La France

[MANICHAEAN]

I'm in too minds about the ongoing strikes in France.

In cold economic terms: they take too many holidays, have one of the shortest working weeks in Europe, are bound up in labour laws that makes it difficult to get unemployment below a stubborn 10%, and yet, and yet!!

Perhaps they have got it right after all: 3 hour lunches, wine with every meal, more time with the family?

[stlukesguild]

As versus the United States? No guaranteed health care. No guaranteed paid vacations. No paid maternity leave. College/University tuition that will put students in debt for decades. Workers putting in 40+ hours a week at their jobs and paid well below the poverty level.

Vive la France!

[DieterM]

LOL, Manichaeans – above all, you should take a close look at France, the real-life France, not the one presented in the media! Living in France, I wish I could have 3 hour lunches, wine with every meal and more time with my family! Yet I've just finished my 30-min-luncheon consisting of Chinese take-out with which I had some water. I wish I could have the legal 35-hours-working week. But I've come to the office at 8:15 this morning and I won't leave before 18:00, which is my normal working schedule Mo-Fr. You can do the maths yourself, I total some 43 hours and more per week. And of course, "paid overtime" is not amongst the vocabulary commonly known by any French boss. "You can work as many overtime hours you like, be our guest. But don't expect us to pay for them", that's more what reality looks like. There are many people who work the legal working time, i.e. 35 hours a week, and you know what? France still has the highest productivity in Europe! Meaning an Englishman or a German working 40 hours is less productive than a French working 35 hours! Now I'm not saying the strikes are entirely justified because, to be frank, I haven't read the bill. All I understand from reading newspapers etc. is that there will be some drawbacks on social advances. Having been living in this country for the last twenty-or-more years I perfectly know it is in dire need of reforms. But I'm not sure that cutting down on employee rights (which are rights our fathers and grandfathers have been fighting for) is the right and only way to achieve that. Look at Germany where the unemployment rate is ridiculously low but where the rate of employees living below poverty level is horribly high. Do we want a society where people who do have a job (even a full-time job) are not capable of earning a (decent) living?

All this to say, I'm on two minds about the strikes, too. What I really don't understand is why people can't simply debate and discuss things beforehand, left and right, employers and employees, and try to find the best solution?

[Emil Miller]

Yes, the reality is always different to the ideal. I have been reading about the strikes in Le Figaro which, being primarily a business journal, obviously has its own agenda and, according to which, the trouble is being caused by the militant CTG union.
However, France is, and has been, in a state of political flux for the whole of the current presidency and disillusionment with the political class is widespread: a situation replicated across Europe and the USA.
Therefore, what is happening in France is symptomatic of a wider malaise and needs to be seen in context.

[Clopin]

You know what to do.

http://oxfordstudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/marine-le-pen.jpg

[Clopin]

College/University tuition that will put students in debt for decades.

Vive la France!

Better the tax payers foot the bill for all those useful English literature and art history degrees right? I love the idea of working to pay for a bunch of spoiled teenagers to spend four years in adult daycare and wind up graduating with absolutely no useful or marketable skills.

[stlukesguild]

You know what to do.

http://oxfordstudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/marine-le-pen.jpg

Vote for the Neo-Fascists?

Of course many in the US share your sentiment considering the rise of Donald Trump.

[stlukesguild]

Better the tax payers foot the bill for all those useful English literature and art history degrees right? I love the idea of working to pay for a bunch of spoiled teenagers to spend four years in adult daycare and wind up graduating with absolutely no useful or marketable skills.

There are other problems with student debt beyond students majoring in fields that do not result in marketable skills. At least this is true in the US. The government has pushed "higher education" promoting the idea that everyone should go to college while cutting back on support for job training in carpentry, welding, mechanics, and endless other well-paying careers that do not require a 4 year degree. Colleges and Universities spend fortunes lobbying politicians to require College/University credits to be licensed in any number of careers that certainly don't require such. In my own field as a teacher I am required to take further courses (at my expense) every few years to maintain my license. Most of these courses are useless... taught by graduate students who have never been in the classroom. Then we have the obscene increase in tuition. I was able to attend college and pay the tuition as I went along by working a full-time job that didn't pay all that much. Today, the tuition at state schools, subsidized by the government, can run $15-20,000... more than most any student could earn working full time. 15 years ago I was paying $3000 a year.

The cost increase is due to two factors: the government guarantees any student loan. This makes these highly attractive to banks who don't need to consider the likelihood that the loans are solid. The interest rate on these loans are well above those on most other loans. The result is virtually predatory lending with banks lending money to 17-20 year old students who aren't considered old enough to drink, but are old enough to enter into these contracts. At the same time, because the government and banks are giving money to nearly any student, the colleges and universities keep increasing tuition. They don't spend this on professors and teaching. The percentage of full-time professors has greatly decreased while the use of part-time professors and teaching assistants has greatly increased while salaries and benefits have been slashed. In many instance, we have college professors who could earn more working at McDonalds. At the same time, fortunes are being spent on sports: brand new $60 million stadiums and multi-million dollar salaries for coaches. Fortunes are also being wasted on a bloated administration. As the number of professors and their salaries have been slashed, the number of administrators and their big salaries has increased exponentially. In many instances the administrators in US colleges have no educational background whatsoever. Rather, they are MBAs... business majors... who approach the colleges solely as a business with the prime goal of making money... not educating students.

[Danik 2016]

I am stunned with your account, stluke! I thought that artistic education, for obviously you are an art professor/ teacher, was more valued in US.

[Clopin]

There are other problems with student debt beyond students majoring in fields that do not result in marketable skills. At least this is true in the US. The government has pushed "higher education" promoting the idea that everyone should go to college while cutting back on support for job training in carpentry, welding, mechanics, and endless other well-paying careers that do not require a 4 year degree. Colleges and Universities spend fortunes lobbying politicians to require College/University credits to be licensed in any number of careers that certainly don't require such. In my own field as a teacher I am required to take further courses (at my expense) every few years to maintain my license. Most of these courses are useless... taught by graduate students who have never been in the classroom. Then we have the obscene increase in tuition. I was able to attend college and pay the tuition as I went along by working a full-time job that didn't pay all that much. Today, the tuition at state schools, subsidized by the government, can run $15-20,000... more than most any student could earn working full time. 15 years ago I was paying $3000 a year.

The cost increase is due to two factors: the government guarantees any student loan. This makes these highly attractive to banks who don't need to consider the likelihood that the loans are solid. The interest rate on these loans are well above those on most other loans. The result is virtually predatory lending with banks lending money to 17-20 year old students who aren't considered old enough to drink, but are old enough to enter into these contracts. At the same time, because the government and banks are giving money to nearly any student, the colleges and universities keep increasing tuition. They don't spend this on professors and teaching. The percentage of full-time professors has greatly decreased while the use of part-time professors and teaching assistants has greatly increased while salaries and benefits have been slashed. In many instance, we have college professors who could earn more working at McDonalds. At the same time, fortunes are being spent on sports: brand new $60 million stadiums and multi-million dollar salaries for coaches. Fortunes are also being wasted on a bloated administration. As the number of professors and their salaries have been slashed, the number of administrators and their big salaries has increased exponentially. In many instances the administrators in US colleges have no educational background whatsoever. Rather, they are MBAs... business majors... who approach the colleges solely as a business with the prime goal of making money... not educating students.

We agree completely on what the problem is, but your solution seems to be to expand on the issues you've lined out and then simply dump the bill on the taxpayer. Do you believe that subsidizing the entire circus isn't going to result in more wasteful and inefficient practices? Universities are increasing tuition in order to suck more money out of students who are guaranteed ridiculous loans, but you don't think they will increase their spending practices when every student is fully subsidized? You'll get a situation where it costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to give 18 year old idiot 1 and idiot 2 a completely useless education in 'queer theory' or 'gender studies' (or hey, English lit) where the end result will be that all they can now do with their lives is go back into the university system as unqualified and painfully entitled 'professors' and absorb more state money.


The government has pushed "higher education" promoting the idea that everyone should go to college while cutting back on support for job training in carpentry, welding, mechanics, and endless other well-paying careers that do not require a 4 year degree. Colleges and Universities spend fortunes lobbying politicians to require College/University credits to be licensed in any number of careers that certainly don't require such.

Absolutely! So less government, less lobbying, less licensing, less mindless interference, less central planning; not more.

I'm also not interested in paying taxes that go to art students who learn how to "express themselves". I'm fine with subsidized daycares since children actually need childcare, but all this adult/late teen daycare is too much for me to handle.

[Clopin]

Vote for the Neo-Fascists?

Of course many in the US share your sentiment considering the rise of Donald Trump.

That's right. 'Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap'. When the pendulum swings back right I hope it breaks all of your necks.

[Emil Miller]

That's right. 'Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap'. .

Got it in a nutshell.

[stlukesguild]

We agree completely on what the problem is, but your solution seems to be to expand on the issues you've lined out and then simply dump the bill on the taxpayer.

Well what is the current situation? CEOs and other College/University administrators and banks have been given free reign to bilk students. Ideally, students going into those fields that don't truly demand a four-year education should be able to attend vocational schools beginning in grade school. College/University admission should be far more selective and demanding and students majoring in fields not likely to result in a good deal of marketable skills (art, literature, philosophy, etc...) should be required to minor in a field of study that does offer such skills. Honestly, if I were to have it to do all over I would choose to attend a private art atelier where I could learn from a skilled and financially successful artist and observe not only the technical aspects of art-making but also the realities of promoting and marketing art. These were rare when I attended art school, but have become increasingly popular as it has become glaringly obvious that investing $100,000 in an education from some "elite" art school is ridiculous.

Do you believe that subsidizing the entire circus isn't going to result in more wasteful and inefficient practices? Universities are increasing tuition in order to suck more money out of students who are guaranteed ridiculous loans, but you don't think they will increase their spending practices when every student is fully subsidized?

Obviously, there needs to be set controls upon how much a college or university should be compensated. In theory, they should be non-for-profit institutions no less than the public schools.

So less government, less lobbying, less licensing, less mindless interference, less central planning; not more.

But right now the "central planning" is imposed by the corporations: the banks and the school administration that push education as a means of making a profit and little more.

[YesNo]

Look at Germany where the unemployment rate is ridiculously low but where the rate of employees living below poverty level is horribly high. Do we want a society where people who do have a job (even a full-time job) are not capable of earning a (decent) living?


That sounds like wages are deflating faster than prices. I think something similar is happening in the US although I don't have the data nor would I probably understand it. When people can no longer buy nor get credit to buy, then the prices will have to catch up with wages and deflate as well. But then anyone with debt will have to pay off that debt with money that costs them more to earn than it did when they contracted the debt. Many won't be able to do so. So they will default.

Then the creditors will lose their investments. They will whine to their governments (aka taxpayers) demanding they get bailed out rather than taking their loses. These are the guys who annoy me the most. They annoy me even more than college students who get loans to go to school to study basket weaving or people who buy cars or homes on credit because they don't see any alternatives. Debt is the modern drug. Bailing out the creditor is like bailing out the drug dealer.

And then the governments will have to default since normal people will not be able to afford the increase in taxes to bail out the bond holders. Then people will get angry with the governments. They will get angry with each other. They will blame the college students. They will blame people with cars and homes they can no longer afford. They may even blame the creditors (aka capitalists) who are themselves in debt up the yin yang and can barely afford their own increased taxes because no one can afford their debt drug anymore.

About this time everyone will realize that the toilet has been flushed.

I'm trying to think of a happy ending to this story. I got it! At this point, at our darkest hour, aliens from another solar system arrive to save us. No. That's not realistic. Maybe this will work: Then the zombie outbreak occurs and we stop fighting each other and solve a real problem.

[Clopin]

Good post.

[Iain Sparrow]

We agree completely on what the problem is, but your solution seems to be to expand on the issues you've lined out and then simply dump the bill on the taxpayer. Do you believe that subsidizing the entire circus isn't going to result in more wasteful and inefficient practices? Universities are increasing tuition in order to suck more money out of students who are guaranteed ridiculous loans, but you don't think they will increase their spending practices when every student is fully subsidized? You'll get a situation where it costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to give 18 year old idiot 1 and idiot 2 a completely useless education in 'queer theory' or 'gender studies' (or hey, English lit) where the end result will be that all they can now do with their lives is go back into the university system as unqualified and painfully entitled 'professors' and absorb more state money.

Absolutely! So less government, less lobbying, less licensing, less mindless interference, less central planning; not more.

I'm also not interested in paying taxes that go to art students who learn how to "express themselves". I'm fine with subsidized daycares since children actually need childcare, but all this adult/late teen daycare is too much for me to handle.

That's convenient, isn't it?
You decry government handouts... right up to the point that it effects your entitlement. Correct me if I'm wrong, you do work in the childcare field? That's the problem with entitlements; the ones we ourself enjoy are earned and important, while entitlements others benefit from are a "free lunch".
Why should I subsidize the care of children who are not mine?

[Danik 2016]

That sounds like wages are deflating faster than prices. I think something similar is happening in the US although I don't have the data nor would I probably understand it. When people can no longer buy nor get credit to buy, then the prices will have to catch up with wages and deflate as well. But then anyone with debt will have to pay off that debt with money that costs them more to earn than it did when they contracted the debt. Many won't be able to do so. So they will default.

Then the creditors will lose their investments. They will whine to their governments (aka taxpayers) demanding they get bailed out rather than taking their loses. These are the guys who annoy me the most. They annoy me even more than college students who get loans to go to school to study basket weaving or people who buy cars or homes on credit because they don't see any alternatives. Debt is the modern drug. Bailing out the creditor is like bailing out the drug dealer.

And then the governments will have to default since normal people will not be able to afford the increase in taxes to bail out the bond holders. Then people will get angry with the governments. They will get angry with each other. They will blame the college students. They will blame people with cars and homes they can no longer afford. They may even blame the creditors (aka capitalists) who are themselves in debt up the yin yang and can barely afford their own increased taxes because no one can afford their debt drug anymore.

About this time everyone will realize that the toilet has been flushed.

I'm trying to think of a happy ending to this story. I got it! At this point, at our darkest hour, aliens from another solar system arrive to save us. No. That's not realistic. Maybe this will work: Then the zombie outbreak occurs and we stop fighting each other and solve a real problem.
Wellcome back Yes/No.
I am trying to think the problem out on an universal basis.
I think one part of it is in the mathematical proportion which seems to comand income x prices. What I mean is that everyone no matter in which country if he receives the minimal wages ougth to be able to provide for food, clothes, education, health and leisure on a basic level. If he isn´t its not the wages that ought to be raised, that would not help very much, but the proportion of income x costs thath ought to be changed. Not being a mathematician I don't know how to work that out, maybe one of you could help.
The second point is that unsatisfied and insecure people because of infavorable economical conditions may become the favorite prey to all kind of extremisms. The more radical the extremism, the better it seems to mirror their anger about the present conditions.
I don´t know the best way out of the crisis, but backing up extremists of any kind is no solution. We are living a crisis of international dimentions, and setting up Antichrists at each turn of the road will only make things worse, not better. If we get out of it it will be with the men of good will.

[Clopin]

That's convenient, isn't it?
You decry government handouts... right up to the point that it effects your entitlement. Correct me if I'm wrong, you do work in the childcare field? That's the problem with entitlements; the ones we ourself enjoy are earned and important, while entitlements others benefit from are a "free lunch".
Why should I subsidize the care of children who are not mine?

I work for a private and unsubsidized/unregistered (with the government programs) day-home so I don't benefit from any entitlements there. Anyway, with the bolded text I was merely trying to illustrate that I think when you subsidize something useful you actually wind up with something that may be beneficial to society (such as childcare or medical care, etc), but when you subsidize a bunch of morons to spend four years studying gender dynamics, before reentering the public sphere as overpaid teachers because they're unfit for any other employment, you wind up with absolutely nothing of value to anyone outside of that bubble. I think private insurance companies/hospitals/drug companies could do a better job than the government, but I don't deny that state supplied medical care at least serves some useful purpose to a huge number of people (including myself, many times); as does subsidized childcare, whether I agree with the subsidies or not.

I'm more or less against all government involvement with everything so we probably agree if you feel that way.

[YesNo]

Wellcome back Yes/No.
I am trying to think the problem out on an universal basis.
I think one part of it is in the mathematical proportion which seems to comand income x prices. What I mean is that everyone no matter in which country if he receives the minimal wages ougth to be able to provide for food, clothes, education, health and leisure on a basic level. If he isn´t its not the wages that ought to be raised, that would not help very much, but the proportion of income x costs thath ought to be changed. Not being a mathematician I don't know how to work that out, maybe one of you could help.
The second point is that unsatisfied and insecure people because of infavorable economical conditions may become the favorite prey to all kind of extremisms. The more radical the extremism, the better it seems to mirror their anger about the present conditions.
I don´t know the best way out of the crisis, but backing up extremists of any kind is no solution. We are living a crisis of international dimentions, and setting up Antichrists at each turn of the road will only make things worse, not better. If we get out of it it will be with the men of good will.

Thanks, Danik. We were helping our daughter get a place in Colorado Springs where she found a job and I only brought my phone which is not easy to use to post.

I agree with you about what should happen. A family should be able to cover through income basic living expenses including transportation and rent without going into debt or relying on the government.

Debt can be beneficial if it increases overall economic activity, but things cost too much and so prices will have to drop. When prices drop debt contracted at inflated prices becomes dangerous. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen to everyone and everything at the same time and that leads to inequity, insecurity and extremism. One way to help maintain good will is to not rely on debt, but we all rely on it to some extent, if not our own personal debt then the debt our governments or businesses enter into which indirectly supports our lifestyles.

[Danik 2016]

Thanks, Danik. We were helping our daughter get a place in Colorado Springs where she found a job and I only brought my phone which is not easy to use to post.

I agree with you about what should happen. A family should be able to cover through income basic living expenses including transportation and rent without going into debt or relying on the government.

Debt can be beneficial if it increases overall economic activity, but things cost too much and so prices will have to drop. When prices drop debt contracted at inflated prices becomes dangerous. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen to everyone and everything at the same time and that leads to inequity, insecurity and extremism. One way to help maintain good will is to not rely on debt, but we all rely on it to some extent, if not our own personal debt then the debt our governments or businesses enter into which indirectly supports our lifestyles.
I am glad your daughter got the job. In these difficult times each job deserves to be comemorated.:hurray:
I suspect very modestly :D that the system that orients international economy needs to be revised as more and more people in more and more countries (even the so called rich ones) are being affected.
In my country the unemployment rate has never been as high before. People get in debt not over car or house rates
but over the electricity and the water bills.
Something must be terribly wrong somewhere. Economics should be beneficial for the people and not the opposite.
Some people, specially the young ones might think extremist goverments the solution. I don´t think so. They will only help to spill the milk and they will throw out the child together with the bathing water, as the German saying goes.:devil::devil::devil:
And then, how many of us will survive to tell the story?:cryin:

[YesNo]

I am glad your daughter got the job. In these difficult times each job deserves to be comemorated.:hurray:
I suspect very modestly :D that the system that orients international economy needs to be revised as more and more people in more and more countries (even the so called rich ones) are being affected.
In my country the unemployment rate has never been as high before. People get in debt not over car or house rates
but over the electricity and the water bills.
Something must be terribly wrong somewhere. Economics should be beneficial for the people and not the opposite.
Some people, specially the young ones might think extremist goverments the solution. I don´t think so. They will only help to spill the milk and they will throw out the child together with the bathing water, as the German saying goes.:devil::devil::devil:
And then, how many of us will survive to tell the story?:cryin:

The unemployment situation puzzles me. It is officially low here, but that seems to be because it doesn't count the people who have given up trying to find work or work at lower paying jobs. The stock markets are high which means the extremism is marginal in the US.

I might be all wrong. Some people have told me that my bearish attitude is a good contrarian reason to be bullish.

[Clopin]

It is officially low here, but that seems to be because it doesn't count the people who have given up trying to find work or work at lower paying jobs.

That's exactly why.

[Danik 2016]

...extremism is marginal in the US.
Unfortunatelly this is not what I´m noticing, speaking from the outside. Anger seems to be brewing and may be responsible for problematic future political choices. This worries me a lot because of the leading position of the US in the world.
You yourself seem to be peaceful and maybe you live in a peaceful environment.

[Iain Sparrow]

I work for a private and unsubsidized/unregistered (with the government programs) day-home so I don't benefit from any entitlements there. Anyway, with the bolded text I was merely trying to illustrate that I think when you subsidize something useful you actually wind up with something that may be beneficial to society (such as childcare or medical care, etc), but when you subsidize a bunch of morons to spend four years studying gender dynamics, before reentering the public sphere as overpaid teachers because they're unfit for any other employment, you wind up with absolutely nothing of value to anyone outside of that bubble. I think private insurance companies/hospitals/drug companies could do a better job than the government, but I don't deny that state supplied medical care at least serves some useful purpose to a huge number of people (including myself, many times); as does subsidized childcare, whether I agree with the subsidies or not.

I'm more or less against all government involvement with everything so we probably agree if you feel that way.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is America's military spending, or what I and others refer to as, The Military Welfare State.
Besides the obscene amount of money we spend on military hardware and systems, those who join the military enjoy benefits the rest of us can only dream of, and they receive these benefits for life, even though most only serve one enlistment. It is of course political suicide for a politician to campaign on cutting back military spending, and phasing out benefits for veterans.

[Iain Sparrow]

Unfortunatelly this is not what I´m noticing, speaking from the outside. Anger seems to be brewing and may be responsible for problematic future political choices. This worries me a lot because of the leading position of the US in the world.
You yourself seem to be peaceful and maybe you live in a peaceful environment.


I assure you, extremism is alive and well in America.
If the very real prospect of Donald Trump becoming President isn't extreme, I sure don't know what is.

[Danik 2016]

For once I agree with you, Sparrow. In fact that was exactly what I was trying to say without refering to names.

[YesNo]

Unfortunatelly this is not what I´m noticing, speaking from the outside. Anger seems to be brewing and may be responsible for problematic future political choices. This worries me a lot because of the leading position of the US in the world.
You yourself seem to be peaceful and maybe you live in a peaceful environment.

I agree that anger is brewing. Social mood is turning negative, but it is not yet negative. Some people are already suffering from deflation. They have been hit early, but most people still seem to be able to get by. The US markets are near all-time highs and, based on commentators I trust who are bearish, the markets will attempt to make a final fifth wave up this year and then crash hard with no prospect of a rebound in our lifetimes. It is when the markets crash that the anger will boil.

Although politicians like Trump and Sanders represent dissatisfaction on the right and the left and show that social mood is becoming negative, these politicians are tame compared to what I expect to see later.

Of course, I might be all wrong with these predictions. We do live in a relatively peaceful environment at the moment.

[Clopin]

While I wouldn't vote for Trump (or anyone) if I were an American citizen, I haven't seen anything from him that I would consider "extreme". Is desiring to control your own borders really that extreme of a position?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t7PnrelFdY

These people are extremists.

[Ecurb]

Trump's political positions are not extreme (he was the most centrist of all the Republican candidates). However, his cultural positions are both extreme and dangerous (by modern standards). For example, he thinks that the judge hearing the Trump University class action suit should recuse himself because he is of Mexican heritage. This man (I forget his name) is a Federal Judge, a well-respected jurist, and was born in the U.S. (and is a U.S. citizen). Why should he recuse himself? Because Trump is a racist and xenophobe?

I'll grant, Clopin, that many anti-Trump protesters are ridiculous. Attempting to stifle anyone's freedom of speech and assembly is unacceptable. I tried to attend a Trump rally here in Eugene (I got there an hour early, and it was already full, so I couldn't get in), and dozens of protesters were holding "F___ Trump" signs. From a literary perspective, why (I wondered) would anyone want to have sexual congress with someone he or she despises? It reminded me of the bumper sticker I used to see: "Mean People Suck". No. That's the behavior of kindly, generous people, who are trying to give pleasure to others.

[North Star]

While I wouldn't vote for Trump (or anyone) if I were an American citizen, I haven't seen anything from him that I would consider "extreme". Is desiring to control your own borders really that extreme of a position?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t7PnrelFdY

These people are extremists.
Well. Let us consider that Trump has encouraged assaulting people endorsing different views, or throwing a tomato, and that he also offers legal help to all committing said crimes.

[Clopin]

Well. Let us consider that Trump has encouraged assaulting people endorsing different views, or throwing a tomato, and that he also offers legal help to all committing said crimes.

And yet there's significantly more violence targeted towards his supporters, including the attacks in San Jose and riotous behaviour at pro Trump rallies in general, which I haven't seen either Sanders or Clinton condemn. Sanders has also posed with acknowledged illegal immigrants and encouraged illegal immigration to the United States, which is actually a crime you know.

I'm not saying Trump is good, but he's about as 'extreme' as anybody else in the running.

[North Star]

And yet there's significantly more violence targeted towards his supporters, including the attacks in San Jose and riotous behaviour at pro Trump rallies in general, which I haven't seen either Sanders or Clinton condemn. Sanders has also posed with acknowledged illegal immigrants and encouraged illegal immigration to the United States, which is actually a crime you know.

I'm not saying Trump is good, but he's about as 'extreme' as anybody else in the running.
How about when Trump settled out of court the case with those illegal Polish workers, about which he may or may not have known about? If he can't keep illegals from Eastern Europe out of his own construction site, how do well do you think he will manage to keep Mexicans out of the largest economy in the world? Judging by him moving his clothing line to Mexico, his solution will probably be moving all the jobs to Mexico. ;-)

Also, I didn't know about Sanders encouraging illegal immigration. Here's what it says on his website: "Bernie supports immigration reform that will address the legal status of the 11 million undocumented people in our country, protect American jobs by way of visa reform, secure the border, and protect undocumented workers from labor exploitation." Can you please cite where he has supported illegal immigration?


(and neither am I saying anything positive about Hillary, apart from her having probably more experience than any US presidential candidate before, or that Bernie would be a good president.)

[Clopin]

How about when Trump settled out of court the case with those illegal Polish workers, about which he may or may not have known about? If he can't keep illegals from Eastern Europe out of his own construction site, how do well do you think he will manage to keep Mexicans out of the largest economy in the world? Judging by him moving his clothing line to Mexico, his solution will probably be moving all the jobs to Mexico. ;-)

Also, I didn't know about Sanders encouraging illegal immigration. Here's what it says on his website: "Bernie supports immigration reform that will address the legal status of the 11 million undocumented people in our country, protect American jobs by way of visa reform, secure the border, and protect undocumented workers from labor exploitation." Can you please cite where he has supported illegal immigration?

Who are you attempting to argue with here? Trump is bad, I'll say it again (what I tell you three times is true), but he's not any worse, or more 'extreme', than Clinton.

Edit: Yes, when Sanders tells people who move into the United States illegally that there will be a path to citizenship for them he is absolutely encouraging people to enter the United States illegally instead of entering through proper legal channels of citizenship/immigration.


(and neither am I saying anything positive about Hillary, apart from her having probably more experience than any US presidential candidate before, or that Bernie would be a good president.)

That's very good because she's a wretched piece of human garbage and he wouldn't be a good president.

[North Star]

Who are you attempting to argue with here? Trump is bad, I'll say it again (what I tell you three times is true), but he's not any worse, or more 'extreme', than Clinton.

Edit: Yes, when Sanders tells people who move into the United States illegally that there will be a path to citizenship for them he is absolutely encouraging people to enter the United States illegally instead of entering through proper legal channels of citizenship/immigration.

Have you anything to back you up on that point about Clinton supporting violence against US citizens for expressing a view that differs from her own - or of anything equally fascist? I'm perfectly aware of her ties to big money and the e-mail mess, and I certainly wish there was a better candidate available, but it seems preposterous to me to say she is at least as bad as Trump, or the ideas that Trump endorses.

Has Sanders said that people who will move to the United States illegally will have a path to citizenship, or that people who are illegal immigrants will have a path to citizenship?

[Clopin]

Have you anything to back you up on that point about Clinton supporting violence against US citizens for expressing a view that differs from her own - or of anything equally fascist? I'm perfectly aware of her ties to big money and the e-mail mess, and I certainly wish there was a better candidate available, but it seems preposterous to me to say she is at least as bad as Trump, or the ideas that Trump endorses.

Has Sanders said that people who will move to the United States illegally will have a path to citizenship, or that people who are illegal immigrants will have a path to citizenship?

1. Not that I know of, but I don't think that there needs to be beat for beat analogues of each statement before I consider two candidates to be equally bad as one another. Clinton is bad in a number of ways Trump is not, and Trump is bad in a number of ways Clinton is not, and I wouldn't have either of them as president of the United States if it were my decision alone. Also, what exactly did Trump say to encourage violence against U.S citizens for expressing a viewpoint differing from his own? I don't know the exact statement you're referring to, sorry.

I don't feel like getting into this for too long because it's tiring to me, and I'm not interested in squabbling over Trump being "literally Hitler" and why that means we need to hope for a Clinton government (however terrible that may be). If you're under the illusion that the only thing wrong with Hillary Clinton is her ties to big money then I'm just happy you're not eligible to vote for her in the U.S election. Not that voting matters at all anyway; Trump is great friends with the Clintons and the people who are actually in power in the world, who will continue unabated no matter who is 'elected' in 2016.

2. His immigration policy seems to be outlined here:

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-immigration/

And this is a direct quote from the man himself:

"As president, I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform that provides a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 million aspiring americans living in this country. But I will not wait for congress to act. I will take executive action to accomplish what congress has failed to do and build upon President Obama's executive orders to unite families."

Aspiring Americans is, of course, a euphemism for 'illegal alien'.

[North Star]

Re: 1, here it's on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3fKpztpTY0

What other things are wrong with Clinton, in addition to what I said? If you can cut me some slack and drop the ad hominems for a while, I'd seriously like to know more. I certainly know that Trump and Clinton are great friends, and have had a doubt in my mind about Trump's nomination being about helping Hillary to win the general election.

Re: 2, So I assume that is further proof that Sanders is not supporting a path to citizenship to others than the illegals currently in the country. Thank you.

[Clopin]

Re: 1, here it's on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3fKpztpTY0

Ah but see, you've already lied to me! This is Trump making a pretty stupid statement obviously, but he's not suggesting that people whose views differ from his own be assaulted (what you, point black, claimed), but rather that people preparing to 'throw tomatoes' at his supporters be 'knocked around' for doing so. Throwing tomatoes is at least some form of bodily assault, I wouldn't condone 'knocking the hell out of someone' for doing so, but it is more along the lines of spitting in someone's face than freedom of expression. If you spit in someone's face you're going to get knocked down and if you throw a tomato I think you should expect some physical reaction from the person you're engaging with, whether it's justified or not. Was Trumps remark stupid? Sure. Fascist? Not remotely; and you look very silly for equating this remark with 'fascism' honestly. What a joke.

and have had a doubt in my mind about Trump's nomination being about helping Hillary to win the general election.

This is what I thought at first but it seems like Trump might actually win so I'm not so sure. Regardless I think most mainstream politicians are 'in on it together' and Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump all support expansion of the NSA, the international 'war on terror' (perpetual Middle Eastern war at the behest of Israel), expansions of the 'Patriot Act' and further weakening of essential civil liberties, as well as neocolonial globalist escapades the world over. Who exactly did the U.S involvement in Libya benefit? Why did it happen? Wasn't Hillary more or less in charge of that fiasco?

At this point every electable politician is a neocon shill whose primary agenda consists of further expansion of the military, more global intervention - mainly in the middle east - continual and gradual weakening of civil liberties (check out the EU hate speech laws, they're scary) and maintaining the central banking economy that ties nearly every country together under the yoke of a very small number of people (until recently 'nearly every country' did not include Libya... isn't that strange!). These candidates only profess their differences in order to get useful idiots on the left to scream "fascist" at Trump supporters and useful idiots on the right to cry "commie" at the Sanders crowd. Will any candidate limit military expansion/imperialism? Will any candidate audit/abolish the federal reserve system? Will any candidate put an immediate halt to NSA spying/CIA operations around the world? No, no, and no. Never.

Re: 2, So I assume that is further proof that Sanders is not supporting a path to citizenship to others than the illegals currently in the country. Thank you.

Encouraging is the key word. If I knew there was a country where there was guaranteed basic income for all citizens to the tune of $10,000 per month I might feel encouraged to immigrate there. If I knew further that it was dastardly difficult to secure legal immigration to said country, but very easy to become a legal citizen after landing illegally, then I might feel very encouraged to shirk the law and try my luck, especially if I were very poor and residing in a second world country myself.

Sanders has also posed for publicity photos with acknowledged illegal aliens to play up his humanitarian image and appeal to his braindead mass of idiotic, college student, voters. This is encouraging to people who might fear legal repercussions after entering the U.S illegally (good God, imagine a country enforce its own laws! Fascists!!! Racists!!!).

[Ecurb]

Anyway, with the bolded text I was merely trying to illustrate that I think when you subsidize something useful you actually wind up with something that may be beneficial to society (such as childcare or medical care, etc), but when you subsidize a bunch of morons to spend four years studying gender dynamics, before reentering the public sphere as overpaid teachers because they're unfit for any other employment, you wind up with absolutely nothing of value to anyone outside of that bubble. I think private insurance companies/hospitals/drug companies could do a better job than the government, but I don't deny that state supplied medical care at least serves some useful purpose to a huge number of people (including myself, many times); as does subsidized childcare, whether I agree with the subsidies or not.

I'm more or less against all government involvement with everything so we probably agree if you feel that way.

Education is perhaps the single most expensive area of government expenditure (other than the military). (I'm guessing ) here, but I'm probably pretty close.) Most people support the government in the vast majority of its spending -- although we doubtless "waste" money attempting to educate 6-year-olds, 12-year-olds,16-year-olds, and (occasionally) 25-year-olds. Nonetheless, if we agree that education is a reasonable entitlement, then we're quibbling about the details, and about a minute percentage of the total expenditure.

Your faith in Drug Companies, insurance companies, etc. is ill-founded, Clopin. Having worked for a Drug Company, I can assure you they can be as inefficient, wasteful, badly managed, and corrupt as the government. I'm not complaining; without the inefficiency and incompetence, I would have been "found out".

By the way, banning Mulsims from immigrating to the U.S. on the basis of their religion would be unconstitutional, unAmerican, cowardly, and bigoted.

[Clopin]

Most people support the government in the vast majority of its spending -- although we doubtless "waste" money attempting to educate 6-year-olds, 12-year-olds,16-year-olds, and (occasionally) 25-year-olds. Nonetheless, if we agree that education is a reasonable entitlement, then we're quibbling about the details, and about a minute percentage of the total expenditure.

If I had children I wouldn't consider, even for a second, public school. I also wouldn't consider full time commercial daycare. People should be raising and educating their own children. Anyway it's not a reasonable entitlement to spend $400,000 or more of taxpayer money to get a four year degree in gender studies. Not reasonable whatsoever. Going to school when you're six and learning how to read? Yes, that's a reasonable entitlement to education that we would expect in a civilized society with elements of social utilitarianism.

Your faith in Drug Companies, insurance companies, etc. is ill-founded, Clopin. Having worked for a Drug Company, I can assure you they can be as inefficient, wasteful, badly managed, and corrupt as the government. I'm not complaining; without the inefficiency and incompetence, I would have been "found out".


I'm not sure I have any faith in anything, and certainly not in drug companies. I think private firms would probably do a better job because I think the government hand simply muddies up everything it handles. That said, the invisible hand of the free market isn't something I'm totally sold on either, but I don't know enough about economics to be absolutely certain. In most cases it seems to me that less government involvement is somewhat better, but it all depends. We probably need some government regulation to prevent everything being manufactured overseas, for instance, and we probably need something other than property rights to discourage mass ecological destruction, and I would support those I think (not that they're issues I can vote on, and if they were I would do more research).

[Clopin]

For example, he thinks that the judge hearing the Trump University class action suit should recuse himself because he is of Mexican heritage. This man (I forget his name) is a Federal Judge, a well-respected jurist, and was born in the U.S. (and is a U.S. citizen). Why should he recuse himself? Because Trump is a racist and xenophobe?


Isn't this more or less exactly what Bernie and the BLM people state over and over again when they refer to institutional racism and courts being biased against blacks? I assume you consider them racist and xenophobic as well because they object to being judged and juried by mostly whites.

[Emil Miller]

Here's an interesting observation I picked up from YouTube in relation to France and the European Union: Quoted from Mikhail Gorbachev. “The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”

[YesNo]

Come to think of it that Brexit vote should be coming up soon.

[Clopin]

My face when leave is leading the polls already and all the old coots who can't even use a computer, but will almost all vote leave, haven't even been counted yet.

https://gutsofabeggar.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/farage.jpeg

[Ecurb]

Isn't this more or less exactly what Bernie and the BLM people state over and over again when they refer to institutional racism and courts being biased against blacks? I assume you consider them racist and xenophobic as well because they object to being judged and juried by mostly whites.

No, it isn't "exactly" the same. "Institutional racism" refers to either laws that disproportionately punish people based on race (like draconian sentences for "crack" cocaine (which was predominantly a drug used in black communities), or to a statistical pattern of seemingly racially discriminatory judgements. Blacks in America are more likely to have their cases come to trial (when arrested), more likely to be convicted (when tried) and more likely to be given more severe punishments (when convicted). I haven't studied these (supposed) facts, and there may be an explanation other than institutional racism, but that's not analogous to the Trump case. I suppose a Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard might object to being tried before an all-black jury and a black judge, but unless he could show a pattern of seeming discrimination, he could not legitimately cry "institutional racism". Trump had no reason to assume that this particular judge would be unfair other than that he is of Mexican heritage, nor does he (as far as I know) have any statistical basis for suggesting that judges of Latin heritage are unfair to white people.

As far as entitlements, the reality is that all laws are violent and coercive. Therefore, if violent coercion is a bad thing, utopia must be an anarchy. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. We must muddle through as best we can in a world beset with problems. However, in America higher education is not subsidized to the extent that it is in some nations (state universities are partly funded by tax dollars, but I believe that endowments, tuition, and fees, constitute more than half of their funding (I admit I don't know the numbers). So $400k entitlements for "gender studies" (or for economics studies, or for "business management") don't happen. Also, we should recognize that property laws are "entitlements" for owners (whose rights are protected by the courts and the police at no little cost); that "controlling borders" is an entitlement for citizens; that government-built roads are entitlements for car owners. It's perfectly reasonable to support some government expenditures while deploring others, but the distinction is a practical one, not based on opposing "entitlements" on principle.

[Danik 2016]

Hi Ecurb,
"Trump had no reason to assume that this particular judge would be unfair other than that he is of Mexican heritage, nor does he (as far as I know) have any statistical basis for suggesting that judges of Latin heritage are unfair to white people."
Just a comment to your otherwise very fair reasoning:
"Latin heritage" doesn´t oppose to "white people". Maybe you mean "Latin heritage" as opposed to "Anglo heritage" or "Anglo saxon heritage".

[Clopin]

"Institutional racism" refers to either laws that disproportionately punish people based on race (like draconian sentences for "crack" cocaine (which was predominantly a drug used in black communities)

Drug crime laws in general only really punish the poor of any race. Plenty of white people smoke crack, we had a mayor up here who's somewhat famous for doing so, but he didn't serve any jail time obviously... he's not poor. President Obama also gave a hilarious little interview where he admitted to smoking marijuana and possibly 'doing blow'; he's not poor either.


Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

I haven't studied these (supposed) facts, and there may be an explanation other than institutional racism

Yes, prior convictions/criminal history result in tougher sentencing. More whites/asians are first time offenders and more blacks/hispanics are repeat offenders.

Trump had no reason to assume that this particular judge would be unfair other than that he is of Mexican heritage

Bernie Sanders and the people involved with the Black Lives Matter movement have no reason to assume that any particular judge will be unfair to black defendants other than the fact that the judge is white. It shouldn't take you long on google to find literally hundreds of examples of people protesting white judges and juries (and cops) for supposed racism against blacks and hispanics.

However, in America higher education is not subsidized to the extent that it is in some nations (state universities are partly funded by tax dollars, but I believe that endowments, tuition, and fees, constitute more than half of their funding (I admit I don't know the numbers). So $400k entitlements for "gender studies" (or for economics studies, or for "business management") don't happen.

I'm aware. I'm saying that it shouldn't happen anywhere and hopefully won't start happening in the United States.

Also, we should recognize that property laws are "entitlements" for owners (whose rights are protected by the courts and the police at no little cost); that "controlling borders" is an entitlement for citizens; that government-built roads are entitlements for car owners. It's perfectly reasonable to support some government expenditures while deploring others, but the distinction is a practical one, not based on opposing "entitlements" on principle.


"controlling borders" is an entitlement for citizens

Blow it out your ***. Citizens ARE the nation. The government does not own the country, it's an elected body of men and women who are only supposed to represent the will of the people who live there.

[Ecurb]

"Latin heritage" doesn´t oppose to "white people". Maybe you mean "Latin heritage" as opposed to "Anglo heritage" or "Anglo saxon heritage".

It's confusing to keep all the terms straight! However, here in the U.S. a divide between "people of color" (which tends to include Mexicans, Native Americans, African Americans and Asians) and "White America" are commonly used and understood distinctions. Of course race as a biologically sound description of human genetic diversity has been discredited, but as cultural distinction, it still has meaning. I'm glad to use any terms that can be agreed upon, though ("anglo" seems to exclude many Europeans, to me).

[Ecurb]

To Clopin: you're the one who objects to entitlements, not I. If "entitlements" involve spending tax payers' dollars to secure privileges for some individuals, spending money to secure borders is granting a form of "entitlement" to citizens as opposed to non-citizens. That doesn't mean that I object either to it, or to tax-supported education, or to government funded roads. One function of government is to grant "entitlements" (services and benefits) to citizens.

Here in Oregon, the government does "own the country", by the way. National Forests, National Parks, State Parks and other government controlled land (like Malheur) constitute a large percentage of the state. In addition, in British common law "the crown" owned the land, and ceded ownership rights to others. So the issues is more complicated than you seem to imply.

[Danik 2016]

To Ecurb: I know these cultural distinctions are difficult and vary according to the perspective of the reader. I live in a country with "Latin heritage" (Brazil), and for me this heritage is linked to the modern languages that derive from Latin, as Spanish, French and Portuguese. It is basically a European and white heritage brought to the American Continent by the conquerors.

[Clopin]

Of course race as a biologically sound description of human genetic diversity has been discredited,

Not really. It depends what you mean by race I suppose. If I were to say that "Africans are better distance runners than Asians" I would be making a pretty crude statement (though it would still probably be true, statistically) considering Asia and Africa are huge and diverse continents. However, you could absolutely say that native Kalenjin people (who are black Africans) are easily and without doubt the finest distance runners in the world. This is due to their biology and not the incredibly advanced and unique training methods which are only found in Kenya.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/how-one-kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners

African Americans must have waaay better training methods than Chinese americans if race is biologically irrelevant because somehow they grow much taller and brawnier, and are further much more likely to become professional basketball and football players! The Chinese and Jews should try a little harder to make it into professional sports leagues.

I'm 6'2 myself actually, I remember training my height most mornings to get as tall as the Dutch average (who are White Europeans). I wonder why Latino and Asian men don't just train a bit harder to grow taller? I mean... race has no biological relevance so they should be able to raise their average height by sheer will!

[Ecurb]

Not really. It depends what you mean by race I suppose. If I were to say that "Africans are better distance runners than Asians" I would be making a pretty crude statement (though it would still probably be true, statistically) considering Asia and Africa are huge and diverse continents. However, you could absolutely say that native Kalenjin people (who are black Africans) are easily and without doubt the finest distance runners in the world. This is due to their biology and not the incredibly advanced and unique training methods which are only found in Kenya.
l!

Chinese women held every world track distance record until quite recently, Clopin (in case you were unaware). Why? Most experts think that their East German coaches had found a pharmacological advantage for them. Could this also be the reason for the success of Kenyan and Ethiopian runners? I have no idea, although the Kenyans were almost banned from the Olympics for covering up doping amongst their top athletes. Are you suggesting that the Chinese were genetically superior to Africans as distance runners 20 years ago, but now the Africans have some how "evolved" a genetic superiority?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09-14/sports/9309140145_1_wang-junxia-chinese-women-record

Human genetic diversity certainly exists -- but the old concept of four races (Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and aboriginal has been proven inaccurate (almost irrelevant) by modern DNA testing.

[Clopin]

Are you suggesting that the Chinese were genetically superior to Africans as distance runners 20 years ago

Want to hear a joke? You might have heard it, as it's somewhat popular:

What was the worlds tallest mountain before Everest was discovered?

Give up?

Mount Everest!

So, no, actually I'm suggesting that the people of the Kalenjin tribe are, and have always been, the most superior distance runners that we know of.

Anyway your citation doesn't speak to a long-lasting, widespread, Chinese dominance over distance running, but rather states that a few women, once, and almost certainly using performance enhancing drugs, (according to your own source) managed to set some records (and why didn't the Chinese men also set any records during this time?). I'm sure there are numerous Kenyan athletes who have also used performance enhancing drugs, but you can't deny the general trend with regards to distance running, and it's a trend which has endured for some time. Kalenjin people from Kenya are currently far and away the best distance runners, they prove this by winning nearly every big international race, and this is due to biological traits. If some day an insular and isolated tribe of people should emerge who are superior distance runners it doesn't necessarily mean that they "evolved" in a timespan of ten years, but simply that there hadn't been opportunities for them to compete internationally until they were afforded them.

Human genetic diversity certainly exists -- but the old concept of four races (Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and aboriginal has been proven inaccurate (almost irrelevant) by modern DNA testing.

Has it? I can tell people apart through such categories in a hundredth of a second and at a mere glance. The fact that there are some tricky examples with regard to very mixed race people or very atypical looking people does not change that; show me 200 people of varying races and I'll get their phenotype correct 9/10 times.

[tailor STATELY]

Everest ? http://www.businessinsider.com/earths-tallest-mountain-is-hawaii-2015-6

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Clopin]

Yeh I know, but the joke is with Everest.

[YesNo]

I'm 6'2 myself actually, I remember training my height most mornings to get as tall as the Dutch average (who are White Europeans). I wonder why Latino and Asian men don't just train a bit harder to grow taller? I mean... race has no biological relevance so they should be able to raise their average height by sheer will!

It didn't occur to me that you could train yourself to get taller, but querying the internet made me realize people are trying to do just that.

I have been able to improve my eyesight over the years. The training is simple: walk and sit tall, look at stuff around you especially at a distance and don't wear your glasses any more than required by law (such as for driving).

[Ecurb]

So, no, actually I'm suggesting that the people of the Kalenjin tribe are, and have always been, the most superior distance runners that we know of.
.

This suggestion might be disputed by, among others, Ethiopian Kenenisa Bekele (world record holder in the 5k and 10k), Moroccan Hicham El Gerrouj (world record holder in the 1500), Ethiopians Genzebe Dibaba (1500 womens' record holder) and Tirunish Dibaba (5k) as well as China's Wang Junxia (10K- a record that has held for 23 years). IN fact, Kenyans don't hold any of the distance running records on the track right now. Nor has their Olympic performance been much better: in the womens' 1500, 5k and 10k, Kenya has won the 1500 once, and has never won the 5 or 10k. For the men, Kenyans have not won the 10k for 48 yeas, the 5k for 27 years. They have won 2 of the last 6 1500s.

This is not to say they are not great runners. Nonetheless, Ethiopia and Morocco have performed at least as well in the distance events in track in recent years. In the past, tiny Finland was a dominant distance-running country, with Pavo Nurmi, Gunnar Hockert, Lauri Letinen, Ville Ritola, and Lasse Virren all winning Olympic medals in the mid 20th century. Should we thus assume that Finns are genetically superior runners? Perhaps they are, but there are other, equally persuasive explanations: running might have been a popular sport in Finland; Finns might fund their Olympic track teams well; drugs might be involved (Lasse Virren was a noted blood-doper).

So: first, Kenyans aren't as dominant as you claim, and second, even if they were, there would be potential explanations for their distance-running talents other than genetics.

Perhaps Kenyans are genetically adapted for distance running. They probably are, to some extent. But these other factors are probably equally important.

By the way, anthropologists used to agree with you about "race". In addition to obvious phenotypical features (like skin color) they measured noses, examined skull shapes, etc., etc. They used highly scientific methods to discover phenotypical similarities within their "racial categories". However, once DNA testing was discovered, they found that the racial categories based on phenotype were not genetically significant. In other words, many, many "negroids" were more closely related genetically to many, many "caucasoids" than they were to many other "negroids". The old notion of four races has physical significance, and cultural significance, but it is an inaccurate way of looking at human genetic variation.

p.s. If I had to guess, with an omniscient God as the judge, I'd guess that the vast majority of track and field records have been set with at least some help from performance enhancing drugs. But, of course, I don't know for certain.

[North Star]

And it seems probable that the fastest men were Aboriginal Australians, such as T8, whose footprints show that he was running just 3 mph slower than Usain Bolt's top speed, barefoot in mud.

http://www.factfiend.com/fossilized-footprint-shows-evidence-man-running-23mph/

[Clopin]

And it seems probable that the fastest men were Aboriginal Australians, such as T8, whose footprints show that he was running just 3 mph slower than Usain Bolt's top speed, barefoot in mud.

http://www.factfiend.com/fossilized-footprint-shows-evidence-man-running-23mph/


"Kalenjin people from Kenya are currently far and away the best distance runners, they prove this by winning nearly every big international race, and this is due to biological traits. If some day an insular and isolated tribe of people should emerge who are superior distance runners it doesn't necessarily mean that they "evolved" in a timespan of ten years, but simply that there hadn't been opportunities for them to compete internationally until they are afforded them."

It doesn't matter what group of people are the best distance runners, just that there are groups of people who are better distance runners than other groups of people and that this comes down to genetics. No 'blank slate' theory bull**** can hold up to the immediately and staggeringly obvious trends.


This is not to say they are not great runners. Nonetheless, Ethiopia and Morocco have performed at least as well in the distance events in track in recent years. In the past, tiny Finland was a dominant distance-running country, with Pavo Nurmi, Gunnar Hockert, Lauri Letinen, Ville Ritola, and Lasse Virren all winning Olympic medals in the mid 20th century. Should we thus assume that Finns are genetically superior runners? Perhaps they are, but there are other, equally persuasive explanations: running might have been a popular sport in Finland; Finns might fund their Olympic track teams well; drugs might be involved (Lasse Virren was a noted blood-doper).

Absolutely. In Canada the most popular sport is hockey (hockey is mostly popular in countries which see long winters and a lot of snow and ice... so northern European countries like Russia, Sweden and Finland) and the winter olympic games gold and silver medal teams were almost entirely comprised of white Europeans. Do I think white Europeans are especially genetically gifted when it comes to playing hockey? No, not at all. I also don't think that the Chinese have a genetic propensity towards ping pong or that Eastern Europeans are genetically superior chess players (Jews are, though, undoubtedly). There are obvious and demonstrable social factors when it comes to everything but it's still pretty ridiculous to ignore the obvious genetic differences between subgroups of people and how this can influence their performance in various endeavours. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ score of over 115 and they dominate literally every intellectual avenue the world over, including %'s of Nobel Prizes won, %'s of chess world champions and grandmaster level chess players, %'s of attendance at elite universities, etc etc despite; being a remarkably small percentage of the population.

Of the 16 or 17 undisputed world chess champions of the world 7 were of Jewish descent. 44% of world champions consist of members of an ethnic group who make up 0.2% of the total population, and that same 0.2% win over 20% of all Nobel Prizes (on some years 50+% of winners are Jewish).

Anyway if it's surprising to anyone that the worlds smartest people score the highest on IQ tests and see the vast majority of the practical results in all intellectual disciplines then I think that person needs to remove his egalitarian safe-space blinders and relearn how to see the forest for the trees.

[Pompey Bum]

GROUP HUG !!! :grouphug:

[Clopin]

GROUP HUG !!! :grouphug:

I'm genuinely happy you're not dead.

[Pompey Bum]

Well met, sir! :cheers2:

[Pompey Bum]

and don't wear your glasses any more than required by law (such as for driving).

No wonder you see Bigfoot.

[YesNo]

I hadn't thought of it before, but taking off one's glasses may be like taking off cultural blinders.

[Ecurb]

Good to hear from you, Pompey.

We've been through this before, Clopin. Pompey returns to listen the same old argument. Nature vs. nurture is endlessly debatable. We'll have to agree that both play a role (as they do in even such measurable, physical attributes as height), an disagree about the exact percentages.

[Clopin]

Good to hear from you, Pompey.

We've been through this before, Clopin. Pompey returns to listen the same old argument. Nature vs. nurture is endlessly debatable. We'll have to agree that both play a role (as they do in even such measurable, physical attributes as height), an disagree about the exact percentages.

lol yes, we have. Anyway I agree with you so I don't know why we argue about it in any case. I mostly take issue with people who don't believe in the 'nature' aspect of the argument at all, and I already know that's not your position.

[Pompey Bum]

Nice to hear from you, too, Ecurb.



I hadn't thought of it before, but taking off one's glasses may be like taking off cultural blinders.

YesNo has become a noun in my language over the last year. It's not really a reference to you as much as to something you said once. I was complaining about drivers at intersections who won't let you in, but they slow down anyway so that the column of cars behind them easily catches up. You said that you do that on your way from yoga class. So now every time it happens I say, "Come on YesNo, what's it going to be?"

It's good to be talking with you again, though. Tell me, do your optical superpowers mean that you can see exactly (and only) what you want to see?

[YesNo]

YesNo has become a noun in my language over the last year. It's not really a reference to you as much as to something you said once. I was complaining about drivers at intersections who won't let you in, but they slow down anyway so that the column of cars behind them easily catches up. You said that you do that on your way from yoga class. So now every time it happens I say, "Come on YesNo, what's it going to be?"

We had a lot of nice conversations. Do you remember the one about the swans feeding the fish?



It's good to be talking with you again, though. Tell me, do your optical superpowers mean that you can see exactly (and only) what you want to see?

I recently read some books by Florence Scovel Shinn: http://newthoughtlibrary.com/shinnFlorenceScovel/bio_shinn.htm

She keeps referring to some text from the Tanakh or Old Testament where God tells the leader of the Isrealites that He would give him all the land that he can see. Do you know where that text is? I'd like to find the actual reference.

Anyway, she uses that idea often that we will get what we can see.

Edit: I think I found what she was referencing--Genesis 13:15: http://biblehub.com/genesis/13-15.htm

[Pompey Bum]

What you see is what you get was also a first principle of Flip Wilson.

The verse you found is part of the God of Israel's promise to Abram/Abraham. But getting what you see can have a heavy price, as in Matthew 4:8-4:9, where Satan shows Jesus the kingdoms and riches of the earth and tells him: "All this will I give you if you fall down and worship me."

Or as Flip Wilson also said: "Don't blame me, the devil made me do it!"

[YesNo]

Agreed. There's a lot more to Shinn's view, but "what you see is what you get" is a good interpretation of Genesis 13:15 as she saw it.

Regarding glasses, and I used to wear them, I suspect people who wear glasses have poor posture and are in the habit of not paying attention to the world around them because they are thinking too much about stuff that doesn't matter.

How does all this relate to the topic of the thread? I don't know.

[Pompey Bum]

I suspect people who wear glasses have poor posture and are in the habit of not paying attention to the world around them because they are thinking too much about stuff that doesn't matter.

Or to the world that really does matter?


How does all this relate to the topic of the thread? I don't know.

What was it, Donald Trump? Ah yes, great posture. ;-)

[North Star]

Hi Pompey, very nice to see around here again.

[Pompey Bum]

Hello NS. Very nice to see you, too. :)

[Emil Miller]

https://youtu.be/PeacVlHKEes

An interesting addition to my earlier post on this subject.

[YesNo]

https://youtu.be/PeacVlHKEes

An interesting addition to my earlier post on this subject.

The video mentioned shifting populations around deliberately to destroy a sense of national identity. I can see how that could be a problem although I would have previously thought immigration would be good for an economy.

[Clopin]

Good for the gross GDP if that's all you measure, bad for real wages, bad for living standards, bad for public services, and bad for basically everything else. Globalists/cultural Marxists don't want national identity or national borders, or nation states, or anything of the type because they want all of humanity to be a poor, grey mass of cheap labour which can be used for their benefit.

[OrphanPip]

Good for the gross GDP if that's all you measure, bad for real wages, bad for living standards, bad for public services, and bad for basically everything else. Globalists/cultural Marxists don't want national identity or national borders, or nation states, or anything of the type because they want all of humanity to be a poor, grey mass of cheap labour which can be used for their benefit.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by immigration. Critics decrying it often avoid the nuances of the complicated system of immigration that exists in nations like Canada, Australia or the USA. Certainly there are issues with uncontrolled immigration which lead to underground labour markets that depress wages and lead to the exploitation of those economic migrants (but who can blame them for trying to better their own conditions in a new country). However, the vast majority of immigration to Canada, for example, is controlled and regulated. More than half of immigrants to Canada come in on a skilled labour class of immigration. In the 60s and 70s our largest source of immigration was family reunification but we have now curtailed that and it can take 5-10 years to get a family member into Canada. Hell my spouse who is a non-Canadian still probably has a year or two left before their residency is approved. These immigrants are not bad for wages, living standards or public services. Actually the vast majority of research on immigration in Canada shows most immigrants integrate into Canadian society and are an economic benefit. Pundits would rather complain about the small humanitarian gesture of letting in 20,000 Syrian refugees who make practically no impact on the economic health of the nation.

http://post.queensu.ca/~bantingk/Canadian_Multiculturalism.pdf

Professor Banting from Queens U. in Kingston provides a much more nuanced view of the status of immigrants in Canada than anything you'll get from the news.

[Clopin]

We're discussing Europe though, not Canada or Australia. I agree with you that Canada and Australia manage immigration rather well.


Canadians often exhibit general confidence about the state of ethnic
relations in Canada when compared to the riots in Bradford, Paris and
Sydney, or the rise of anti-immigrant parties in Denmark, Austria and
the Netherlands. There is a general sense that the Canadian model of
immigrant integration has been relatively successful, and that it needs only
minor tinkering, not major U-turns.

Two million of these per year, however?... no thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/world/europe/norway-offers-migrants-a-lesson-in-how-to-treat-women.html?_r=0

[Emil Miller]

Good for the gross GDP if that's all you measure, bad for real wages, bad for living standards, bad for public services, and bad for basically everything else. Globalists/cultural Marxists don't want national identity or national borders, or nation states, or anything of the type because they want all of humanity to be a poor, grey mass of cheap labour which can be used for their benefit.

My sentiments entirely.

[Clopin]

Yes, we're of a like mind on this subject. :cheers2:

[Emil Miller]

Yes, we're of a like mind on this subject. :cheers2:

Agreed, but given the ramifications of the attempt to establish an order in which the populace will be reduced to drones, it seems almost impossible to believe in the general acquiescence to such obvious social engineering.

[Clopin]

How dare you - RACIST, FASCIST, BIGOT - attempt to control your own borders and enforce your nations own laws. WE ARE ALL ONE PEOPLE, ALL ONE RACE! THE HUMAN RACE! What's that? You don't like the idea of educating a million young male 'refugees' on how to avoid raping women at public swimming pools? RACST, FASCIST, XENOPHOBIC, BIGOT...

See the trick is to convince the majority of people that all of this no borders, no nations, no races, no religions, no genders, no differences, utter egalitarianism, etc (nonsense)... comes from a place of love, and that everyone who opposes any of it is a hate filled, racist, fascist, bigoted, stupid, conservative, oppressor, on the wrong side of history. Also once you get your people into the upper echelons of virtually all media outlets you can promote one single narrative pretty strongly while severely castigating everyone who disagrees, ruin their careers and reputations (made by the media), and just hound such folk in general.


15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,
good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western
civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The
reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not
correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West
because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so
forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in
primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he
GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points
out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in
Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates
America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Strong and successful nations and people are clearly the primary enemy of globalism and so here they focus all of their attention and their motivation is clearly to destroy these things entirely. That's why you have Marxist social theories being unremittingly pushed in university campuses across the entire Western world. To teach people that nothing is good, that there's no objective morality, that there's no objectivity in art (my excrement flung canvas has the same value as Michelangelo of course) and that there aren't any things or concepts - not peoples, groups, nations, or values - that are any better or worse than anything else which could fit in their place. If we accept all of these premises then why should there be borders, or nations, or separate governments? Besides, since everyone is totally equal success can't be earned through effort, ingenuity or intelligence, but only happened upon by way of 'class privilege' or just dumb luck. Assuming that nations like Great Britain, France, Germany, or The United States may have earned their dominant places in the world, and their riches, is tantamount to blasphemous heresy in the new world religion of egalitarianism. Nobody can have anything without having first robbed others, and so we need to all reduce ourselves to the mean and accept that it's for the best.

[North Star]

Ah, I see. Your sociological and political views are informed by Unabomber's Manifesto. That explains a lot.

[Clopin]

Kaczynski was born and raised in Evergreen Park, Illinois. While growing up in Evergreen Park he was a child prodigy, excelling academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree. He subsequently earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25. He resigned two years later.


Kaczynski graduated from Harvard University in 1962, at age 20, and subsequently enrolled at the University of Michigan, where he earned a PhD in mathematics. Kaczynski's specialty was a branch of complex analysis known as geometric function theory. His professors at Michigan were impressed with his intellect and drive. "He was an unusual person. He was not like the other graduate students," said Peter Duren, one of Kaczynski's math professors at Michigan. "He was much more focused about his work. He had a drive to discover mathematical truth." "It is not enough to say he was smart," said George Piranian, another of his Michigan math professors. Kaczynski earned his PhD with his thesis entitled "Boundary Functions" by solving a problem so difficult that even Piranian could not solve it. Maxwell Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee, also commented on his thesis by noting, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."


In late 1967, Kaczynski became an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught undergraduate courses in geometry and calculus. He was also noted as the youngest professor ever hired by the university


Yes, what a moron right?

Your sole contribution to the thread has consisted of ad hominem attacks. It says quite a bit about your intellectual rigour that you dismiss an argument entirely, based solely on what you think about the person who wrote the summary I chose to post, instead of even trying to engage with it.

[Pompey Bum]

Ah, I see. Your sociological and political views are informed by Unabomber's Manifesto. That explains a lot.

Hey, I'm the one who thinks robots are taking over, not Clopin. Personally I doubt the poor gray mass will be allotted even cheap labor jobs. They'll haunt bridges and deserted buildings and areas of Detroit and reproduce or die off.


Agreed, but given the ramifications of the attempt to establish an order in which the populace will be reduced to drones, it seems almost impossible to believe in the general acquiescence to such obvious social engineering.

I don't know, Emil. People will acquiesce to a lot if sufficiently degraded. And 20th century revolutions hardly inspire confidence. Neither did Ted Kaczynski for that matter.

[YesNo]

The problems with robots is they need humans who think it is economically worthwhile to turn them on, But if no one can afford to consume anymore because the robots made producers obsolete, they won't be turned on.

I can see how some in the EU might want to destabilize national identities by directing refugees into nations that are dissimilar from the culture of those refugees. However, I don't think those refugees are more likely to rape than anyone else in their situation. Economic growth depends on positive social mood or bullishness. Bullish people like immigrants. Bearish people don't.

[Pompey Bum]

When I say robots, I include software packages. These beat forking out a $15.00 minimum wage plus indirect costs. Those who currently serve the machines will retire at 70 to 80 (I did it at 55) and their children will huddle by trash can fires. All hail our robot lords!

[YesNo]

The need for $15 minimum wage is because rents are too expensive. Basically, I agree with you. Eventually there will not be enough consumers to support the rich who will have taken on too many risky, debt-fueled investments that fail. Unfortunately, deflation doesn't hit everyone at the same time.

[North Star]

Yes, what a moron right?

Your sole contribution to the thread has consisted of ad hominem attacks. It says quite a bit about your intellectual rigour that you dismiss an argument entirely, based solely on what you think about the person who wrote the summary I chose to post, instead of even trying to engage with it.
You are free to show where I have resorted to an ad hominem attack in each of my posts to this thread, if you wish to accuse me of solely contributing ad hominem attacks. I don't really think much of your appeal to authority in regards to Unabomber, incidentally. Mathematical prodigies aren't necessarily the most informed people about society - particularly not those who try to fight technology with letter bombs. But I certainly do not dismiss the argument because of the person behind it, rather because it doesn't make much sense to me in the modern world. I certainly acknowledge that during the 20th century, there were lots of socialists / communists in West Europe, and perhaps in the Americas, who ignored the brutalities committed in Soviet Russia, for example. (There was also McCarthytism and a whole lot of other things during 20th century) I don't see how that translates to those supporting social democratic politics in 21st C. Europe or North America, e.g. tax funding of university studies (and not just in the perversely distorting example of feminist studies or whatever topic you wish to pick, which all together are perhaps 1% of all university students, ignoring medicine, pharmacy, engineering, science, etc) or (largely) tax funded medical treatment.

[Ecurb]

Clopin's Kaczynski quote is ad hominem, North Star. After accusing you of ad hominem arguments, he resorts to them himself (what possible relevance to the argument could the fact that Kaczynski was a mathematical prodigy have, if not ad hominem?)

Kaczynski (like Clopin) seems more concerned with the motives for leftist arguments (which he ascribes to leftists in general, somewhat arbitrarily) than with their merits. As far as the "new world religion of egalitarianism", it seems perilously close to the old religion of Christianity, which suggested equality between Gentile and Jew.

[Emil Miller]

Ah, I see. Your sociological and political views are informed by Unabomber's Manifesto. That explains a lot.

Well mine aren't, they are based on a long period of personal observation that resulted in my novel Pro Bono Publico. The duplicity of politicians has now reached the stage where Frau Merkel is able to invite more than a million immigrant's into Germany without even consulting the Bundestag but, as Clopin has pointed out, she and other would-be destroyers of the nation state will reap what they sow.

[Clopin]

Clopin's Kaczynski quote is ad hominem, North Star. After accusing you of ad hominem arguments, he resorts to them himself (what possible relevance to the argument could the fact that Kaczynski was a mathematical prodigy have, if not ad hominem?)

Kaczynski (like Clopin) seems more concerned with the motives for leftist arguments (which he ascribes to leftists in general, somewhat arbitrarily) than with their merits. As far as the "new world religion of egalitarianism", it seems perilously close to the old religion of Christianity, which suggested equality between Gentile and Jew.


This is really too much. I made an argument in which I cited a quotation that I found relevant to the point I wanted to make, North Star responded by saying - "Ah, I see. Your sociological and political views are informed by Unabomber's Manifesto. That explains a lot." - which was in no way a response to the point I was making, but simply a blatant ad hominem attack against the perceived quality of the person from whom I was taking the quote. I then made the point that Kaczynski was a mathematical prodigy and quite literally a genius in direct response to North Star's dismissal. My position is not "I'm right because Kaczynski agrees with me and he's a mathematical genius", but rather "I hold this point of view, I'm quoting someone who makes the point rather well, and this person can not simply be totally dismissed on the basis of who he is (anymore than what he's saying can be totally accepted for who he is) because he's a very intelligent person by any definition of the word.


I don't really think much of your appeal to authority in regards to Unabomber, incidentally. Mathematical prodigies aren't necessarily the most informed people about society

What appeal to authority? You people really are dense. When I cite someone in an argument and you dismiss my entire position by writing a one line attack solely based on your presumption of the character of the man I chose to quote then you are the one committing the fallacy. I brought up Kaczynski's intelligence to defend my choosing to quote him because it seemed relevant to establish that, but it wouldn't really matter if he had an IQ of 70 or below, you would still be required to engage with my argument instead of dismissing it on the basis of who I chose to cite, for, basically, a summary.

[North Star]

[B]ut it wouldn't really matter if he had an IQ of 70 or below, you would still be required to engage with my argument instead of dismissing it on the basis of who I chose to cite for.
No argument there.

[Clopin]

(and not just in the perversely distorting example of feminist studies or whatever topic you wish to pick, which all together are perhaps 1% of all university students

And yet these are the people who he is referring to (mostly) in his treatise on leftist psychology. You would know this if you had actually read his position on it instead of just dismissing it without reading it, which is a very odd thing to do on a literature forum during a debate.


But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today
the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be
called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in
mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types,
feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and
the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological
type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by
"leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
leftist psychology

The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He
emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of
society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude
toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be
for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically
"enlightened" educational methods, for planning, for affirmative
action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He
tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often
finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of
using the common catch-phrases of the left like "racism, " "sexism, "
"homophobia, " "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism "
"genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social
responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his
tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay
rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political
correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these
movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]

230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most
power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic
approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may
be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of
aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work
quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values,
"enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children,
dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These
crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois
types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in
psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to
bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way
of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional.
The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system
because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The
crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the
oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker
and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the
ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep
lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a
cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his
(well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average
bourgeois.

[Clopin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HK1hFUD_d4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfqAkUXKT5Y

lol

[North Star]

And yet these are the people who he is referring to (mostly) in his treatise on leftist psychology. You would know this if you had actually read his position on it instead of just dismissing it without reading it, which is a very odd thing to do on a literature forum during a debate.

So 'leftists' believe in human rights (and animal rights), gun control (and thus gun violence) and sex education more strongly than the average? What beasts!
And claiming that I dismissed the quotations without reading them is also a strange thing to do, about as strange as not realizing that the bit - a part of a parenthesis at that, and on the very same literature forum - from my post you quoted refers to your earlier posts, and not to the quotations from Unabomber's manifesto.

[Clopin]

So 'leftists' believe in human rights (and animal rights), gun control (and thus gun violence) and sex education more strongly than the average? What beasts!

Yawn... you cherry picked a couple examples of programs or ideas which you consider good to ridicule his overall analysis of the psychological motivations for certain types of extremists who are predominantly leftist. I believe, as you do, in human and animal rights and I also cherish many of the institutions which are hallmarks of modern liberalism and what many would consider 'leftist'. Unfortunately you missed out on stuff like:

The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual.

He has a negative attitude toward individualism.

"politically correct"

for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims.

He tends to be against competition

He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like "racism, " "sexism, " "homophobia, " "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism " "genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social responsibility."

He's listing a series of traits which, when all grouped together, form the psychology of what we would refer to nowadays as an extreme example of a "social justice warrior". The kind of person who screams all day about white privilege and demands for open borders or affirmative action, etc. I don't think his intention is to suggest that everything he listed is bad in all cases, but that it all comes together in the psychological makeup of a certain type of person.

For example, I consider myself to be largely anti government, right-wing, pro militia, pro second amendment, etc, etc, and I wouldn't be up in arms, or even surprised, if the FBI drafted a psychological profile of a domestic terrorist and many of the traits I've just listed about myself were front and centre on that list. The point is that the radical, extremist, left consists of people who display most of, or all of, these character traits, and not that any one single example on his list, when applied to any normal person, makes someone a radical, extremist, leftist. Ya dig?

[Emil Miller]

We hear a great deal about human rights but virtually nothing about human responsibilities.

[North Star]

What does 'politically correct' mean, and are affirmative action and multiculturalism that bad? And really, racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism, imperialism (this is something that is far from over, although it has been handled by corporations for a long time now), and genocide are just catch phrases of the left? I grant you that people may use these words - and others - liberally, but the phenomena are very real. And 'yawn' is not a a particularly civilized or sophisticated piece of rhetoric, particularly after you have accused me of all sorts of things, without even trying to demonstrate that the accusations were justified.

I'm also not quite sure how important it is to be outraged about these things, or social justice warriors, as long as they don't actually send letter bombs or harm people in other ways. Obviously there are left-wing people who do false accusations, physical attacks, and such. With a large enough population, that is bound to happen with all sorts of groups, right-wing, left-wing, atheist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Zen Buddhist.

[North Star]

We hear a great deal about human rights but virtually nothing about human responsibilities.
An interesting point, Emil. What would you say are the human responsibilities?

[Emil Miller]

An interesting point, Emil. What would you say are the human responsibilities?

To live within the law and not be a nuisance to others.

[Clopin]

And really, racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism, imperialism (this is something that is far from over, although it has been handled by corporations for a long time now), and genocide are just catch phrases of the left?

They can be both. They can be real, important and genuine issues as well as catch phrases and buzzwords thrown around by overly politically correct 'social justice' advocates to shut people up and stifle discourse.


I grant you that people may use these words - and others - liberally, but the phenomena are very real.

I agree with you. We're discussing the types of people who use these terms - and others - very liberally.


I'm also not quite sure how important it is to be outraged about these things, or social justice warriors, as long as they don't actually send letter bombs or harm people in other ways.

So ideology has never caused problems, lacks the capacity to cause problems and has never led to violence? (and note I'm not seeking to ban it, but to engage with it). No need to be outraged by the KKK or skinheads because most of them aren't actually sending letter bombs to people... right?


Obviously there are left-wing people who do false accusations, physical attacks, and such. With a large enough population, that is bound to happen with all sorts of groups, right-wing, left-wing, atheist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Zen Buddhist.

Yes, and when have I failed to acknowledge that? There are leftwing extremists and there are rightwing extremists. Kaczynski provided a psychological profile consisting of a slew of character traits and general views which, when found all together in one person, suggest extremist leftwing thinking. Do you disagree that leftist extremists exist or can be profiled by a number of their common beliefs because you yourself identify as leftwing? That's silly. Do you think I deny that neo-nazis exist, or that rightwing terrorists exist because I identify (usually) as more or less rightwing myself?

[North Star]

They can be both. They can be real, important and genuine issues as well as catch phrases and buzzwords thrown around by overly politically correct 'social justice' advocates to shut people up and stifle discourse.

So ideology has never caused problems, lacks the capacity to cause problems and has never led to violence? (and note I'm not seeking to ban it, but to engage with it). No need to be outraged by the KKK or skinheads because most of them aren't actually sending letter bombs to people... right?
True enough, it is


Yes, and when have I failed to acknowledge that? There are leftwing extremists and there are rightwing extremists. Kaczynski provided a psychological profile consisting of a slew of character traits and general views which, when found all together in one person, suggest extremist leftwing thinking. Do you disagree that leftist extremists exist or can be profiled by a number of their common beliefs because you yourself identify as leftwing? That's silly. Do you think I deny that neo-nazis exist, or that rightwing terrorists exist because I identify (usually) as more or less rightwing myself?
I certainly didn't mean to imply that you have failed to acknowledge that, or to suggest that you think that only left-wings commit acts of terrorism - the latter should be clear from my post. I am not so sure how extremist those people who largely fit the mold of Kaczynski's questions would be, on average.

[North Star]

To live within the law and not be a nuisance to others.

This is usually a very good guideline of course, but not a guideline whose application is necessarily straight-forward, e.g. if homosexual acts for example are punishable by law.

[Clopin]

'Extremist' is relative to the society that we live in. In my opinion the idea that we should totally redesign the world to fit the globalist model of no borders, no nations, no division of tribes or peoples, no religions and no separate cultures is a very extreme one and a very dangerous one for the prosperity and freedom of individuals and for individual rights. Even today, in Canada, when I speak to my friends about something as simple as property rights (such as the right to discriminatory hiring practices within your own business), or the right to freedom of association, it's as though I'm speaking to them in a foreign language. It seems like more and more people believe that government involvement and legislature will provide mass happiness to society by regulating what we can and can not do and by diminishing our civil rights on our own land. The freedom to choose not to hire a gay man, or a black man, or a single mother - ENTIRELY because he is gay, or black, or because she is a single mother - as an employee in my own private business is not one that I would ever employ myself, but it's as important to me as any other fundamental right and absolutely needs to be defended, even if it's unsavoury.

[North Star]

The freedom to choose not to hire a gay man, or a black man, or a single mother - ENTIRELY because he is gay, or black, or because she is a single mother - as an employee in my own private business is not one that I would ever employ myself, but it's as important to me as any other fundamental right and absolutely needs to be defended, even if it's unsavoury.
If nobody else fills the qualifications, it's illegal at least here to choose another person for such reasons. If there are several applicants who fill the criteria equally, I tend to agree. It's unsavoury, obviously, and certainly not a thing I'd think I would do, but if this would likely cause a conflict, it's in the interest of the employer to hire someone else.

[Clopin]

it's illegal at least here to choose another person for such reasons.

Here as well. It's also illegal to say hateful things about minority groups in Canada or to deny the holocaust in Canada and most of Europe. All of this is very, very wrong.

[Ecurb]

'Extremist' is relative to the society that we live in. In my opinion the idea that we should totally redesign the world to fit the globalist model of no borders, no nations, no division of tribes or peoples, no religions and no separate cultures is a very extreme one and a very dangerous one for the prosperity and freedom of individuals and for individual rights. Even today, in Canada, when I speak to my friends about something as simple as property rights (such as the right to discriminatory hiring practices within your own business), or the right to freedom of association, it's as though I'm speaking to them in a foreign language. It seems like more and more often people believe that collective government involvement will provide mass happiness to society by regulating what we can and can not do and by diminishing our civil rights on our own land. The freedom to choose not to hire a gay man as an employee in my own private business is not one that I would ever employ myself, but it's as important to me as any other fundamental right and absolutely needs to be defended, even if it's unsavoury.

Just to clarify (rather than to beat a dead horse), I thought your link about Kaczinski's mathematical brilliance (which you wrote in response to North Star's ad hominem) was equally ad hominem.

It's reasonable to believe that property rights should be more extensive than they are, but unreasonable to think of this as a position that involves greater freedom from government involvement and regulation. Property rights (we've had this argument before, too) exist only because of government regulation. Without the government, there would be no property, and no property rights (or if there were such rights, they would be very different from what they are now). We currently legislate that store owners who advertise to the public must sell to the public; but without government regulations regarding property, anyone could come into the store and take whatever he wanted.

p.s. I agree with you about freedom of speech, however, and I'm glad the U.S. protects it more than many countries do.

[Clopin]

Just to clarify (rather than to beat a dead horse), I thought your link about Kaczinski's mathematical brilliance (which you wrote in response to North Star's ad hominem) was equally ad hominem.

But it wasn't. I wrote an actual argument which he dismissed by criticizing the character of someone who I quoted to provide a summary. He wrote no argument of his own except an attack on a man (Kaczinski) which I responded to by defending the man's intelligence. My point was that you shouldn't be able to dismiss my argument because of Kaczinski, and if you want to, then here's some evidence that he's neither stupid nor crazy, so perhaps you should reconsider having done so. North Star was dismissing a real argument with an attack on a man and I was only dismissing an attack on a man with a defence of a man. Had he provided a real argument, as he did later on, and my response was to say "yeh well, Ted Kaczynski thinks your ideas are rubbish, and he's a mathematical genius who was a child prodigy, so there" I would be committing an ad hominem fallacy for sure.

And of course we've had this property rights debate so much I considered added a disclaimer about your POV at the end of my post haha. I remain unconvinced but it's something to think about.

[Emil Miller]

This is usually a very good guideline of course, but not a guideline whose application is necessarily straight-forward, e.g. if homosexual acts for example are punishable by law.

Countries have different laws and it is wise to obey them, whether one is a resident or a visitor, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not.

[OrphanPip]

Here as well. It's also illegal to say hateful things about minority groups in Canada or to deny the holocaust in Canada and most of Europe. All of this is very, very wrong.

Hate speech law in Canada isn't so cut and dry. Canada in general, after the British model, has a long history of working out the middle ground between concepts of public good and freedom of speech. Canada's human rights laws were conceived of in a time post classical liberalism so we also have a concept of "rights to" and not simple "rights from" incorporated into our law. Like Emil said earlier, people talk a lot about rights but not about responsibilities. So in Canada you have conflicting rights to free speech butting heads against the right to live free from discrimination.

Either way, it is neither expressly illegal to say hateful things about a minority group or to deny the holocaust in Canada. The hate speech laws prohibit inciting hatred against any identifiable group with the provision that: a) true statements are protected, b) religious arguments in good faith are protected, or c) it was made in good faith for the public good. This means it's perfectly legal in Canada to suggest Muslims should be banned from the country because you honestly believe they would represent a danger to the nation. It is also legal for preachers to preach against other religions and homosexuals. What is illegal is deliberately published hate speech that is deemed to be intended for the sole purpose of breeding animosity towards another group. Canadian law takes this to be a crime against the public good and cohesion of the nation. Just like Canada also has much stricter laws regulation pornography and obscenity than America despite us being a more "liberal" country when it comes to sex.


Countries have different laws and it is wise to obey them, whether one is a resident or a visitor, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not.

That would seem to suggest we should just be absolutely complacent about the laws of a country if we find them to be unjust. I happen not to find the hatespeech laws in Canada to be excessive, but I don't think people who disagree with them should just be complacent and avoid being nuisances. The law is changeable and subject to the whims of whoever is in power.

[Ecurb]

Clopin is a Canadian, Orphan Pip. He is inveighing against his own laws (although he has probably yet to reach the point of illegality). Still, contempt for freedom of speech could be a slippery slope -- that guy in Saudi Arabia sentenced to 1000 lashes is an example of where it can lead.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/raif-badawi-saudi-blogger-flogging_n_6478520.html

[Emil Miller]

The law is changeable and subject to the whims of whoever is in power.

It was ever thus.

[Clopin]

Either way, it is neither expressly illegal to say hateful things about a minority group or to deny the holocaust in Canada. The hate speech laws prohibit inciting hatred against any identifiable group with the provision that: a) true statements are protected, b) religious arguments in good faith are protected, or c) it was made in good faith for the public good.

Sure, the wording is nice and vague to allow for prosecution of things you tell me are not 'expressly' illegal.


Ernst Christof Friedrich Zündel (born April 24, 1939) is a German publisher known for promoting Holocaust denial. He has been jailed several times: in Canada for publishing literature "likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group", and on charges of being a threat to national security; in the United States, of overstaying his visa; and in Germany for charges of "inciting racial hatred". He lived in Canada from 1958 to 2000.

Luckily the government determines what is true, hateful, acceptable and legal when it comes to our right to speech, so we don't have to worry about it. :)

If you're not doing anything wrong you obviously have nothing to fear or complain about.


Zündel was convicted in 1988 and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court; however, in 1992 in R. v. Zündel his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada when the law under which he had been charged, reporting false news, was ruled unconstitutional

So, yes, Canada hasn't yet reached the point that free speech is totally illegal, but if you think it's acceptable for someone to receive and serve a 15 month sentence for publishing "illegal" historical points of view because "in Canada we weigh our rights to speech with responsibilities to use it 'non discriminatorily'" (whatever that means) then I'm going to have to disagree pretty strongly.


I happen not to find the hatespeech laws in Canada to be excessive

The fact that they exist at all is excessive. The existence of speech that is considered "hate speech" sets a precedent that allows for gradual widening of what can and can not be said or expressed.

[Clopin]

Clopin is a Canadian, Orphan Pip. He is inveighing against his own laws (although he has probably yet to reach the point of illegality). Still, contempt for freedom of speech could be a slippery slope -- that guy in Saudi Arabia sentenced to 1000 lashes is an example of where it can lead.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/raif-badawi-saudi-blogger-flogging_n_6478520.html

Some more examples.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

[Clopin]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31877395/sydney-man-who-degraded-female-tinder-user-on-facebook-faces-three-years-behind-bars/#page1

WEW LAD!

ahahahahaha, Jesus Christ.

Just remember, it's the future you chose!

[YesNo]

Negative social mood should make a mockery of political correctness and it probably deserves to be mocked. (I just showed my own growing negative social mood.)

[Clopin]

http://imgur.com/SXfxWQW

Good summary of all the doublethink when the Russian starts posting.

[YesNo]

I quickly glanced at the link. I don't understand what anonymous is talking about, but I agree that it is good to be wary of people who think they are doing "good". That goes whether the good guy thinks he is on the "left" or on the "right".

[YesNo]

Happy Brexit Day!

[Clopin]

I'm pretty discouraged about the result, but hey, if Brits are stupid enough to let an oh so convenient murder sway their vote to the extent that remain wins then they deserve whatever misery they get.

[Emil Miller]

I'm pretty discouraged about the result, but hey, if Brits are stupid enough to let an oh so convenient murder sway their vote to the extent that remain wins then they deserve whatever misery they get.

They are exceptionally stupid if this video is anything to go by.


https://youtu.be/yxmTiUa__tU

[Clopin]

**** me. I wish I could engineer a virus that would just kill everyone under the age of 30. I'll take one for the team but make it stop God Damn.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GBPUSD=X

[YesNo]

The virus is called "time". But one has to be patient.

[Clopin]

Oh God wait, maybe it can still happen. Pound is falling and Newcastle just voted remain by something like 50.0001% when it was expected 57-62% and considered a Remain stronghold.

Emil go vote a bunch of times in Sunderland.

[Pompey Bum]

Oh God there goes my 401K!

[Pompey Bum]

Wall Street Journal one minute ago said Sunderland went substantially for leave and leave now is ahead overall.

[Clopin]

If leave loses it's all Scotland's fault. Why couldn't they just separate? The world is so unfair. Those spiteful ****s remained with Britain out of sheer malice to deny them their finest hour.

[Clopin]

Wall Street Journal one minute ago said Sunderland went substantially for leave and leave now is ahead overall.

At first I was like...

http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ex-soros-portfolio-manager-claims-george-soros-owes-him-1952389829.jpg

But then I was all...

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/05/george_soros.jpg

[Clopin]

I had no hope this afternoon and I really really want this to happen now. It's going to be rough if remain wins by 51% or something now.

http://i.imgur.com/W01MG3E.png

http://i.imgur.com/1ZXNNf9.png

[Pompey Bum]

According to the Telegraph the London turnout has been low, probably due to some really bad weather. That (they say) is going to help leave a lot.

[Clopin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nwKX6LrC4&feature=youtu.be

Here's the livestream. Pretty exciting.

[YesNo]

I didn't know YouTube could do "livestream".

[Emil Miller]

At first I was like...

http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ex-soros-portfolio-manager-claims-george-soros-owes-him-1952389829.jpg

But then I was all...

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/05/george_soros.jpg

I have never used this expression but what else can one say except lol ?

Anyway we've won, which is a smack in the eye for the globalists in general and for mad Merkel in particular.
Cameron will resign in October so that's another plus among many.
Boris Johnson's tipped to replace him. Like Cameron he is a devious character but even l have to admit that this speech probably did much to win the Brexit.

https://youtu.be/sCDcjo6rQaQ

[OrphanPip]

Well I suppose the good news is that Euros will now be cheaper to purchase ahead of my holiday next week.

[YesNo]

I normally don't watch the news but after Clopin posted the link to that livestream on YouTube, it was more interesting watching that than the movie I brought home from the library. There was this guy, Nigel Farage, who was most entertaining. He claimed victory before the BBC had the courage to call the obvious outcome. When I saw Boris Johnson in the link Emil posted, I thought it was Donald Trump, but then I wished Donald Trump talked as well as Johnson did.

My wife said Puerto Rico should now try to secede from the US. And I thought, "Why not?" I never understood why Puerto Rico was a territory of the US in the first place.

Will Frexit be next? This is a thread about France.

[Emil Miller]

I normally don't watch the news but after Clopin posted the link to that livestream on YouTube, it was more interesting watching that than the movie I brought home from the library. There was this guy, Nigel Farage, who was most entertaining. He claimed victory before the BBC had the courage to call the obvious outcome. When I saw Boris Johnson in the link Emil posted, I thought it was Donald Trump, but then I wished Donald Trump talked as well as Johnson did.

My wife said Puerto Rico should now try to secede from the US. And I thought, "Why not?" I never understood why Puerto Rico was a territory of the US in the first place.

Will Frexit be next? This is a thread about France.

The funny thing is that Boris Johnson was walking along a street in New York when somebody asked him for his autograph, thinking he was Donald Trump.
Nigel Farage is a legendary expert on the EU and has been fighting it for twenty years.

[OrphanPip]

I normally don't watch the news but after Clopin posted the link to that livestream on YouTube, it was more interesting watching that than the movie I brought home from the library. There was this guy, Nigel Farage, who was most entertaining. He claimed victory before the BBC had the courage to call the obvious outcome. When I saw Boris Johnson in the link Emil posted, I thought it was Donald Trump, but then I wished Donald Trump talked as well as Johnson did.

My wife said Puerto Rico should now try to secede from the US. And I thought, "Why not?" I never understood why Puerto Rico was a territory of the US in the first place.

Will Frexit be next? This is a thread about France.

I don't think US states have the right to secede, you guys fought an entire civil war over it.

Puerto Rico does get screwed royally by having territory status rather than statehood. Also, it's a territory because Spain refused to sell it to the US during America's imperial expansion into central America that also lead to the acquisition of panama at the turn of the century, so the US took it by force.

[YesNo]

I don't think US states have the right to secede, you guys fought an entire civil war over it.

Puerto Rico does get screwed royally by having territory status rather than statehood. Also, it's a territory because Spain refused to sell it to the US during America's imperial expansion into central America that also lead to the acquisition of panama at the turn of the century, so the US took it by force.

I wonder if someone will try to stop Britain from seceding from the EU? Puerto Rico held a referendum a few years ago, but I don't think anything came of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012

[Pompey Bum]

I wonder if someone will try to stop Britain from seceding from the EU?

No one in the EU's got the kind of chops Lincoln had, YesNo.

And have a great holiday, Pip. All of a sudden it's a fantastic time to visit Britain. You're Canadian, right? You should make out like a bandit.

[Emil Miller]

I wonder if someone will try to stop Britain from seceding from the EU? Puerto Rico held a referendum a few years ago, but I don't think anything came of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012

Believe it or not, someone has raised a petition to try to get another referendum.
Which is rather like the losing side at football match asking for a replay because they lost.

[YesNo]

I heard that the Brexit referendum was only advisory. However, with Cameron stepping down it looks like this might actually happen. Anyone on the Leave side should not want to delay the process of getting out.

It occurred to me that my view of the future is about 50% off. I had no doubt the Leave side would win, but I didn't expect the markets to tank as much as they did, because, if you think about it, why should the markets care?

[Emil Miller]

I heard that the Brexit referendum was only advisory. However, with Cameron stepping down it looks like this might actually happen. Anyone on the Leave side should not want to delay the process of getting out.

It occurred to me that my view of the future is about 50% off. I had no doubt the Leave side would win, but I didn't expect the markets to tank as much as they did, because, if you think about it, why should the markets care?

They care because the inter connectivity of markets due to IT has led to a global market as opposed to individual national market activity. So what happens in the UK or anywhere else, has repercussions throughout the global economy. This, of course, is only one drawback to the ongoing technological revolution.

[Aylinn]

I heard that the Brexit referendum was only advisory. However, with Cameron stepping down it looks like this might actually happen. Anyone on the Leave side should not want to delay the process of getting out.

It occurred to me that my view of the future is about 50% off. I had no doubt the Leave side would win, but I didn't expect the markets to tank as much as they did, because, if you think about it, why should the markets care?
Investors don't like instability. You can of course earn a lot during instable times very quickly, but you may also lose a lot very quickly, so they just prefer peaceful times. Brexit is a source of instability. Scots want another referendum on independence. What will happen to Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement?

One can easily see that Boris Johnson didn't expect to win and treated the whole referendum instrumentally. Apparently now there is 'no need for haste' to start to exit EU.

I wonder what the politicians who wanted to leave are going to do? It seems they have no plan.

[YesNo]

It sounded to me that Boris Johnson wanted the Leave side to win, but I don't know him very well.

Groups of people forming smaller units or larger ones are not in themselves a problem. They just have to align themselves with the trending social mood. I could see the US as well losing states or territories in the future. Maybe in future decades or centuries the mood will change and larger social units be the norm.

The market reaction to Brexit was a surprise to me because I thought we were not that close to a market collapse but if a collapse occurs Brexit would not be the cause of it. It would be an expression of the social mood underlying both the collapse and Brexit. Market collapses aren't bad in themselves either. All they do is pop the bubble which needs to pop so people can start investing again in productive, economic activity. Healthy economies should not have negative interest rates. Something has to correct that situation.

[Aylinn]

It sounded to me that Boris Johnson wanted the Leave side to win, but I don't know him very well.
He didn't want to win it. One can say from watching his victory press conference on Friday where he looked as if he were attending a funeral and his words also betray that he didn't want to or expect to win. “To those who may be anxious, whether at home or abroad, this does not mean that the United Kingdom will be in any way less united, nor, indeed, does it mean that it will be any less European … that this decision involves pulling up a drawbridge or some sort of isolationism – I think the opposite is true,” “We cannot turn our backs on Europe. We are part of Europe.” Add to this that now he claims that there is no reason to rush with exiting EU.

[YesNo]

The "no reason to rush" should make a Leave proponent suspicious. Otherwise, what he said makes sense.

Just holding a referendum on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom or the UK leaving the EU shows a bearish social mood which leads to separatism which in itself isn't good or bad. I suspect this move toward separatism will only get "worse" from the perspective of those wanting more global unity and less practical democracy.

[Aylinn]

Well, Socts wanting another referendum is a direct consequence of brexit and this is rather funny, because it shows that Scots don't want to be in United Kingdom, they want to be in European Union.

I suppose that now that England leaves, it is likely that EU will welcome Scots with open arms.

There is also Northern Ireland, which also voted in favour of staying in the EU and Irish natonalists would like to stay in EU. I wonder what will be done about this, as exiting EU may prove to be the opening of a pandora box. It is a peaceful place now, because EU is taking part in keeping it peaceful and there is even a special EU's program to keep peace there and the Good Friday agreement includes the European convention on human rights. If the European convention on human rights is no longer part of United Kingdom laws and the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is back, it may be the end of peace in Northern Ireland.

[YesNo]

I view all of this as an expression of negative social mood. Negative social mood is neither good nor bad. It is just the ways things are.

Is Europe peaceful? Having interest rates below zero looks to me like economic warfare against savers.

[Clopin]

Well, Socts wanting another referendum is a direct consequence of brexit and this is rather funny, because it shows that Scots don't want to be in United Kingdom, they want to be in European Union.


You can speak for all Scots then? The SNP certainly want to be in the European Union, separate from the UK, and have wanted such a situation for a long time. The Scottish voters, however, chose to remain in the UK and while the situation has certainly changed it's rather presumptuous of you to suggest that Sturgeon speaks for everyone in Scotland regarding whether they actually want to be in the UK at all.

[Aylinn]

You can speak for all Scots then?
Of course, I meant that majority of Scots. If I say that England wants to leave EU, must I go into details that the leave option was mostly favored by those who are 50+ and on average were less well-educated?


The Scottish voters, however, chose to remain in the UK
Yes, they voted to remain in UK two years ago and one of the reasons was that they would leave EU if they became independent and that England could make problems if they wanted to join it later. Now that England voted to leave EU the situation changed completely and many (also well-known) people who were previously against leaving UK changed their minds.

[YesNo]

I wonder how accurate those pre-Brexit polls were. They predicted a win for Remain, but Leave won. If the polls aren't accurate in predicting the result, they are not a good basis for argument.

Here is one place I looked to try to explain the discrepancy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/24/heres-why-pollsters-and-pundits-got-brexit-wrong/

Another problem is there were no exit polls: http://www.nytimes.com/live/eu-referendum/brexit-exit-polls/

[Clopin]

The polls were probably just rigged/made up to get people to vote remain or to lose hope in leave. All of the media and political elites strongly supported remain. It's a travesty that you can have a 'representative' government where over 500 of 650 MP's support remain while 52% of the population vote to leave. It's a complete joke. Peter Hitchens is right that the Tory and Labour parties don't speak for anyone at all and shouldn't even exist as political parties anymore. It would almost be more reasonable to create two new parties, one called 'Remain' and one called 'Leave' which could actually reflect the differences of opinion between the different sides of the 52/48 dynamic Britain is dealing with right now, instead of having 90% of the people in charge actively campaigning against their own constituents. Pathetic.

[Clopin]

Of course, I meant that majority of Scots. If I say that England wants to leave EU, must I go into details that the leave option was mostly favored by those who are 50+ and on average were less well-educated?


No because that (saying that England wants to leave the EU) would represent a demonstrably true statement as attested to by the results of the referendum. Your claim, however, that Scots don't want to be in the United Kingdom, they want to be in the EU, isn't supported by anything beyond conjecture and is much, much more presumptuous (not to say it can't also be true, I'm all for another Scottish referendum on independence though one won't be held until oil prices rise).

[YesNo]

The polls were probably just rigged/made up to get people to vote remain or to lose hope in leave. All of the media and political elites strongly supported remain. It's a travesty that you can have a 'representative' government where over 500 of 650 MP's support remain while 52% of the population vote to leave. It's a complete joke. Peter Hitchens is right that the Tory and Labour parties don't speak for anyone at all and shouldn't even exist as political parties anymore; it would almost be more reasonable to create two new parties, one called 'Remain' and one called 'Leave' which could actually reflect the differences of opinion between the different sides of the 52/48 dynamic Britain is dealing with right now, instead of having 90% of the people in charge actively campaigning against their own constituents. Pathetic.

I am also wondering whether those polls were rigged in some way. Not only did the polls predict the wrong result, but what they predicted was what the government wanted to hear. That does not look good. It also doesn't look good that exit polls were not conducted. Exit polls would give us more information real time about the different demographics that voted one way or the other. If the polls were rigged I could see why exit polls would not be desired. Additional inconsistent data could get people asking even more questions.

[HalInc]

The polls may not be rigged. Those conducting the polls may just be incompetent. Never attribute to malice what can be reasonably attributed to stupidity, or so the saying goes.

[YesNo]

Yes, incompetence is easier to achieve than rigging something. Rigging something take brains and assumes you can get reasonably correct results in the first place.