Bay 12 Games Forum

pro-refugee, pro-immigration,

Then how can you defend Pegida? It boggles the mind.

I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.

Oh, we are? How exactly? What part of "our rhetoric" (as if there was such a thing, I'm pretty sure almost everyone here looks with at least a light squint at my posts) is so damaging to the liberal cause?
Has anyone here denied that doing something about what happened in Cologne is necessary? No.
Did anyone say that criticizing what some refugees do is wrong? No.
What is happening here is that you take valid criticism of stuff the right-wing is doing and applying it to everything they stand for instead of the thing actually criticized. I personally think that this is more effective in "burning down the house", because this is normally what right-wing nuts try to do to delegitimize leftist arguments.

Quote from: Sheb on January 10, 2016, 01:41:49 pm

When I see a group such as Pegida that only start to give a shit the moment they can blame an Arab for it,

You think Pegida is an anti-religious group?
Their leading figure posed as Hitler and publicly posted racist and generally xenophobic sentiments. Everyone who takes part in that movement and thinks they aren't supporting xenophobia is seriously deluded.
They're using the same tactics as the well-known far-right fascist idiots we had in Germany since ever, those insufferable people who use the phrase "I'm not a racist, but…"

They may actually genuinely care about what happened in Cologne, but they certainly use it for their own very definitely xenophobic agenda, and that is something that very well can be criticized.

Pegida isn't anti-Islam (and certainly not anti-religious in general), it's anti-immigration.

I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate tactics.

I use the word "Islamist" to denote fundamentalist/extremist Muslims. I use "Muslim" to denote Islamic people in general. I specifically do not want to use the word "Muslim" in a context where fundamentalism/extremism is implied, because that implication isn't true for Muslims in general, which is another reason why I suspect everyone who thinks we should fight Islam as a whole of xenophobia. History shows us that Islam is not inherently more or less violent than other religions.
I thought this use of the words "Muslim" and "Islamist" was ubiquitous.

I suppose I should ask this of everyone here; what would you have to see to change your mind? Everyone here, mind you. If the answer is "nothing could possibly do that" or "well I already know the facts so that question's pointless", I recommend you take a second look at your position.

I don't really know what I'd need to experience to change my mind about this topic. I know that talking about what's in the Qur'an won't convince me that Islam is the deciding factor in the problems we have with immigrants. I also won't be convinced by pointing out that their values are different from our own – I know that already.
Probably you'd need to show me something that is ubiquitous in their culture that, in it's core, violates something I thought was a value all humans had in common.

Furthermore, beliefs can change, but you typically don't control what you believe. What you profess to believe, how you act, yeah, you choose all those. "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants." Religion has to be changed, which usually takes both external and internal influence, from what (little) I know.

I though the general principle that is exemplified in conservation of matter/energy somehow entered the intuition of most people. But no, humans are somehow exempt from the way the interact with the universe, because Free Will or something.

Quote from: Frumple on January 10, 2016, 03:21:04 pm

... yeah, if you had paid the least bit of attention to what pediga actually does, you'd know most of their stuff isn't particularly about reacting against religious violence, though that's at times part of it/used as an excuse. They're anti-islam, not anti-religion, with a very heavy (and getting heavier as time passes) dose of racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment. Calling them an anti-religious protest group is whitewashing the hell out of what they're about.

Don't even have to be in/near germany to pick up that much, they're pretty blatant about it.

There is nothing racist or illiberal in noticing that some cultures or religions are worse thean others. Considering the contemporary events and world politics it is not unethical or right-wing to protest against the source of the most extreme right-wing views on earth today. Also, don't fool yourself that there are not a ton of people - centrists and liberals included - using the only outlet available to them to protest against what they see as religious violence.

Yes, there are some and it's quite disconcerting, because they are inadvertently supporting actual neo-nazis. Pegida's driving motivations isn't so much concern as it is hate. If they were actually concerned, they'd maybe be damn scared about the rise of racism in Germany, but they aren't. They publicly display behavior know from WWII, such as burning books.
So they attract three kinds of people:
1. Nazis
2. People who don't care about whether Nazis get more power
3. People who don't understand history or social dynamics
I want to support none of them and there is plenty to criticize about each.

Quote from: Arx on January 10, 2016, 02:34:51 pm

Wait, are you calling xenophobia 'disapproving of regressive elements in a culture'?

Well...  It's certainly closer to that than it is to "racism".  I guess it's inaccurate though since I'm not disapproving of all foreigners, or even most, just very worried about certain ones.  A xenophobe would fear or disapprove of foreigners in general, and/or because they're foreign.  Not just certain foreigners who think women are property.

I don't think that misuse is really on the same level as playing the race card in a discussion about culture, though.  Or trying to defend said misuse.

I'm not defending that misuse, I am attacking the notion of intentionally interpreting what someone else said based on that misuse.

Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:24:37 pm

The term "racist" may technically be about race, but it is used interchangeably with "xenophobia" now. That may not be correct, but acting as if this kind of misuse of the word was indicative of the speakers ideals is questionable at best.

Yes, and this is exactly in line with Islamist and theocratic theory, thus my question. It is brutally destructive to the left I hold dear to keep doing it so I risk being called far-right all the time by calling it as it is.

Uhm… What?

Your argument is basically: Sheb used the word "racist" wrong, thus what he said could be interpreted as something an Islamist could say and thus he's an Islamist?
Or what is it? Do you seriously believe that Sheb thinks religion is linked to what people wrongly call "race"? No, you don't. You're just nitpicking, and you're doing it wrong.

I don't know whether you count into this demographic, but my memory of your activity here strongly suggests so: This is exactly the kind of behavior that often is loudly complained about by people who are raving about evil SJWs and feminists who are seeking to dominate all men. Twisting around words only because they're used wrong. It's despicable behavior, no matter who does it.
If this was a simple misunderstanding due to the wrongly used language, fine, but the assumption that Sheb would be Islamist is just ridiculous.

Quote from: Antsan on January 10, 2016, 02:24:37 pm

The term "racist" may technically be about race, but it is used interchangeably with "xenophobia" now. That may not be correct, but acting as if this kind of misuse of the word was indicative of the speakers ideals is questionable at best.

That's terrible and should be called out...  It should be safe to call it out.
There's such a massive difference between racism and disapproving of regressive elements in a culture.

Yeah, misuse of words should be called out, that's right, but that's not what k33n did.
But there's someone else who did:

Wait, are you calling xenophobia 'disapproving of regressive elements in a culture'?

Strawman argument - you are disingenuously misrepresenting what I said. The problem of mass sexual assaults in places like Cologne, etc? That's something we need to act upon, and I proposed a whole bunch of things we could do. The problem (if there is one) that many Islamic cultures have with attitudes toward women? That is for them to fix. As an alternate example - many Europeans think that America's love affair with guns is crazy. But wagging your fingers at them and saying 'You guys really should listen to us and stop it with the gun stuff' - does that work? Will they listen?

If a culture's attitudes are to change, it needs to come from within.

Oh, it's hard, that's for sure. But given that we cannot keep immigrants out without excessive and questionable means it will continue to be our problem until we do something about that culture.
Also these people are already here. It's not like they might become our problem sometime in the future, they're our problem now, with all the culture and everything else they brought with them.

What the hell are you talking about, 'slaughtering immigrants'? I think there's some middle-ground between 'Get weapons and slaughter immigrants' and 'Continue as we have, changing absolutely nothing', right? To even bring up 'slaughtering immigrants' is at best an extremely dishonest shock tactic, and a horrible thing to say.

I think the art of hyperbole is lost on you.
Immigrants are running away from really bad stuff. I don't think anything less than stuff human rights forbid us from doing would deter many of them. I think many people in our country underestimate the severity of what makes people become economic refugees.

That is the whole point of border controls. That's why we have things called passports, right? Why we can't just get on a plane and fly wherever and they say 'Hey stranger, how's it going? Come on in, no need for a name or documents'. I advocate using border controls to keep out illegal immigrants, the same way the vast majority of countries in the world do. Are you saying that's unreasonable?

First: Most illegal immigrants we have hardly come via plane, do they? As far as I got to know there's three major modes of transportation: per foot, via boat or on trains. You have a point with that last one, but they'Re mainly using that as soon as they're already inside the EU, right?

And of course we're actively doing something to get them in! We give them free housing, a weekly allowance, free medical care, paid for by taxpayers.

You assume that they wouldn't come if we didn't give that to them?
Okay, there would be less of them, for sure, but I guess taking it away would cause more problems in the long run.

Are you saying that there's no kindness and charity in that, that the immigrants are just entitled to it?

No, they're not entitled to it, but our culture depends on people having access to these things. Well, at lest the part of our culture I want to preserve. So I am in favor of giving it to them, because it is necessary (and certainly not sufficient) to do so if we ever want them to grasp what our culture is about.

I'd say the art of metaphor is lost on you, but I don't doubt that it's intentional. And we do have walls. They're called borders.

I got the metaphor. That's just it: It's a metaphor and it certainly is not "art" in this instance.
Walls offer a physical reason for nobody to pass through. Borders don't. You can even cross a border without knowing it. The same would be pretty damn unlikely with a wall.
My point is that the idea of having borders does nothing to anyone who chooses to ignore them for whatever reason. Borders don't only consist of checkpoints, you know?

I admire how you manage to make taxpayer-funded accommodations that these refugees are receiving for free (and are regulated to be clean, comfortable and secure - something that you can't say about the homes of many poorer citizens, who have to take what they can get) sound like a prison cell. It's truly impressive.

Where did I say they weren't allowed to leave these houses? Where did I make them sound like a prison cell?
What I am saying is that location matters. If you're living in a huge house that's just full of other immigrants you're much less likely to get in contact with anyone who's been living in Germany for a long time. Given with how much disdain they are often exposed to in the streets it is hardly a surprise when hey have additional incentive to stay inside. That's why I used the phrase "holing up".
Disperse them more and you get more integration. It's not really hard to understand but it's a bit more expensive in the short run. I guess that's why people are against it, not because it wouldn't work.

Or perhaps it would save some lives. Remember the famous picture of the dead child on the beach, that sparked so much attention in the summer and drew the world's attention to the refugee crisis? He and his family were coming from Turkey, trying to reach Canada (despite the fact that their asylum application had been rejected).

So, you take an example where someone wasn't deterred by the kind of policies you are proposing and try to use that to convince me these policies would help to deter people from coming and thus "save their lives"? Maybe you should try and use another one.

Now, Turkey may not be as nice a place to live as Canada, Germany, or Sweden, but it's not a war-zone.

Erdogan is obviously preparing for a ethnic purge or even already busy with it, depending on who you ask. That doesn't qualify as "safe" for me.
Also, you yourself said that the perils of the journey ahead and the fact that they hadn't even been accepted didn't deter them, yet you propose these as the solutions to the migrant crisis.

Convicted of rape, murder, assault, theft, etc?

No one ever was convicted of these things for political reasons.


In conclusion: Yes, there will be problems, there already are problems, this will not be easy and generally we'll be worse off than before.
We had it coming for a long time. We have been living above the sustainable standard for decades now and other countries had to bear the burden of that. Now we get to see a glimpse of it and act as if we could go on like before, if only we built huge walls around us. That's ridiculous – this way you'll delay the problem until it comes back even worse.
We need to take in the people who come, we need to deal with them according to our values and culture and we'll need to adapt to what we cannot deal with according to our values and culture. If we actually manage to turn back people to the places they came from we'll just manage to make the situation there worse – much worse than it is now and certainly the resulting problems will be worse in the long run than the problems we get from taking them in. And yes, these problems will just fall back on us again in a few years.
We live in a globalized world. Forget "turning people away". Their problems will reach you one way or another.

Actually it isn't, the cities just can't expand past it. Now I've made the world wrap around though (but I'm not sure this is the optimal solution, just the easiest. I might make the world bigger than the screen later, but I'm not really sure because that's a pretty drastic change with how everything is set up), so they just expand to the other side.

Well, that change certainly fixes that problem, but this makes me wonder – the cities certainly weren't displayed on the map. So, where were they?

One thing I noticed was that city growth is unlimited (as long as there's no other cities in the way). The need for food alone doesn't seem to be sufficient for limiting that. Maybe introduce building material as a limited resource that can only be obtained from nature (and then gets depleted) or by tearing down parts of already built stuff? That doesn't seem too sensible. Hrm…

Another thing about battles: I have seen some ranged squads that were way more effective as soon as they ran out of ammo and started engaging in close combat. When they are attacked before running out of ammo they insist on continuing to use their ranged weapons, though.
I get why you'd want to use a ranged weapon instead of charging into battle. That one makes perfect sense, especially when you need to cross some distance in which you do no damage while receiving damage from enemy archers (or whatever they are).
It doesn't make sense to fire ineffectively into the guy who's charging at you and already at close distance when you could do way more damage (and thus prevent your demise) by using your close combat weapon.
It would be cool if every ranged unit had a close-combat distance. If an enemy squad gets closer than that, they should change to melee and charge to meet their attackers.

Anyway, you can use python to exe program, to turn your code into executables and then people will not need to have python to run.

I prefer source distributions. I am on Linux, meaning that I cannot run python programs packed up in an *.exe when I could run them just fine if they were distributed in source form.

I haven't checked the latest version yet, but unless this means what I want (which I doubt)

- Stopped cell information window from opening on a focus switch to the map view.

Could you add an option to not display battles? It's annoying when I let this run in the background and every two seconds the battle window pops up in front of whatever I am doing at the time.