This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 146147148 149150 ... 520
4411
« on: June 21, 2016, 04:46:36 AM »
Recent updates include (sorry for the lack of Leave material Meta, I'm trying to keep this neutral but am not really seeing anything update-worthy regarding Leave in my newsfeed): - The leaders of 100 top British universities (including Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Bristol and every other university ranked in the top 50 in the world) have submitted an open letter saying they're "gravely concerned" about the possibility of a Brexit. Citing some facts and figures, they say that leaving the EU would hurt their position as global leaders in science and innovation, impoverish campuses, limit opportunities for British people and hurt higher education in the UK as a whole. The universities state that Brexit would create barriers to attracting some of Europe's brightest (over 20% of staff members in the top UK universities are EU citizens from outside of the UK) and be detrimental to long-term investment in higher education and research. - The Financial Times published a (preliminary) concluding overview of the economics of a Brexit in 7 charts, again supporting the idea that Remain would be the better economic choice. - As predicted yesterday morning, the increased support for Remain (The Guardian now places the likelihood of a Remain victory at 70%) caused the Pound Sterling to bounce back from its drop caused by the possibility of a Brexit, seeing the biggest rise in 7 years. This was acompanied by shares in major British companies and financial groups increasing in value and both the European STOXX600 and British FTSE closing at a 3-3.5% increase on the stock market. - Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has doubled down on his earlier comments about the EU paying heed to the Brexit controversy. Tusk stated that the Union should abandon “utopian dreams” like “total integration” and focus on more pragmatic measures to preserve union in Europe, calling the Brexit debates a "warning signal" for the EU to have a "long, hard look at itself" in light of "more signals of dissatisfaction with the Union coming from all of Europe, not only from the UK".
4412
« on: June 20, 2016, 07:35:39 PM »
I have no clue what this is about. Lebron James plays (or played?) basketball, I know that much. But other than that, you've lost me.
4413
« on: June 20, 2016, 05:07:26 PM »
is the k-word supposed to be kike? Also, is it really that common for UK / US press to censor swear words like that? Belgian press don't give a fuck and will write it the way it is, in comparison.
It's considered highly unprofessional and extremely taboo to not censor profanity, yeah--even if it's just a quote.
Soccer moms would be apoplectic, and people would lose their jobs over it. Freedom.
Well, the UK and US are ranked 38th and 41st on the global Press Freedom Rankings, although I don't think profanity is taken into consideration there. It's strange to see though. Over here, the press would have no issues with putting the equivalent of nigger, cunt or fuck in articles as part of a quote. It's apparently not that popular among foreigners though, as I've heard of exchange students getting pretty offended by a news paper / report covering something that happened in the US and literally using the word "nigger". Pretty entertaining.
4414
« on: June 20, 2016, 04:58:52 PM »
is the k-word supposed to be kike?
You should know, (((Flee))).
but yes
Believe it or not, I'm not all that familiar with these insults. I never knew kike was slang for Jew up until just now. >_>
4415
« on: June 20, 2016, 04:52:39 PM »
is the k-word supposed to be kike? Also, is it really that common for UK / US press to censor swear words like that? Belgian press don't give a fuck and will write it the way it is, in comparison.
4416
« on: June 20, 2016, 04:34:47 PM »
So I'm like 60 pages into Roger Bootle's book, and the past ten or so pages have brought up some points that I would really like to see discussed: I agree with this on a lot of them, actually. The European identity, the matter of integration/expansion, the unnecessary changing presidency of the Council (as unimportant as it may be) and the making of certain decisions should definitely be discussed and set straight. The Commission is indeed a pretty weird institution that could see some reform, but it's important to keep in mind that it employs 23,000 people. It does a lot of different things, but much of that is spread out across dozens of committees and organs that just fall under the umbrella of the Commission. And for the British democratic decision, I think that's just something that should be chalked up to the way democracy changes. Britain is far from the only country where governments were regularly removed by the people. But that's something that just becomes increasingly rare as we find a better balance between citizenship and public governance. In practice, the British people still hold the same amount of control. As we've already demonstrated, the EU has no army or transnational police force. If the Britons are fed up and riot in the street, all they have to do is convince their own government and get rid of those supporting the EU. As evidenced by what we're seeing now, the member states are still very much in control. They may relinquish some national sovereignty to the EU, but they can take it back at any time.
4417
« on: June 20, 2016, 04:18:07 PM »
It's not simply the personal aspirations of one man; it's the political aspirations of the current President of the Commission. That has more weight than you seem to be willing to give it. Fair enough. My point simply was that the Commission has no real say in this and that plenty of other member states and EU officials have spoken out against an army. The personal aspirations of even the president of the Commission won't dictate this policy. The decision we will take will have lasting effects on a much longer time-frame; how far into the future can you reasonably say that a European Army is not on the cards? It will require unanimity of all governments, approval of a number of national parliaments and a bunch of national referendums to ever change the EU's competence in this field. Never say never, sure, but I really don't see this happening any time soon, if ever at all. But then we come back to my central concern of the UK being on the periphery of a two-speed Europe, now in the realm of security as well as economics. But wouldn't it make sense for the UK to stay in the EU then? I mean, if a two-speed Europe is something yo'ure concerned about it, it seems to me that remaining in the Union would be the better call. The UK is still part of Europe and will be very closely tied to the EU no matter what. If it leaves, it abandons a powerful position to stop the European army from ever becoming a reality. Leaving would simply mean that there's one less government adamantly opposed to military unification in Europe. Staying, on the other hand, gives the UK a veto in the Council, a number of high ranking Union positions and dozens of voices in the Parliament. As convincingly as you make the case that it is unlikely a European Army will be formed, to claim the probability is "around zero" is ludicrous. I was talking about the foreseeable future. The legalities aside, I don't see there being enough support to pass anything like this any time soon. It's going to take a major societal change and different opinion on the EU to accomplish something like that to take hold. Close to zero might be a strong claim, but I think it holds true for the foreseeable future.
4419
« on: June 20, 2016, 08:49:01 AM »
How do you expect the electorate to respond to something like that?
How do I expect it to react? Poorly and based on assumptions. How it should react? Based on actual facts and reason. Chapter I of the Treaty on the European Union sets out the most fundamental EU principles. In there, it literally states that "It (The Union) shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State." And even though article 42 of that Treaty allows for the establishment of a common European defence force, it explicitly requires unanymous consent of all 28 member states. Not only would such a change be subject to a number of referendums across Europe (including in the UK), but the UK requires the approval of its parliament and if the UK government says no (which I assume would be the case, as even the most pro-Remain politicians I've seen are against a European army), the outcome of the vote is no. Juncker's comments are little more than personal aspirations of one man. A European army is not included in his political guidelines which every Commission President has to draft. It is not part of the work programme / to-do list of the Commission for this year. Several high ranking EU officials (such as the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency) and national governments other than the UK have already spoken out against the possibility of a European army. In fact, security and defence falls outside the scope of the Commission's powers, meaning that it couldn't even propose legislation in this area to begin with. So while it's possible that there's going to be increased cooperation between European armies for training and peace-keeping missions (which has been going on for years already), the odds that we're going to be seeing an actual European army are just about zero. https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/http://infacts.org/mythbusts/uk-wont-dragged-eu-army/https://infacts.org/times-overshoots-eu-army-plans/http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/is-there-a-secret-plan-to-create-an-eu-armyhttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-you-re-voting-for-brexit-because-you-think-british-troops-will-be-called-up-to-an-eu-army-you-ve-a7024221.htmlhttp://www.politico.eu/article/waging-war-on-the-myth-of-an-eu-army-referendum-britain-brexit-debate/
4420
« on: June 20, 2016, 08:27:48 AM »
https://edri.org/enditorial-next-year-youll-complain-about-the-terrorism-directive/
EDRi is good stuff, I know people who work there and was in contact with the agency when I wrote my thesis. I've been waiting for LIBE to give its opinion on the proposal myself, so it'll be interesting to see where it goes from here. There's still a long way to go though, and we're still waiting for WP29 and eventually the ECJ if it ever gets to that point.
4421
« on: June 20, 2016, 07:14:10 AM »
Also: Brexit would make the UK more secure by scuppering plans for an EU army, French admirals claim.
A Brexit vote would make Europe and the UK more secure as it would stop the “dangerous” integration of armies of EU member states, two senior French Admirals have said.
In a letter in The Telegraph Vice admiral Michel Debray and Rear Admiral Claude Gaucherand say the UK would not be "diminished" by a vote to leave the EU but would prevent the "inevitable and dangerous" development of an EU fighting force.
They add that the UK's neighbours will want to "cooperate on close and friendly terms" even if Britain is outside the bloc because it is such a strong military and economic power.
The men, who both support a vote to leave, also warn that "scaremongering" about the UK's military prowess after a possible Brexit "makes no sense" because Britain would "remain a major force". The argument for a forced EU army is really weak at best, though. While it's no secret some officials would support it, there's already been a lot of opposition against this happening from a large number of countries and there exists nothing in any EU treaty that could be used as a legal basis to create a mandatory EU army. Of all the things used in the Leave campaign, this one of the most fearmongering ones, in my opinion.
4422
« on: June 20, 2016, 07:08:55 AM »
I guess really I'm just going to put it down to what affects me and my interests the most because of that. And I'm not entirely sure how it would affect university tuition (I'm in 2017 entry for Computer Games Design), I doubt it would affect science and technology all that much (I mean, as I understand it current standards would have to be upheld regardless if the UK would trade with EU so not much would change) It's hard to tell, but it's likely there's going to be some consequences. Over 15% of all British academic and scientific research is subsidized by the EU and nearly 1,000 projects at 78 UK universities and research centres are dependent on EU funds, with close to 20% of academic staff being non-British. While this isn't all dependent on the EU membership and those benefits could potentially be obtained through other means as well, virtually all UK Universities have gone on record to state that they support Remain because they're stronger, better funded and more effective as part of the EU and that leaving the Union would almost definitely hurt them in a number of ways (tuition, student / staff mobility, funding, research, international competitiveness...). Will it matter much for your daily life? Probably not, but I'd say that higher education is a strong argument in support of Remain. http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/apr/12/four-reasons-a-brexit-would-be-bad-news-for-uk-universitieshttps://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/brexit-the-perks-and-pitfalls-for-higher-educationhttp://monitor.icef.com/2016/03/uk-universities-lobby-against-a-british-exit-from-the-eu/http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160222154614771http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-would-harm-higher-education-and-research-universities-claim-10417379.htmlSo yeah, not entirely sure. I'm not too sure that leaving or staying would affect me on a personal level and I'm not fluent enough in stuff to make an educated decision on the matter from that perspective. It's hard to gage the impact a Brexit would have on your daily life as we simply do not yet know what'll happen afterwards. Life in the UK will go on as usual, but there's reason to assume that a Brexit could have consequences for things like consumer / employee protection, wages, housing / product prices, traveling abroad, job opportunities (which could be pretty relevant for you with your focus on game design) and so forth. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/28/brexit-effect-everyday-lifehttp://mashable.com/2016/06/04/eu-referendum-brexit-issues/#NmITdHOGukq3
4423
« on: June 20, 2016, 06:14:19 AM »
Pretty decent read about how much of the public perception in the EU changed because of reporting. The guy was an editor for The Times and a political correspondent in Brussels. His tone and choice of certain words is a bit strong, but it's a good insight in something I've been told by several Britons (thanks Psy), which is how much prominent UK news demonizes the EU on a regular basis.
4424
« on: June 20, 2016, 06:12:44 AM »
I'm still undecided on the issue. I live in an area that's pretty pro-leave, for the most part, so I'm leaning towards that though there's a lot of stuff saying it'd be better to stay with everything boiling down to no one knows what the fuck's gonna happen either way.
I don't really know what I'm gonna vote on thursday.
Anything you're still particularly uncertain about?
4426
« on: June 19, 2016, 08:11:10 PM »
Said man welcomed the extinction of the European peoples and in their place he hoped would live a mongrel slave race straight out of the H.G.Wells book. Maybe that should tell you all you need to know about this project of "integration" (mongrelisation). Said man wrote about those things nearly a century ago, long before his ideas on European integration were adopted by others and driven by reasons of prosperity, democracy, peace and progress. His beliefs on race and the Jews have as little to do with the EU today as the opinions of the American founding fathers on black people have to do with the current US framework. You disagree with his opinions? Sure. But using that as some sort of argument against the EU is as illogical as dismissing the US constitution because its writers thought blacks were inferior. Does NASA have monuments and awards that honour the German rocket scientists? There's the Von Braun Award for Excellence in Space Program Management, the Von Braun Memorial Award, the Wernher Von Braun Aerospace Educator Award, a crater on the moon named after him, the Von Braun Huntsville Research Institute (which apparently is one of NASA's main universitary research centers)... The man received a dozen honorary doctorates, has several more programs / awards named after him, is incorporated in a number of Space halls of fame, received NASA medals and so on. So yeah, I'd kind of say his efforts are well recognized in the US despite his background. But let us not take on the word of the Grand-father of the EU on the Bureaucrats intention for Europe, let us take the Bureaucrats words themselves: What kind of stormfront-tier logic is this turning into? Your "bureaucrats" consist of a single one out of the 750 members of parliament, a single member of the German national green party and a left-wing columnist on a British talkshow. Clearly, this is irrefutable proof that the Jews have been controlling Europe since the 1920's to create a "mongrel race" and deliberately erase the European people. Not that there aren't any genuine arguments to be made against immigration and its risks for culture, but this is just conspiracy theory-tier.
4427
« on: June 19, 2016, 07:44:41 PM »
Do you know any pro-EU, pro-Remain resources/sites/articles you think it would be good for me to read? I'm trying to smash a book by an economist called The Trouble With Europe before the vote; seems only fair I give the other side due consideration.
Can't say I really do. With things like this, I try to stay away from materials that are too one-sided. Most of my information on the Brexit debate comes from the most neutral sources I could find. https://fullfact.org/ http://ukandeu.ac.uk/ http://openeurope.org.uk/ http://www.euractiv.com/ http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/eu-referendum/ https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887From what I can tell, though, this book seems pretty good. I haven't read it myself, but the guy is a solid author from whom I've read some neutral books on the general workings and intricacies of the EU. https://he.palgrave.com/page/detail/?sf1=barcode&st1=9781137016874As for websites supporting Remain, well, there's a whole bunch of those, though I haven't bothered much with them due to the highly partisan nature of most. Both the InFacts ( http://infacts.org/) and Stronger In ( http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts) websites seems solid from the few articles I've read (having even a section dedicated to addressing myths or inaccuracies supported by the Remain side), but I'm not going to vouch for them. My core argument still remains relatively the same, and I feel like it's a pretty decent one. The Financial Times, which I remember you liking quite a bit, has consistently been in favor of Remain and does a decent job at hinting at what I'm getting at. Basically, the EU has its flaws. There's several of them and they have become increasingly apparent over these last few years. Abandong the Union, however, is not the best way of dealing with them. These issues need to be resolved from within. And the UK is in a unique and particularly strong position to do so. Aside from all other arguments regarding free movement, the economy, human rights and so forth, the truth of the matter is that the UK is permanently attached to Europe and its Union. Even if it votes out, it will have to follow the EU's lead and policies concerning dozens of things. Only then, it will be widely seen the pariah who left the rest and no longer has much of a say in any of it. The EU has done a lot of good for hundreds of millions of people and I am absolutely convinced that it can and will continue doing so. But it can do a lot better. The UK is a European powerhouse with very large amounts of influence. To me, its euroscepticism is invaluable for the Union and cautions against drastic measures of integration. Leaving the EU is pretty definitive, while Remaining can be overturned at pretty much any time. The UK has already sent a clear message that things need to change and that not everyone is happy with what the EU is doing. Choosing Remain would send a strong signal that despite these flaws, the European ideals still hold and that Britain is hopeful for a better future together with the Union rather than without it. And that's why I, on top of all of the already strong arguments presented by the Remain campaign on a wide array of these issues, firmly believe that staying in the Union would be in the best interest of both the EU and the UK. Because I still have faith in the EU and strongly think that we can all benefit from it, especially if it continues to improve and reform, which is something that I see the UK playing a very strong role in. Remain, I think, will be good for Britain and for all of the people in the EU.
4428
« on: June 19, 2016, 06:53:33 PM »
His writings in the 1920's about Jews and races mean nothing today.
Why?
Why would they? This is a man who, after the first World War, dreamed of a more united, peaceful and integrated Europe. His writings and thoughts about how closer European cooperation could drive peace, prosperity and freedom later became the basis of many of the contemporary European institutions and programs. The fact that he also had some "interesting" ideas about Jews and races has little to no relevance to his views on political and economic cooperation in Europe. It's the same reason people celebrate, for example, American founding fathers or first presidents for some of the things they stood for while we very well know that they (or at least some of them) were also sexist, homophobic and racist, yet I don't see very many people arguing against the US constitution by listing all of the flaws of the men who contributed to it.
I celebrate no man who's a racist piece of shit just because he was at the right place at the right time and had a little motivation and intelligence. Same with the "founding fathers".
Plenty of people insult the US constitution for its blatant hypocrisy, me included.
I'm not celebrating him either. His actual involvement with the EU was rather limited, as far as I'm aware. My point simply was that supporting Brexit simply because one of the people pitching the idea of further European integration and cooperation almost a century ago had questionable opinions on jews and races is just illogical.
4429
« on: June 19, 2016, 06:45:59 PM »
His writings in the 1920's about Jews and races mean nothing today.
Why?
Why would they? This is a man who, after the first World War, dreamed of a more united, peaceful and integrated Europe. His writings and thoughts about how closer European cooperation could drive peace, prosperity and freedom later became the basis of many of the contemporary European institutions and programs. The fact that he also had some "interesting" ideas about Jews and races has little to no relevance to his views on political and economic cooperation in Europe. It's the same reason people celebrate, for example, American founding fathers or first presidents for some of the things they stood for while we very well know that they (or at least some of them) were also sexist, homophobic and racist, yet I don't see very many people arguing against the US constitution by listing all of the flaws of the men who contributed to it.
4430
« on: June 19, 2016, 04:55:50 PM »
And by the way, it's very presumptuous of you to argue that you'd "never" buy the product. You don't know that for sure. There's no way that you could. You can't see the future.
Sure, but I can make assumptions with almost absolute certainty. And based on my past experiences with pirating games that I ended up liking anyways, I'm gonna say it was definitely a net gain for the developers when compared to the off chance of me changing my mind and spending money on things I might like (which I can assure you, I rarely ever do). Say that I never got to like Total War the way I did up until today. I know myself. If this turned out to be the case and I'd fall in love with its latest game now, I'd go back maybe one game in the series or buy an older one that is considered especially good. I would never go back and buy a bunch of 16 to 12 year old games with outdated and inferior mechanics when the current ones exist and new games are being released. Yet by pirating it when I did, I've consistently spent top dollar on these games when they released. CA most definitely benefited from my decision back then, and I doubt they wouldn't see that.
4431
« on: June 19, 2016, 04:43:54 PM »
If they wanted the product to be free, they would've made it so.
Problem is that we don't really know what they want when it comes to this. They want their product to be $60 for those interested in buying it. If you'd ask a game developer what they'd want the price to be for people who would never spend any money on it if it wasn't free, I'd imagine that a whole lot of game developers would be more than delighted to get their name, product, IP and base game out there to as many people as possible, especially those who would otherwise never give it a try in the first place. A bunch of years ago, I never would've bought a Total War game. I thought it was nothing for me at all and would never considered spending money on a game like that. Then, through a friend, I got my hands on a pirated copy. Turned out I absolutely loved Rome: Total War. Two months later, I bought the full game with all of the expansions included and played the shit out of it. Now, I own most Total War games up to date (and bought them all legally). Without that pirated game, I never would've tried the game or given the developers my money over the years. You can think it's immoral, sure, but I justify it by potentially giving something back to the creators. So while they put a price tag on the game because they'd otherwise have thousands of players who would've bought it now playing it for free, I very much assume that if I actually got to talk to the developers and said "hey, what would you rather have: me not playing your game or supporting your studio ever, or me play the game for free and potentially really liking it, causing me to buy the full game for its multiplayer, pay for DLC and buy future/earlier titles in the same series", they'd be all in favor of the second option. Of course, it can be considered immoral because that's not what they originally wanted, but I'm still gonna think that this whole bunch of developers I've given money to after trying out a pirated version of their game would much prefer this over me never even touching their game.
4432
« on: June 19, 2016, 04:30:16 PM »
And? Well, you pretty much said that nothing we've been discussing in this entire thread matters because reason X matters more. So when I point out how reason X doesn't have all that much to do with the EU, that's kind of important for your whole argument. Why should we be apart of a union where the President of the European Parliament can openly say that Germany exists purely to serve the interests of a foreign state and ethny? By "openly" you mean "in a non-recorded or transcribed private conversation with a Jewish politican which has only been mentioned on about 4 sites, being his own blog, a blogspot called 'Fuhrerious' and Stormfront". Sorry, but that doesn't hold much weight at all. Or that celebrates a man whose projection of the future of Europe was a bastard servile race ruled over by a caste of cosmopolitine Jews? It celebrates the man because he was one of the people laying the foundations for European integration and cooperation. His writings in the 1920's about Jews and races mean nothing today.
4433
« on: June 19, 2016, 04:09:33 PM »
ugh i know exactly how flee's going to respond
I've got it all figured out, you see.
4434
« on: June 19, 2016, 04:08:35 PM »
If I pirate a game, it's because I never would've bought it otherwise. Not sure if that counts as a justification
of course it doesn't
you could say the same about anything
How so?
"if i steal an apple, it's because i never would've bought it anyway, so that makes it okay"
when you use that logic in other contexts, it doesn't seem so rational, does it
so what exactly makes pirating different
Because of the instant, effortless and flawless replicability of the object. The whole "stealing is bad" argument is primarily rooted in the fact that it hurts others. You don't steal because this means someone else faces negative consequences because of it. You steal an apple, the vendor loses out on a potential sale. It costs him money and lowers his income. But with software, there's no such downsides. The game's already made and it's in circulation. Making an extra copy of the game causes no harm to the developers. They're not even involved in the process, so it takes them zero time and effort. And most importantly, they don't lose out on a sale because of it, as the person never intended to buy their product in the first place.
4435
« on: June 19, 2016, 03:48:12 PM »
If I pirate a game, it's because I never would've bought it otherwise. Not sure if that counts as a justification
of course it doesn't
you could say the same about anything
How so?
4436
« on: June 19, 2016, 03:40:42 PM »
Fuck me man, I've been neglecting this site again. I'm sorry Flee, I just left your comment dangling.
That's alright, I wasn't really expecting a response to this one anyways.
4437
« on: June 19, 2016, 02:59:02 PM »
If I pirate a game, it's because I never would've bought it otherwise. Not sure if that counts as a justification, but I have zero issues spending money on the things I really want. But for some games and movies, it's just a matter of "I do not want to see / play it badly enough to spend money on it, but if it's free then well, why not". Not such a bad justification I think, as it doesn't hurt the creator and actually works as decent advertising.
4438
« on: June 19, 2016, 10:33:55 AM »
All this effort put into economic arguments both here and elsewhere and it doesn't bloody matter. All that matters in stopping our demographic suicide and ensuring that the White Britons have hegemony and monopoly on the state, government and over the land. Or do you think that because of magic dirt that should we continue on this trend and by 2065 when White Britons are a minority on our isles that what has been past precedent when Whites have lost hegemony to a Coloured demographic majority won't happen here?
But a vast majority of non-white immigrants coming into the UK do not originate from the EU.
4439
« on: June 19, 2016, 04:36:28 AM »
Sure.
probably the smartest user here, easily the best mod, great taste in games and very knowledgable about dark souls
<3
4440
« on: June 19, 2016, 03:32:55 AM »
I'm not even American and read it before. What now, Das?
Pages: 1 ... 146147148 149150 ... 520
|
Show Posts
