Claiming it as in literally claiming it? no.
I didn't claim it but people say I did anyways.
What you say is ultimately what people understand, and what people understand is ultimately up to you. You have every reason to complain if your audience "misunderstands" you on purpose, but genuine misunderstandings have to be clarified in a cooperative manner.
fml with a satay.
shish baby, it’s awwright
If I did not say it, I did not say it.
But if you’re in the habit of saying things that you don’t mean, or things that you don’t consider exactly true, then it’s perfectly understandable if your audience confuses things that you said with things you didn’t say.
But seeing as you've decided to play dumb even though he quoted you inches above your response. Even though neither me or you think your dumb & you actually know what he's refering to, I decided to quote it again.
currently the UK are all that's keeping millions on Europe's doorstep from either dying or desperately trying to make it to Germany, and hundreds of millions all across the world including in some of the most popular origins for European illegal migrants, Pakistan just being one example. No British aid = no home future = off to Germany in numbers that would be culturally enriching on a scale never before seen.
P.S. You raise so many interesting points. You back your opinion with your sources. Why the need or desire for BS games?
There is no BS here. The hundreds of millions helped by British aid are not the same people helped by others, that's why I only talked about those who would be affected by a withdrawal of British aid.
This is a claim I do not understand. Is there absolutely no overlap between people who are helped by British aid and people who are helped by others? Say, if a certain war victim receives a field ration donated by the British government, are they thenceforth not allowed to receive aid from other governments? Who keeps track of this? Why is this necessary? I genuinely do not believe that this is how it works.
You think I was arguing from a point of withdrawal of all aid? No, that wouldn't result in a migration of hundreds of millions, that would be a billion and more.
I agree with the numbers, but I don’t think that was what wobbly thought you were saying.
We are providing for 4 million Syrians (there are about 7-10 million more helped or in need of help by others, I didn't mention them because they are not in fact the UK and I don't see why they would not be supported by their respective countries)...
I’m sorry, but I cannot find your sources for these figures, nor can I follow the logic of your argument. According to the
UNHCR site, there are exactly 4,718,230 registered Syrian refugees as of now, and given that the UK’s contribution to the UNHCR program is approximately 9% according to
this thing, the maximum number of Syrian refugees that could in theory be helped
exclusively by the UK is 424,640. But since you’re referring to "7–10 million" Syrians(?) who are in need of help, I’m assuming that you’re talking about the
total number of displaced people – 10.9 million, to be more precise. Now, given that the UK’s share of
the total humanitarian aid into Syria is roughly 15%, and 15% of 10.9 million is 1.635 million, I cannot quite grasp how one could claim that the UK is the exclusive provider for 4 million Syrians.
...and in areas where no other country except the USA, Russia, Iran and Syria can reach, and often we have to deliver this aid in opposition to three of those without their permission. Only the USA has that capacity (actually, they have better, their airforce is without parallel), but their far wider commitments and their need for a larger military has meant they have not been able to commit as much as the wealthiest nation on the planet could have otherwise.
Ah, the Green Berets are running guerrilla-aid into a war zone. That is wonderful. (I’m dead serious, that really is wonderful, if true.)
Germany could not cope with 1.5 million migrants and the only country that provides education and welfare for more people just so happens to be the wealthiest nation on the planet, so I don't think Germany would be able to cope with even more in the event of the UK losing the money for it (which again, I have to keep stressing this, this is not a popular policy in times of austerity).
Yes, that goes without saying. What are you saying?
Turkey is threatening to open their border completely because the EU failed to deliver the billions of euros of promised aid whilst the UK delivered on their aid, I have already typed this out but it seems to have just been ignored in favour of what I "apparently seem to be implying."
Why do you assume that I – or anyone else in this thread – have ignored this fact? We read the news, and we know that the EU is in
Turkish bath hot water with Turkey right now. This seems to have nothing to do with the above claim that the UK is the sole provider for 4 million Syrians.
4 millions on Europe's doorstep, some of them actually incapable of becoming refugees because they can't even flee, loads more from some of the most popular origins for European illegal immigrants.
Four million, ten million, thousand million... does it matter if the UK cannot single-handedly stop them in any case?
I gave all the numbers, I even gave numbers from Eurostat themselves, and I stated this all clearly without even bantering. Somewhat disheartening, but I am accustomed to it by now.
What numbers? Do you mean
these things? Sorry, but I cannot see any connection between the numbers and your argument.
P.S. You raise so many interesting points. You back your opinion with your sources. Why the need or desire for BS games?
Because people have preferred to answer his posts in the past (before LW went full-banter mode) with "you're wrong, but I won't explain precisely why or post any actual sources that prove you wrong, instead I'll refer to basic principles of an ideology I believe in and "common knowledge" related to said ideology". Or find one single "weakest" point in his post and argue against it (usually without sources, as well, just on pure ideological principles), while ignoring the rest of it.
The banter has proven to be extremely successful at shutting down these kinds of responses, which undoubtedly has made it more fun for LW to post.
QFT, if I'm not having fun with it there's no point. And to be fair if someone's not going to take my points seriously and just post for bants I can respect that and bants too, sometimes it's fruitful, but arguing against points I never even made the one of the few times I'm being serious? Liberties are being had 
Indeed, I cannot take your points seriously if I think you’re not being serious. If you season your lovingly-crafted posts with a rich masala of hyperbole and dank memes, I will regard them as bants. There is nothing wrong with this
per se because bants are healthy and good, but it's a very inefficient strategy for communicating Important Information, you know. As far as I'm concerned, the only way to de-bantify your posts is to clean up the rhetoric and straighten out the arguments – but as I said, I
do think that bants are fine too, because I rather like bants.
Here's some citations for you:
This thing says that the UK's direct humanitarian funding into Syria was exactly 14.9% of the grand total in 2015, whereas this thing for the current year is mysteriously lacking any mention of your country (is this eurocuck propaganda or what?).
You could also take a look at the statistics from UNHCR's Syria response program, where the UK's contribution is right behind USA and Kuwait in 2015, and again, strangely absent from the data for 2016.
Why? Why would you even post sources that explicitly do not mention the UK at all when I have already posted sources detailing how much aid was sent?
I’ve looked through all your recent posts, but I cannot find these detailed sources you’re talking about. I’m dreadfully sorry if I’ve somehow missed them. [
m(_ _)m in advance ]
Getting too cheeki, I gave serious responses to serious responses on oil, but then as soon as I step on someone's ideological turf they lose all courtesy to at least shitpost about what I actually said :/
What you said made no sense to me, therefore I commented on what
I thought you had said, not on what
you thought you had said. I was reacting to the
form of your arguments rather than their content, although the little that I could make out of the underlying message did seem like baseless bloviation of the "uk greattst countrey" type. Btw, my ideological turf is not hallowed ground by any means – just take your shoes off and disinfect your feet before you tread.
Oh yeah and the UK's investing another £1.2B to Syria for the next 4 years.
Great! Will that be enough to provide for 4 million Syrians in 2020?
Also makes it incredibly annoying to read for people who bother to take the time (such as me).
No pity for the person who actually took the time to research and write it all? Oy vey, zut alooooooors
Actually I will write something more. When your outspoken (LW is) & have a controversial opinion (in terms of Bay 12 LW does) & are happy to be insulting to people who disagree with your opinions (re read his post if you don't think he slings insults left, right & centre at groups of people with the opposing view point) then you're gotta expect to cop some flak back. Fair is fair after all.
I don't give a shit what you call me, I've been called all things and all insults, there simply is nothing to insult on the internet (do you think insulting LW means anything? LW does not exist)
You don't seem like someone who can be easily insulted, so I've never tried to deliberately insult you. Why
would I want to insult you, anyway? You're a really cool guy, although your posts are shit.
I care when others don't care. Even when I shitpost, each shitpost is handcrafted and meaningful, or at least deliberately meaningless. Someone earlier once asked me why I don't always write serious posts all the time, and why most of my posts are quick and cheap shitposts. And I said something along the lines of every time I wrote a long serious post with all citations and everything clearly explained all I got was a two or three sentence pithy shitpost saying 'you're wrong, here's not why,' whereas I could do the same post with much less effort and much more fun and get the same response. As long as I get to post the numbers, the reports, the facts, end of the day my opinion and how they are presented as serious or shitpost matters little.
You care so much about tired /pol/ memes like White Genocide
TM that you feel compelled to feed them to people who
you know for a fact aren't stupid enough to swallow them? I know for a fact that
you aren't stupid enough to swallow that shizzle, which is why I always assume that you're not being serious whenever you post like a teenage /pol/lack. And what comes to getting ignored by your "audience," there's more than one type of that experience: If you make a carefully citationated and "neutral" post and people still ignore you, that's likely because they
agree with your points and have nothing to add. If you make a carefully citationated post with ebin trole master b8 m8, people will ignore you because they think you had absolutely nothing to say in the first place. There's no guaranteed formula of success for digital communication – you cannot treat forums and other internet media as sure-fire dopamine dispensers. You're always alone, throwing your lovingly-crafted shit into the abyss, and you're not guaranteed to even hear a *ploonk*.
Today was an exception because:
And again, we reach the point where I don't know what's argument, what's shitposting and what's being wrong and I find myself at a loss of how to respond.
Sheb seemed quite confused as to whether I had a coherent point and the shitposting was an obstacle for him, so shitposting did matter. So I excised shitposting and did the most serious and in-depth explanation and collation of all (or at least most) that was my point for this topic, specifically the topic of a German-British trade war that was being threatened by the German EU chairman. I am happy at least for a short while there was a serious discussion on energy and pipelines before it turned into a civil straw war and I returned to shitposting pipeline puns, but nothing of value was lost anyways as I nevertheless return to the natural state of either maintaining serious, civil discussion against points I did not make - or just shitposting.
I'm not Sheb, so I can't tell whether your attempt to communicate succeeded or not, but it's very likely that you convinced him to the extent that he saw fit to shut up. The reason I don't think this debate matters much is because I got the impression that the damp German was bluffing like Bluffy the Bluffire Player.
And obviously I'm just going to shitpost if you're not going to take yourself seriously (that's you plural there, not a specific accusation to you).
That works both ways, you know.
As a result we return to that blissful void - the shitpostAlso I feel bad for him posting, what, 10,000 words of well-researched and sourced debate in the FAPER news thread, because he won't get a proper response, only nitpicking and quibbles. Nobody here is going to be convinced by either side of the debate - the EU issue is absolutely one where everyone has already drawn lines in the sand.
Yeah we've all drawn lines in the sand but they don't need to be battle lines, and we could at least hear everyone's viewpoints instead of just ur ruong nah ur rong nah ur ronald REMOVE PICKLE remove pickle WE RICH HAVE SHEKEL from LONDINAITSTAN MAGIC
It's basically the same thing just less readable
lw u pleb ur meming like jeb lay off da /pol/-aid & lrn 2 tok liek a normie u gotta haev stile if u wana be a clasy homie
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1008284 times)