NYT Opinion: We’re Edging Closer to Civil War

[Fleetinglife]

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

Just in moderate nationalist and conservative values. Your country used to be a mighty Empire that kicked ass in every major European war and now you are losing sovereignty to the EU. Of course, this will cause an identity crisis. 

Petty appeasement stuff to south British conservatives, most of the voter base of the Tories, as if Ireland and Scotland and their aspirations to be independent nations on their own from British hegemony and influence, in particular, don't exist in the British isle equation.

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

By Europe I mean of course Western Europe.

Would have guessed as much, you need to constantly redraw boundaries against the not as civilized East of that concept 'Europe, or Fortress Europa', in order for it to work and have a semblance of the real-world existing actual rationale behind it.

 

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

I think it was a dumb move. But in order to defeat Hitler, Britain needed a lot of healthy stage blue self-sacrifice and nationalism.

 

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

The Scandinavian countries, who are spirally the most advanced simply don't have this recent history of depending on nationalism to defeat a greater evil. They were either too weak or neutral.

This is basically the Thatcherite line of reviving the myth and the glory of British nationalism that supposedly existed under Churchill, which was in itself flawed and based on a historical fantasy and in an already declined state and by Thacher's time non-existent physical empire.

Many contemporary British historians admonish and criticize Thatcher for reviving this myth of a glorious British nationalism as supposedly existing under Churchill in contemporary pop culture for political purposes in order to use it as a cover and justify her policies hated by most people in Britain during the time she was in office and the Falkland fiasco, distraction, and diversion from internal economic strife and problems and unpopularity she faced at home.

British conservatives: ''Well, we won that war, so we can still larp pretending to be like nationalists and conservatives of the past and drool over the prospects of reviving the glory and prestige we once had under our glorious empire! Strike the Falklands!''

Hey guys, when the Germans do it: ''Bad, bad, very bad! They are falling back into Nazism again and their Nazi past!!! Third Reich Aspirations!!! Germany hasn't reformed at all or redeemed itself for its sins!'' when the Brits do it (and only the South White Englanders, not their union hostages in Scotland and Irish in NI and Ireland, that suffer for their selfish and idiotic decisions),: ''Muh conservative values and nationalism. Ahh when need to be strong, respected, and have prestige again as our glorious world colonial empire! Global Britain!1!1!1! We will not listen to our unelected overlords and masters at Brussels, but our own public school elite educated, landlord and upper-class incestuous ones in Downing Street, Westminster, City of London, and Buckingham Palace!1!1!1!

I am not intentionally being in bad faith here towards the British backlash brexiteers, nationalists, and conservatives and their reasons and consciousness stage motives, but I can't remain silent on the contradictions and inconsistencies within such an obvious gaping hole of a hypocritical thought.

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

I guess if you're a small and insignificant western European country it's easier for you to spirally develop. 

Of course, since you don't have a shit ton of these contradictions in your history, and in your societies present composition and what they did and their relationships in the past that shaped and influenced the present ones and what mark, it left today in running such a project to deal with and to deprogram people out of wishful thinking of their past romanticized fantasies. You just sat there and waited for the wealth of intergenerational capital to accumulate from the pillage and spoils of war of your bankers who hooked and plugged you into the international financial system these big guys plowed through for you with the dirty work that they did.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Fleetinglife]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

In other words nationalism/fascism. This is not new. We've been here before, but society has evolved a lot in the last 100 years.

''If one is unwilling to talk about capitalism, one should remain silent about fascism too'' - Max Horkheimer, 1938., The Frankfurt School of Marxist thought.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Apparition of Jack]

The coming troubles might resemble, well, the Troubles of Ireland between the 70s and 90s.

It was a constant low-energy civil war between competing ethnic groups, with periods of conflict and violence and periods of relative peace and stability. Some areas were severely damaged during the conflict, some areas saw no trouble at all. 
 

I find it hard to imagine a genuine widespread civil war breaking out, but some kind of sporadic violence / craziness / terrorist attacks are possible, alongside a general air of distrust and a cultural Cold War. 

Stay safe Americans.

[Vrubel]

4 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

Would have guessed as much, you need to constantly redraw boundaries against the not as civilized East of that concept 'Europe, or Fortress Europa', in order for it to work and have a semblance of the real-world existing actual rationale behind it.

Dude... don't be so fragile. In a political context, you can say "Europe" and refer to the liberal democracies of western Europe. I am myself an Eastern European. 
 

4 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

This is basically the Thatcherite line of reviving the myth and the glory of British nationalism that supposedly existed under Churchill, which was in itself flawed and based on a historical fantasy and in an already declined state and by Thacher's time non-existent physical empire.

Countries are myths and precisely therefore they need to have even more myths to seem real (Catch my drift) 

A country is not some dry governing entity. A country is "Home", It's a highly emotional thing. It got beauty, love, ambitions, sadness, trauma etc. and of course a story: history. History is not some dry dates and events. No, history inspires all kinds of passions: love, hate, shame, pride etc. History, emotion and myth are inseparable. History is poetry. 
 

4 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

in Britain during the time she (Thatcher) was in office and the Falkland fiasco, distraction, and diversion from internal economic strife and problems and unpopularity she faced at home.

British conservatives: ''Well, we won that war, so we can still larp pretending to be like nationalists and conservatives of the past and drool over the prospects of reviving the glory and prestige we once had under our glorious empire! Strike the Falklands!''

Britain defended the Falklands, her sovereign territory, against what basically constituted naked aggression by a military dictator who wanted to distract his people from a real f*cking economical crisis. For some reason, you projected this onto Britain. 
 

4 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

Hey guys, when the Germans do it: ''Bad, bad, very bad! They are falling back into Nazism again and their Nazi past!!! Third Reich Aspirations!!! Germany hasn't reformed at all or redeemed itself for its sins!'' when the Brits do it (and only the South White Englanders, not their union hostages in Scotland and Irish in NI and Ireland, that suffer for their selfish and idiotic decisions),: ''Muh conservative values and nationalism.

First of all: Be more coherent and intellectual, you just ramble. Second: South White Englanders? Third: Ireland and Scotland hostages? Ireland has an independent country and Scotland (which is in a constitutionally equal union with England (as reflected in the flag and coat of arms)) can leave by referendum. 

And lastly, yes it's harder for a German to be proud. A (proper) modern-day German nationalist (one who associates-with and cares for his country) would feel deep shame for that era in his country's history. 
 

4 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

Of course, since you don't have a shit ton of these contradictions in your history, and in your societies present composition and what they did and their relationships in the past that shaped and influenced the present ones and what mark, it left today in running such a project to deal with and to deprogram people out of wishful thinking of their past romanticized fantasies. You just sat there and waited for the wealth of intergenerational capital to accumulate from the pillage and spoils of war of your bankers who hooked and plugged you into the international financial system these big guys plowed through for you with the dirty work that they did.

Sorry, I cannot read this. You seem passionate about this topic yet you don't bother to write in a coherent and understandable fashion. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Vrubel

[Hardkill]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Firstly, there is rockiness in Europe too.

Secondly, Europe has already had a lot of internal struggle in the last 100 years. They've earned some peace the hard way.

Thirdly, American culture is particularly hooked on Orange and even Christian Blue. America is more religious than Western Europe and this dogma is directly responsible for a lot of American problems. Fundamentalist Christianity + rampant capitalism is not a recipe for health.

Trump/Bush could not have won without the fundamentalist Christian crowd. Abortion is basically a fundamentalist Christian dogma issue which doesn't exist in Europe.

What still doesn't make sense to me is that even though conservatives/Republicans have a lot more Blue than liberals/Democrats do in the US and Blue is about Law and Order, there have been a lot more liberals/Democrats than conservatives/Republicans who have been willing to comply to rules such as economic regulation policies and vaccine mandates from the government.

[Girzo]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Abortion is basically a fundamentalist Christian dogma issue which doesn't exist in Europe.

That's not true. We had a big wave of protests in Poland, because of reversal of right to abortion. Our previous laws weren't liberal, abortion WAS only possible if it posed a health hazard or the kid was severely ill. Now we have the same abortion laws as the fucking Vatican. It's crazy. Getting the day-after pills is almost impossible, etc. Very Christian country. We are analogous to some Republican state in the US. There are a few other similar outliers in the EU.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Girzo said:

That's not true. We had a big wave of protests in Poland, because of reversal of right to abortion. Our previous laws weren't liberal, abortion WAS only possible if it posed a health hazard or the kid was severely ill. Now we have the same abortion laws as the fucking Vatican. It's crazy. Getting the day-after pills is almost impossible, etc. Very Christian country. We are analogous to some Republican state in the US. There are a few other similar outliers in the EU.

And that is fueled by religious folk.

Eastern Europe is not as developed.

[Hardkill]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And that is fueled by religious folk.

Eastern Europe is not as developed.

why do Eastern European countries generally have more religious dogma than the Western European countries?

[Girzo]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And that is fueled by religious folk.

Eastern Europe is not as developed.

Poland is not Eastern Europe. That's like saying Texas is Mexico.

It's the religious fanatics I would even say who hold the grip on the government, because the rulling right-wing party needs their votes to uphold total majority

5 hours ago, Hardkill said:

why do Eastern European countries generally have more religious dogma than the Western European countries?

All these countries are lacking in development a few hundreds years. Countries like France or the Netherlands already had some industrial economies, while the Eastern europe was only producing wheat and other food.

[Lyubov]

Eastern Europe IMO has less dogma than the Bible Belt in the USA but more than Western Europe. Corruption and a lack of industry is a huge factor why it’s behind development compared to the west. Middle America would be a third world slum if it weren’t connected to the liberal east and west coasts. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Lyubov

[Fleetinglife]

16 hours ago, Vrubel said:

For some reason, you projected this onto Britain. 

Thatcher did this also because of the busting of the powerful mining and industrial unions in the North, to distract the public from those domestic issues and the internal issues that came up with her privatizing of major industries and public services and gradual privatizing and stripping of public housing the giant unemployment rate it generated afterward. Look it up. 

Also, btw Falklands should be officially recognized as Argentinian territory, and not a base for British white settler farmer plants.

16 hours ago, Vrubel said:

Countries are myths and precisely therefore they need to have even more myths to seem real

There is a fine line between romanticizing the countries past and outright revisionism with the making up and no basis in historical fact. That can be dangerous and deluding stuff. In fact, I live in a country where that is a very dangerous symptom of many prejudiced, biased, and close-minded rigid and unenlightened uneducated minds who are sold myths about their countries past and immediate history by bad-faith actors and politicians in the interest of making them easily manipulable, dominatable, impressionable and influenced for them to gain and hold onto power and to keep lording over them physically and mentally

 

16 hours ago, Vrubel said:

Sorry, I cannot read this. You seem passionate about this topic yet you don't bother to write in a coherent and understandable fashion. 

.Sorry for writing it that way, I wrote in a hurry. I basically here agreed with your assumption that smaller countries in Europe have an easier time to spirally develop because of fewer contradictions in their history and polity in which they economically develop and govern themselves.

16 hours ago, Vrubel said:

First of all: Be more coherent and intellectual, you just ramble.

I was being ironic. Sorry I got carried away with the analogy.

 

16 hours ago, Vrubel said:

Ireland has an independent country and Scotland (which is in a constitutionally equal union with England (as reflected in the flag and coat of arms)) can leave by referendum. 

Look up the trade problems leaving the EU caused for Ireland with Northern Ireland which is still in the EU. Scotland and the Scottish National Party say they want to do is, since they want to be a part of the EU, but somehow they always felt short to carrying on with the referendum and that they will try this again. I meant it primarily in the economic sense they suffer for their decisions and their consequences. I didn't mean it in the literal sense they were hostages, you took it literally, though I didn't express myself clearly so part of that is my fault as well and I apologize for making you think that I meant that in that way.

 

16 hours ago, Vrubel said:

Dude... don't be so fragile. In a political context, you can say "Europe" and refer to the liberal democracies of western Europe.

Poland and Hungary are still liberal democracies in the theoretical political sense, though practically they don't function as ones and are usurped. But that's what I wanted to notify and point you on towards is a very discriminatory and biased way to use the term 'Europe' is sometimes used as to somehow noting these countries because of their political system dysfunction are no longer now Europe, even though they always were in the geographical sense and their shared histories been a central part to European culture and traditions.

 

16 hours ago, Vrubel said:

I am myself an Eastern European.

All the more sense for you to be critical of the way that concept is used, that primarily is used to discriminate against your former countrymen as not 'European' or part of 'Europe' any longer because of their political system and current values.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[vizual]

Abortion is murder. Stop twisting facts. This article is a liberal propaganda piece to stir up hate against the Republicans. Liberals don't give any facts, just appeals to the indignation of 'oppressed people'.

[DocWatts]

@vizual If that's your position, are you also fully supportive of funding universal health care, universal child care, paid family leave, high quality public education, and social welfare programs for struggling families?

Do you support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?

Are these things also important to you, or do you see society's obligation to the well being of children end once an infant has left it's mother's womb?

Edited December 15, 2021 by DocWatts

[vizual]

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

@vizual If that's your position, are you also fully supportive of funding universal health care, universal child care, paid family leave, high quality public education, and social welfare programs for struggling families?

Do you support comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?

Are these things also important to you, or do you see society's obligation to the well being of children end once an infant has left it's mother's womb?

I'm not a communist or socialist so no, I don't support that the state takes away all responsibilities of the parents to raise their child. People need a bit of struggle in their lives, because that is a part of life anyway. Just pumping money around is not going to take that away.

But of course, government should support single mothers that are struggling. It should be easier for people to adopt a child. I'm all for helping people that are struggling in life. Because everyone deserves a minimum standard of living, and everyone deserves a chance at life. With abortion you take away a chance at life for someone that was supposed to have one.

And yeah, I'm all for sex education and such. I don't think it's going to help much though, but I am in favor of it. But to answer your last question, the responsibility always belongs first to the parents, not the government. The primary task of the government is to protect the freedom and safety of its citizens. Not to take over the life of every individual.

[DocWatts]

@vizual If I'm understanding you correctly you're not opposed to social programs that aim to raise the socio-economic floor, and that everyone has the right to a decent standard of life.

But have you perhaps considered that forcing people to give birth who aren't emotionally or financially able to support a child might be contributing to cyclical trends of generational poverty and emotional neglect/abuse? And that people who grow up in abusive or neglectful circumstances are more more likely to harm other people as a result?

You mention parental responsibility. Does that extend to giving the parents the right to terminate a pregnancy if its determined to be particularly dangerous to the mother? Or if the doctors can tell that a pregnancy is unviable? If not, are there any circumstances where abortion should be allowed?

You also mention that sex education mostly doesn't help. What in your experience leads you to believe that this is indeed the case (since the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests otherwise)?

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by DocWatts

[vizual]

30 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

@vizual If I'm understanding you correctly you're not opposed to social programs that aim to raise the socio-economic floor, and that everyone has the right to a decent standard of life.

But have you perhaps considered that forcing people to give birth who aren't emotionally or financially able to support a child might be contributing to cyclical trends of generational poverty and emotional neglect/abuse? And that people who grow up in abusive or neglectful circumstances are more more likely to harm other people as a result?

You mention parental responsibility. Does that extend to giving the parents the right to terminate a pregnancy if its determined to be particularly dangerous to the mother? Or if the doctors can tell that a pregnancy is unviable? If not, are there any circumstances where abortion should be allowed?

You also mention that sex education mostly doesn't help. What in your experience leads you to believe that this is indeed the case (since the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests otherwise)?

 

I'm not in favor of forcing for women to get pregnant, as that is their own responsibility. What I'm not in favor of is killing human beings in the womb. And yes, I know that the reality is that people who are not emotionally mature yet will become pregnant anyway. But the right decision is not to shift that responsibility on an innocent lifeform that won't get a chance at life because of a lack of maturity in the mother.

I'm generally against fighting evil with evil. Trying to solve poverty with killing babies? That's just not a viable and moral solution, nor is it an effective one. The right to abortion has little to no effect on the level of poverty and abuse. We should make sure we create enough support systems for families and single mothers in need. We really do not need to resort to killing innocent babies. Who else, in history, resorted to killing a certain demographic to, supposedly 'solve' societal problems? The Nazi's. 

And yes, if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. It's justified to choose the mother over the baby. In that instance we have to be pragmatic and concede that there is no way to save both lives. Regarding unviable pregnancy; I'm not sure on this. I have read reports of doctors that have told their patients that their baby was unviable, but came out healthy anyway. So i'm not sure on this issue. But overall, I don't think it's ever morally justified to kill a baby in the womb.

Regarding sex education; I'm totally for sex education that promotes safe and responsible sexual behavior to prevent pregnancies and STDs. And you are right, research does seem to indicate there is some effectiveness in its usage, so that's a good sign. I said that it mostly won't help because it won't help to drastically reduce the enormous numbers of abortions that are done every year. Most women that get pregnant know the risks of having unprotected sex. They know, they just do it anyway. Also, we are living in a 'hookup culture' where sex is available around every corner. People don't have to try any more to get sex. And I think that promoting and normalizing abortions just aid to this culture. Which I see as a low conscious culture. A high conscious culture takes responsibility for its actions, not evades it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE

Edited December 15, 2021 by vizual

[Hardkill]

6 hours ago, Girzo said:

All these countries are lacking in development a few hundreds years. Countries like France or the Netherlands already had some industrial economies, while the Eastern europe was only producing wheat and other food.

Yeah, but Russia now is one of the most powerful countries in the world and has about the 11th largest economy in the world. So, why does that country still have such a very authoritarian regime?

[Vrubel]

8 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

Also, btw Falklands should be officially recognized as Argentinian territory, and not a base for British white settler farmer plants.

First of all, your logic is mute because Argentina itself is mostly of European descent ("white settler" to use a boogie term). The Falklands are British for the simple reason it's Inhabitat by British people, (The Islands actually never had natives). On top of that Britain has the proven capability for responsible government and defense. Something Argentina can not guarantee to put it mildly. 

So Love or hate her but Thatcher was completely justified in defending her land and people.

 

8 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

There is a fine line between romanticizing the countries past and outright revisionism with the making up and no basis in historical fact. That can be dangerous and deluding stuff. In fact, I live in a country where that is a very dangerous symptom of many prejudiced, biased, and close-minded rigid and unenlightened uneducated minds who are sold myths about their countries past and immediate history by bad-faith actors and politicians in the interest of making them easily manipulable, dominatable, impressionable and influenced for them to gain and hold onto power and to keep lording over them physically and mentally

I get your point, lack of critical thinking can lead to dark places. Still, I would say focus more on your own mind. Seek understanding and beauty. Prioritize that over ideological crusading. 
 

8 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

I didn't mean it in the literal sense they were hostages, you took it literally, though I didn't express myself clearly so part of that is my fault as well and I apologize for making you think that I meant that in that way.

I get it now, just watch your word use. Overusing hyperbolic terms will make you come across as an alarmist nutcase, be more nuanced instead. 

 

8 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

Poland and Hungary are still liberal democracies in the theoretical political sense, though practically they don't function as ones and are usurped. But that's what I wanted to notify and point you on towards is a very discriminatory and biased way to use the term 'Europe' as to somehow noting these countries because of their political system dysfunction are no longer now Europe, even though they always were in the geographical sense and their shared histories been a central part to European culture and traditions.

Don't be so pedantic over the use of a conceptual term. It's perfectly understandable to say "Europe" in reference to Western Europe in a political context.

 

8 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

All the more sense for you to be critical of the way that concept is used, that primarily is used to discriminate against your former countrymen as not 'European' or part of 'Europe' any longer because of their political system and current values.

Eastern Europeans are not that insecure. They don't consider themselves some sorry oppressed minority. Russians and Ukrainians themselves refer to "Europe" as meaning Western Europe. There is just absolutely no issue here.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Vrubel

[Girzo]

46 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yeah, but Russia now is one of the most powerful countries in the world and has about the 11th largest economy in the world. So, why does that country still have such a very authoritarian regime?

Russia is super-poor for European standards. It is even poorer than Poland per capita. Considering most of their wealth comes from gas and other natural resources, and not i dustry and services, that makes them even poorer, more akin to Saudi Arabia, than Germany. They are poor per capita and even then that money is unevenly distributed. Building institutions and infrastructure takes time, Russia doesn't have roads in many place while Austria can afford to renew their asphalt every 4 years. It's crazy, I haven't seen a pothole in Austria once when I been there. Stupid amounts of wealth, Russia not even close. Russia also has low-density of population in most regions, it's basically Moscow, and the rest of the country is an abandoned 3rd world country. I am exagerrating, but Russia has a lot of work to do.

[Yarco]

Call me crazy, but in my worldview it feels like the opposite of what the NYT article is saying.

For me it's the "Black people, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, L.G.B.T.Q. people and, yes, women, particularly liberal ones" that are in charge, and the tech companies helping to push their agenda.

If you question whether there are more than 2 genders, or anything about LGBT or trans people, stuff that would've just been accepted by the majority of people 20 years ago, you get deplatformed from all social media, people try to get you doxxed and  fired from your jobs.

These groups oppress white people, especially their kids, basically telling them that they're evil and their ancestors are all evil colonialists. Even not getting involved isn't good enough any more. Your radical friends will tell you "silence is violence" if you don't get involved and change your social media to a BLM profile pic.

Every major company changes their profile pictures on Twitter/Instagram/etc to rainbow stuff during pride month. All the schools, hospitals, etc in my city fly a Pride flag year-round. US embassies around the world have Pride flags. Companies are now encouraged to do more diversity hiring, basically anti-white practices where less qualified people can get hired simply because they're a minority.

I am part of the "racist white patriarchy" and I definitely don't feel in charge, or capable of subjugating anyone.

Maybe in America things are drastically different. Here in Canada even our conservative party is about as left-leaning now as Democrats in the US, with most of the others more like leftists/socialists. I voted for the only "real" right party in our last Federal election, basically a fringe group that popped up within the past 2 election cycles, and they only got 5% of the vote and 0 seats in Parliament. The racist right-wing people aren't coming for you any time soon, we're literally powerless atm.