody to say 'there are lots of poor black people, therefore we should discriminate against all other races' when you can just help the individuals who are actually poor, thereby not excluding poor whites/Asians. So much of this stuff is completely arbitrary, too. Women outnumber men in universities in the UK by a ratio of 7:5 or something, and yet there is gender specific funding for women, and none for men. Whenever there is an imbalance between the genders the automatic assumption is that it is the result of discrimination against women. The conclusion is reached before the investigation ever takes place. There's no respect for the individual's capacity to make their own choices, because that undermines the government's quest for equality of outcome. The government should stay out of this discussion entirely unless a) there is discriminatory legislation it can change or b) it has definitive evidence that discrimination is taking place (which is illegal). Races performing differently is not evidence of discrimination. There are no two races who perform exactly the same and there are a great many reasons why this is the case. I don't really think that the test with CV names is strong enough evidence, either. There was an article on the BBC a couple of months back about how certain French names were consistently discriminated against in France. By the way, given that you are mostly leftists it is worth noting that capitalism as a system does not discriminate. A business that avoids the best person for the job because of their skin colour will be at a disadvantage. The model I actually want to see is a strong capitalist system with UBI as bedrock. No minimum wages. Every individual can maximise their productivity and satisfaction by pursuing things they actually care about. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 20 2017 20:29 bardtown wrote: By the way, given that you are mostly leftists it is worth noting that capitalism as a system does not discriminate. Must be why, in my country: 1) People who clean office buildings are almost all women, many of them being foreigners or with an immigrant background. 2) Most guards I see are Blacks or Arabs. I can't even remember the last time I saw a female guard in front of a shop. 3) In the 2016 French version of the “100 most performing bosses,” 100 of them are men. Not a single woman. Because all big companies have a man at the top. And I'm ready to bet a couple of fingers that all but a few are white. The idea that capitalism ignores gender or race is a pleasant fiction. In fact, I often read economists using the “it's an economic waste” argument against the persistence of discriminations. Capitalism isn't magically separately from the society and people are not cold-blooded calculators which operate only under the “maximizing profit” mindset. Gender segregation in jobs is well documented, women are over-concentrated in a few jobs linked with care, etc. Most jobs do have a gender (with female ones being less paid). In France almost half of the women are concentrated in a dozen of jobs (secretary, nurse, cleaner, teacher, home help, etc.). If you don't know what movie to watch in the future, may I suggest Hidden figures? The model I actually want to see is a strong capitalist system with UBI as bedrock. No minimum wages. Every individual can maximise their productivity and satisfaction by pursuing things they actually care about. Do you also provide the extra planets needed to make this model work for everyone? | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
No extra planets needed. Innovation, in particular AI, will be creating a lot of wealth in developed countries. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 20 2017 21:22 bardtown wrote: I recommend Hjernevask to you. Gender segregation is not, generally speaking, a problem. If women feel more comfortable being teachers and nurses and men feel more comfortable being mechanics and engineers - good. Everybody is doing what they want to do. Workplace segregation is actually more pronounced in the western world, with Scandinavia being at the extreme end. Scandinavia is the opposite of a discriminatory culture, but people have the economic security to pursue the career they want to do as opposed to striving for whatever is the most profitable. So, to be clear, insofar as segregation is the result of individual choice I do not care. I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. — Margaret Thatcher, 1987 Well, this is the logical conclusion of your reasoning. You seem to discard the idea of social structures ("everybody is doing what they want to do"), racism or patriarchy are apparently not a thing for you. In the end you don't acknowledge the existence of society... This liberal individualism of yours could be coherent, except you toss it overboard as soon as immigrants arrive (just an example based on what I read from you on other topics). You look at individuals in a vacuum when it pleases you, i.e. when it allows you to negate the discriminations or exploitation that some populations endure based on X, Y, Z; then you suddenly reintroduce society and culture (collective stuff) when you want to ban certain things or behaviours. If culture can explain why population A "is not willing to integrate" (your words), then why can't a patriarchal culture explain why male/female behaviour differs? Why would gender segregation be the result of individual choices rather than social & cultural causes? Either structure effects don't exist or they do. I definitely don't see a lack of female guards as a negative thing. It's not particularly important indeed, it was just an example. But do French women also individually choose to spend, on average, twice the time on domestic tasks compared with their male counterparts? No extra planets needed. Innovation, in particular AI, will be creating a lot of wealth in developed countries. ? Sorry, I don't see the link. My point was that the average way of life in developed countries cannot be extended to the whole human population. Productivism and consumerism, the natural children of capitalism, are simply not sustainable on the long-term. If this planet is to shelter 9-11 billions of humans, they cannot all live like the average US/UK/France/Luxembourg/etc. inhabitant; especially as climate change is already on the way (please don't tell me you deny this too?). But addressing this is contradictory with the “I'm a completely free individual and I do whatever I want, the rest of the world be damned” mindset that your liberal individualist philosophy implicitly carries. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
http://video.repubblica.it/edizione/milano/migranti-a-milano-la-marcia-per-l-accoglienza/276397/276979?ref=RHPS There are tensions between social centers and the official members of the democratic party. In particular, the social centers are targeting the mayor with slogans, saying that they are as bas as the right parties. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On May 20 2017 22:12 TheDwf wrote: I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. — Margaret Thatcher, 1987 Well, this is the logical conclusion of your reasoning. You seem to discard the idea of social structures ("everybody is doing what they want to do"), racism or patriarchy are apparently not a thing for you. In the end you don't acknowledge the existence of society... This liberal individualism of yours could be coherent, except you toss it overboard as soon as immigrants arrive (just an example based on what I read from you on other topics). You look at individuals in a vacuum when it pleases you, i.e. when it allows you to negate the discriminations or exploitation that some populations endure based on X, Y, Z; then you suddenly reintroduce society and culture (collective stuff) when you want to ban certain things or behaviours. If culture can explain why population A "is not willing to integrate" (your words), then why can't a patriarchal culture explain why male/female behaviour differs? Why would gender segregation be the result of individual choices rather than social & cultural causes? Either structure effects don't exist or they do. It's not particularly important indeed, it was just an example. But do French women also individually choose to spend, on average, twice the time on domestic tasks compared with their male counterparts? ? Sorry, I don't see the link. My point was that the average way of life in developed countries cannot be extended to the whole human population. Productivism and consumerism, the natural children of capitalism, are simply not sustainable on the long-term. If this planet is to shelter 9-11 billions of humans, they cannot all live like the average US/UK/France/Luxembourg/etc. inhabitant; especially as climate change is already on the way (please don't tell me you deny this too?). But addressing this is contradictory with the “I'm a completely free individual and I do whatever I want, the rest of the world be damned” mindset that your liberal individualist philosophy implicitly carries. "If culture can explain why population A "is not willing to integrate" (your words), then why can't a patriarchal culture explain why male/female behaviour differs?" Are you trying to tell me that Sweden is more patriarchal than Pakistan? Because that's what your theory of gender segregation implies. It is certainly possible for societal structures to influence people's decisions, but the thing about a society where individual choice is emphasised is that each individual has the freedom to reject any societal pressure they dislike, and they will still do just fine. On the contrary, what you seem to want is a society where women are forced (or bribed, as the case may be) to do things they don't want to do so that they become 'equal' to men. There are differences between men and women. They are not deterministic, but they mean that, in general, different groups tend to prefer different roles. If they don't like the role generally favoured by their gender, they don't have to do it. No problem whatsoever. I don't know exactly how you've interpreted my views on immigration, but I may as well make it clear that individualism does not mean anarchism. It doesn't mean everybody can do whatever they want. If your behaviour or your culture infringes on the rights of others then it's a serious problem. I don't really agree with the Margaret Thatcher quote either. Can you imagine Thatcher supporting UBI? My focus is on maximising the freedom of the individual, and I think a basic level of support from the state is useful to that end. I'm not reductive in the sense that I think 'society' is irrelevant, either. I just think the way to minimise those forces is to empower individuals. As for your final comments: I'm not interested in trying to save the world all at once. Inequality is the engine of innovation. You need wealth amassed at the top for the kind of investments that can actually make a difference. If you got the radical redistribution of wealth that you seem to want then progress would collapse. Capitalism is what is pulling the developing world out of subsistence. As always, some countries will implement reform first and the rest of the world will have to catch up or pursue an alternative model. Furthermore, being individual does not mean saying 'fuck everybody else'. Morality is not owned by the state for fuck's sake. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6223 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
@Nyxisto I don't think pressuring people to be 'successful' in monetary terms is increasing their freedom. A better paid career tends to require its own sacrifices. I would go as far as to say that the problem is the opposite of what you are suggesting. The 'traditional' family can no longer exist, because a single working adult is rarely able to sustain a family. Women have lost that option. Edit: I'll just put this here. I recommend it to all interested. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On May 21 2017 05:10 Shield wrote: Looking for perfect gender equality is waste of time. Some men and some women have different interests. If you check a typical Computer Science course, you might find that 80% or more are male. It's not about sexism, there aren't that many women that want technical stuff. a lot of that is based on perceived gender roles (by age 3 or 5 boys are more likely to be called smart by their peers than girls for example). Calling it sexism is wrong but at the same time it should be looked at too see why the numbers are so skewed when everyone (at least in US) is in the same school system. The reverse of say nursing and healthcare jobs should be looked at as well. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think at least if we try to understand why it is we can address it. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On May 21 2017 05:33 bardtown wrote: It's not a problem. As such, it doesn't need a solution. Karis, why not try the video I posted if you want to hear scientific responses to what you're saying? I don't really trust videos that much unless I know where it's from. I'm not saying if it is a problem or not I'm just saying there's a lot of studies about gender and schools. I have no problem saying there may be some genetic component. But I've seen lots of studies that show that there's plenty of other things that could also be contributing to it. There's probably some social/society component to why certain people go into certain fields. | ||
| ||
