April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Germany is an L+ Utopia? When did that happen?It is not. But economically speaking all relevant parties are more or less social-democratic. Britain and the US are usually portrayed as using the "anglo-saxon" model of free market economy, while continental Europe tends to prefer much more regulation or "social market economy" as we call it.
Ideologically, I don't see why people would be opposed to polygamy.Traditional polygamy (as in Islam or historically in Mormonism) is a pretty misogynistic affair.
Practically and historically, there's good reasons not to recognize it federally, though I could see some of the benefits being good to extend out in general.
.
By that definition there would be no right wing parties in many countries. You have to take political spectrums into account if you compare countries, you'll get a very distorted view of things if you don't. Political consensus in Britain may look left wing from an US perspective, but looks right wing from a German perspective.Within a country descriptions of left and right (or any other axis you care to speak of) tend to be based on that countries particular window. When comparing countries you tend to judge policies and politicians based on their position in your own window. So Obama is centre/right-right wing economically speaking in Britain's current window, but still on the left of America's. And voters in America are unlikely to give a damn about where he lies on Britain's, given the window is in no small part defined by the range of views and general perceptions of the voters themselves.There is only one definition for right-wing and left-wing.
Right wing : accepts or supports social inequality or social hierarchy.
Left wing : accepts or supports social equality.
That's it. This is not based on the political spectrum of a country.
Hopefully she'll remember the name of who did it by tomorrow, but it's enough to know she got home safe.Holy shit. That happened to a few people I know too, though they got out of it unharmed as well. Problem is, if it was at a public place, it's near impossible to determine who did it.
That was meant as "as important to Turkey as Atatürk", without ideological implications. Basically he wants to be as revered as Atatürk traditionally was/is, while he ideological moves the country away from Atatürk's legacy. And as I said, that was a media opinion from a few years ago, when Erdogan's authoritarianism and islamism seemed less obvious.When the media was a bit more sympathetic to Erdogan they used to point out that he tried to portray himself as a sort-of second Atatürk, a second father of the nation who tried to reconcile Atatürk's reforms with moderate islam. Of course the whole personal cult thing is always a pretty good indication of authoritarianism.What? He hates Atatürk. Atatürk is the last thing he would want to portray. He even called Atatürk a drunkard once. He is more like late Ottoman rulers and his supporters usually hail him as a caliphate.
The cop who shot and killed Ethem Sarısülük is released. I knew I was wishing for too much when I wanted him to get arrested for murder. Oh well.I've seen something about that on tv, they basically let the cops get away with anything while doctors who provided medical assistance to protesters are persecuted and threatened with losing their license.
Completely "wiped out" by government control of expression, Allowing for 20% of course.I said "pretty much", not "completely". Also the 20% could very easily be construed to be mostly the immigrant part of the population (which is about that number), as the statistics don't say anything about ethnic or religious affiliations.
I still believe questioning it is better than repressing it.
Then you begin equally suppressing everyone, and it really isn't looking like it's worth the cost.I'm just for equal laws for everybody.
:1. Agreement to listen.But still we have to regulate this by law. As in "no animals". And some age that is seen as appropriate (I think it's 14 here now), even if it isn't perfect for everybody, you have to draw some lines.
2. Anyone capable of acting independently.
No, consenting sex shouldn't be regulated at all.It's the consent part that requires regulation. We could argue about details, but nobody here would disagree that we have to define what consent is and who can consent.
Yeah, let's elide those transgender people again...Actually this debate somehow started with someone thinking that transgender was just a way to circumvent social expectations, because there was no psychological difference between genders. Which I answered by saying that I think there is one.
And what says that children must be cared for by women as opposed to men?In mammals - nutrition in the first months at least. The rest is negotiable obviously, as many animals demonstrate. However there is also attachment to children that females exhibit more than males, after all a female can always tell that a child is hers, while males cannot. (I'm still talking about animals of course, but I think some of these instincts remain intact in human primates.)
That's not really a biological reason, since mens' genetic code won't get passed before they have children just the same as women if they die.Well, on a stupid ape level of thinking - males don't have to worry about impregnating someone, they can just leave. Females however have to worry that they may be left with a child uncared for. That's why many animals develop some sort of social structures.
No, a certain barrier exists between you and femalehood.Ehm, first of all sexual organs, that work very differently and I suppose feel very differently (which is the kind of thing you can never really know).
"You really can't compare the sexuality?" What in the heck are you talking about?
That is an obvious difference, the circumstance. And that is what I believe to be the duty of civic law and society to work against. By making such inflammatory statements illegal, you only serve to turn bigots into criminals who will return to society from imprisonment as criminals, nor will you stop the careless from making these statements and the most important thing of all - you will only worsen their opinions.Well, there is an educational aspect. If you hear "Jew" used as an insult in Germany today, there is an extremely high chance the person saying it is a (muslim) immigrant. The reason for this is that the old stereotypes have been pretty much wiped from society, not necessarily only by laws, but also by making statements socially unaceptable, basically a mix of public reflection with temporal restricment of free speech. If public reflection alone would have done the job? I doubt it.
You demonstrated my intended point rather well, what was to you a simple boycott of certain products was also used as an offensive slang term. Would you also make illegal 'remove kebab' despite its legitimate meaning? And even if you would say yes, anyone who actually was organizing actual crime would simply use another term, and you would be falling deeper down the slope of gagged language.I'm not easily in favor of banning langauge at all. If there is racism from a minority versus the majority (something that is happening in Germany and only very reluctantly acknowledged by the public), it should be met with the same response as under reversed circumstances, which would be so called hate-crime laws.
Secondly it's not counter-racism, it is just racism. Malcom was racist in his advocacy for black supremacy and his remarks against all white people, and it was a way for him to gain audience, express exactly how he felt and also speak out against racism against black people. And then we also go down into the political correctness part, where racism is viable for minorities and the censorship applies only to the majorities of any social group, creating an inequality of the rights to expression. And it is one thing to be against racism in the spoken word, but then it is also another thing to have the state make it the ultimate thought crime. For example, if one of your acquaintances were to say something bigoted, would you begin saying to them the reasons why they are wrong, or would you call the police?
Currently the idea of investigation is 'go to court.' There is a fine line between saying 'kill all x' and 'I am going to kill all x.'That again is a context thing. Humour, satire, blasphemy, meaningless empty threats are all irrelevant and should not be subject to any kind of repression. I think law enforcement more or less does have a grip on that, you are not persecuted for publishing the Mohammed cartoons (though you are not protected enough for my taste either), but you may get in trouble if you call for the burning of mosques. (though you may get away with that if you are doing it for satire or on artistic grounds).
And frankly, I would still support people's rights to say 'I am going to kill all x' because it makes crime so much easier to prevent, whilst also not outlawing humour, especially where textual mediums are concerned and tones of voice cannot be heard.
And last of all you don't fall into viewing people as these groups where 'you won't be sent to prison for x, but not you other people, you certainly will.' You view everyone as equals, following the same laws under the same principles.
I take it that no one here knows what "genderfluid" is?I don't.
I definitely have to give you that point. Attraction is sexual orientation based only and in theory everbody needs to be threat-checked to guarantee ideal survival circumstances (women can be much more subtile and more deadly competition).I mean everybody is people to me too, but I'm sure there is at least subconsciously a threat-level/competition check for other males and some kind of attraction-check for females when I meet someone. On a subconscious level you can hardly avoid these things.
Everyone gets a threat-check, and everyone gets an attraction-check.
I don't see how that's related so much to gender as self-esteem.Because according to some psycholgists you do built self-esteem differentely according to your gender. That seems a pretty old-fashioned idea though, just like "girls are bad at math" which clearly is bullshit.
In sane reality everyone has potential for every human trait. Hating and fearing half of your soul is not a good thing.Yes. But I think your own subconcious perception of the world is to a degree shaped by your gender. And you can't even really know it, because it ultimately is too distant to imagine it realistically.
The ideal list of these virtues would mean that were you to get any sample of peoples and task them with building a town, as long as they were to follow those core virtues above their own prejudices, then it'd be as close to a social Utopia as we could get.Ok, I get that, you are talking about ideal utopian values, that I would agree upon, but are not necessarily part of existing societies.
That is an obvious difference, the circumstance. And that is what I believe to be the duty of civic law and society to work against. By making such inflammatory statements illegal, you only serve to turn bigots into criminals who will return to society from imprisonment as criminals, nor will you stop the careless from making these statements and the most important thing of all - you will only worsen their opinions.Yes, it is all about circumstance and context. Or essentially preventing people who already are criminals to commit further crimes.
It's important because 'remove kebab' is a euphemism for 'remove middle-Easterners,' and not exactly with the friendliest intent. The quote there: “If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.” Was from Malcom X, openly racist and yet still an important humanist in US history. So many social movements would have died so quickly had they been emerging under our censorship policies.Ok that part I partially misunderstood in your first post I think. I would have rated "remove kebab" as a simple call for a boycott of certain products, which I would consider relatively harmless despite racial implications. I also did not recognize the Malcolm X quote, and while I understand that counter-racism is a viable expression for opressed minorities, I don't condone that line of thinking.
As is observed, even when drawing the line at violent sounding phrases, it's so incredibly easy for people who do seek to incite hatred, slay sacred cows, be expressive, be funny or edgy or whatever using euphemisms, while you've only succeeded in constricting freedom of expression, giving clear distinction also against 'known-to-be-violent' organisations.
And I remember arguing against this notion of 'stopping a crime,' unless a declaration that the crime is going to begin - it is not a declaration of crimes to begin.
You throw away needlessly an inviolable right to express yourself, and you'd kill even the most innocent of persons who made shocking statements made with the intentions of humour under the bus, merely because they made - to borrow from Neonivek's coinage, parody cake.
Charlie Chaplin was hardly advocating Nazism was he now?
