EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

YF-23 posted:

Do you want to discuss feminism in the context of European politics? Then this is the thread for you! Do you want to discuss feminism in a more general context? Then I'm afraid this is not the thread for you.

How can you discuss feminism in the context of European politics without wandering into feminism in a more general context? Especially considering the types that frequent this thread.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 13:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:18

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Velkest posted:

we must pretend refugees are civil, lawabiding people who respect women and children, against all of reality?

They aren't?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 17:44

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Majorian posted:

No, I'm saying that when secularism (or religion or morality or whatever) is enforced in a way that is pretty clearly targeted towards any minority group, it makes it considerably less likely that that minority group will assimilate.

e: I mean, FFS, how is this an unclear concept to so many Europeans? How is the U.S., of all places, more clued-in on this?

Secularism can create a neutral space for people to co-exist in, regardless of their beliefs, and in that sense it's very beneficial to multiculturalism. Burqa-bans and the like aren't part of that, though, and are generally just forms of racism that use the language of secularism to gain traction with liberals.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 18:54

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Majorian posted:

Yeah, the emphasis was meant to be on the "enforced" part of "enforced secularism."

What's "enforced secularism" to you, then?

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 19:20

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Majorian posted:

Stuff like banning clothing that is predominantly worn by Muslim women out of piety, for example. That sort of thing signals to the Muslim minority that their values are incompatible with the West's, which is not a message you want to send if you want them to integrate.

It's actually worse than just the symbolic message it sends - it actively prevents some Muslim women from participating in society by throwing up an additional barrier. Because they're uncomfortable appearing in public without some form of headdress or if they're unwilling to, they start to actively avoid participation in, for instance, the public sector where bans have popped up in the past. Then there's the social aspect of how their community reacts to take into account. It's even worse with actual burqa bans, because (despite the burqa being rare here) it leads to devout Muslim women being essentially stuck in their own home. This is a huge issue in Islamic-oriented feminism and you'll be hard pressed to find a proper feminist promoting any of these bans.

That said, it seems somewhat unfair to associate these bans with secularism as they're ultimately just veiled racism.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 19:56

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Cat Mattress posted:

In the specific case of France, you've got to understand that there isn't any popular left-wing candidate -- there's no Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, w

Jean-Luc M�lenchon will triumph, my friend.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2016 18:15

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

YF-23 posted:

Fukushima's lesson isn't that safety standards must be followed. We already loving knew that. Fukushima's lesson is that standards will inevitably not be followed, given enough time. The real takeaway is not "they hosed up and they shouldn't have", it's just, simply, "they hosed up".

I'm not saying this in defence of fossil fuel. There is no true answer to the energy question other than "keep improving renewables, which will take decades if not centuries to replace all energy needs". But pro-nuclear people seem to consistently ignore that, nuclear power plants have the potential for far greater ecological impact when the people running them do a bad job. Again, I'm not saying that this means fossil fuel is good.

Yeah, people here in Europe try to pretend like if there wasn't an anti-nuclear sentiment, every nuclear plant would be brand new and totally safe - but even if everyone was all for it, we'd still have a bunch of old, semi-disintegrating plants and not a lot of incentives to build new ones. Nuclear plants are expensive and a huge hassle to build. Energy companies tend to follow the path of least resistance and as long as they can keep the old plants running, they will. Here in Belgium, we're supposed to move away from nuclear energy and there was a plan at some point for a nuclear exit. But as it is right now, the plants are all still open, ignoring both the exit and the recommended lifespan of these old-rear end reactors. The reason for this is that green energy can't replace nuclear due to lack of investment... but if both the private companies and the government aren't willing to invest in green energy, why would we assume they'd invest in nuclear if given the chance?

I find that people who are pro-nuclear power are too focused on theory and what could be done - but it's not the theory I'm worried about, it's the practical application.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 20:37

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Friendly Humour posted:

Yeah, and renewables people never harp on about the 'potential' of renewables if only we just invested and buitl uit. And in the meantime those good ol' coal plants from the soviet era keep chugging away in east germany. Super solution

I mean, it's obvious that I think it's a problem. But in terms of potential for disaster if handled improperly, which is apparently the only way it'll be handled, green energy has a massive advantage over nuclear. So imo we should invest in green energy. You're welcome.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 20:50

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Well, obviously if you assume government is completely useless, then there's not much to be done.

�\_(ツ)_/�

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 20:53

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Andrast posted:

I guess we could just shove money into science and hope for a breakthrough that magically changes that but that's not exactly realistic.

Seems to be the way forward for both renewables and nuclear, though.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 20:57

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Andrast posted:

Nuclear energy works right now, renewables don't. If you want to reduce the usage of fossil fuels by a relevant amount nuclear is basically the only option.

Renewables don't work?

MeLKoR posted:

If potential for disaster is the deciding factor then we should go back to animal power.

That sounds like a bad idea.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 21:05

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Andrast posted:

Not as the main base of your energy. Renewables can be an additional energy resource but they absolutely need something else to form the base of the energy structure (some countries with a fuckload of hydropower might be an exception).

Why tho?

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 21:11

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Cat Mattress posted:

But as long as your nuclear power plants are managed by a competent administration that is concerned entirely by security and reliability and gives absolutely zero gently caress at all to profitability, corner cutting, and the masturbation habits of shareholders, nuclear power is the best option we have currently.

I've got some bad news for you, buddy.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 21:57

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Flowers for Algeria is right and we should start by renationalising the energy sector and then continue by nationalising the rest as well.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 21:59

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Flowers For Algeria posted:

I'm more interested in knowing if this failed Columbine poo poo will revive moral panics about Death Metal, video games and satanism.

Inshallah.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 19:31

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

LemonDrizzle posted:

This is completely incorrect - there was a strong negative public reaction against any suggestion of going easy on Greece in several northern and eastern european countries.

I wonder why that was

# ¿ Mar 21, 2017 17:35

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Seph posted:

more educated, wealthy and open minded than average. All of those traits are pretty anti-fascist in nature

Hmm.

# ¿ May 7, 2017 16:45

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Party Plane Jones posted:

https://twitter.com/LydiaBurrell/status/861296157817008128

It's even better when you realise that's actually his cartoon about the Paris terror attacks.

# ¿ May 7, 2017 20:10

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Fiction posted:

Just a reminder to the Macron cheerleaders- almost nobody likes his program. Watch the space for legislative elections.

Imagine voting for Macron for reasons other than to stop Le Pen. Embarrassing.

# ¿ May 9, 2017 16:30

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

What kind of pathetic idiot would you have to be to do that?

# ¿ May 9, 2017 16:31

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Pinch Me Im Meming posted:

You're being sardonic but yeah, i'm asking the same question; only literally.

Nothing sardonic about that question.

# ¿ May 9, 2017 16:39

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

I don't think Le Pen or any Le Pen-ite is ever going to win the presidency. What's going to happen is that she'll be a contender and pull the rhetoric on issues like immigration and race to the right, but the French will never become majority fascist or not turn out in sufficient numbers to keep her out. Elections like this one will become the new normal for a while, probably until Le Pen retires/is couped, with things continually getting worse and worse and worse.

If there's one thing you can bet on in Western European politics it's the general hatred for and fear of actual meaningful change.

# ¿ May 17, 2017 17:26

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

GaussianCopula posted:

"if you don't support us Nazis will take power". In my opinion its a terrible argument

Not surprising that argument wouldn't work on you.

# ¿ May 17, 2017 18:15

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Orange Devil posted:

Are you really this naive or just really stupid?

Oh, I know!

# ¿ May 20, 2017 17:52

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

tempon por esperanto por brili

# ¿ May 22, 2017 14:25

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Cat Mattress posted:

Well the answer is obvious, when you actually bother to think about it.

Therein lies the rub.

# ¿ May 26, 2017 14:54

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

GaussianCopula posted:

It seems like soldiers on the streets do actually provide some protection against (incompetent) terrorists

https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/877267947231875072

I'm kinda surprised that terrorists are THAT dumb.

Considering his bomb was triggered but failed to explode properly and the soldiers shot him afterwards, I don't think this is a prime example of soldiers on the streets providing protection. And frankly, a cop could've done exactly the same thing.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 11:43

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Deltasquid posted:

They prevented a possible days-long manhunt and terror alert and 48 hour media scandal and reduced it to a news ticker. It's taking the "terror" out of terrorism. How is this hard to grasp.

A cop could've done the same thing.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 12:18

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:

I don't think anyone ever advocated for soldiers replacing police. The point is to get more people with guns on the street in a very short time.

Double people with guns on the street = double chance to shoot an Allah snack bar in progress

We don't have a shortage of cops here in Belgium, certainly not when it comes to hotspots like the train stations. Putting soldiers on the streets is purely a PR move.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 12:31

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Deltasquid posted:

This is false, we keep gutting our police force to the point that off-duty police officers were asked to do extra work on the weekends when guarding the French border back when we reintroduced border checks with the Bataclan. They're even talking about reducing the police's work to "the core of police work" and leaving silly things like guarding banks and regulating traffic at intersections to private security like G4S.

EDIT: if your argument is "we need to invest more in police so we don't need the military to do police work" then we're in agreement, but that's factually not the case and I'd rather have soldiers be deployed than nobody at all.

The Bataclan French border thing isn't a great example. We basically revived the border guard with France from one day to another - it's not surprising that we didn't have the manpower on hand to do that and increase security elsewhere.

And yeah, like you said, the privatisation of the police force is straight garbage. But we're not at the point yet where we're running that low on cops that we can't up the security at major hot spots without relying on soldiers. The issue is that while they can do it, thanks to budget cuts, it means taking that manpower from elsewhere. I guess you've got a point in saying rather soldiers than nobody, but ultimately it's just papering over the cracks. And not only are those cracks going to get bigger, it's also the principle of it - soldiers don't belong on our streets. It sends the wrong message on so many fronts, aside from being plain wrong on principle.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 13:51

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Einbauschrank posted:

Wow, this Melenchon really demonstrates why he's the left's posterboy:
An ugly old man with ugly old men's attitude, bullying those more intelligent than him and showing off small-minded nationalism. The old reactionary left's answer to Trump.

Everybody who voted for him should feel ashamed.

Link of infamy

http://www.lepoint.fr/politique/melenchon-ne-supporte-pas-de-voir-le-drapeau-europeen-a-l-assemblee-21-06-2017-2137037_20.php

I don't read this thread often, is this post satire?

# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 15:49

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Orange Devil posted:

Italians are basically the Americans of Europe.

Said the Dutchman.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 21:23

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Phlegmish posted:

That is purely a New Left idea, limited to the West and the last fifty years. Beyond that context, you might have had the rhetoric about internationalism, but it never amounted to much in practice. In many Cold War conflicts, the liberation struggle was inextricably linked to nationalism, often to excess. Pol Pot murdered Vietnamese and Christians, North Korea aborts half-Chinese babies, Stalin deported the Chechens, the list goes on. They are not necessarily great examples to follow, but it's stupid to say that Mélenchon is a bad leftist because he is actually distinguishable from a generic liberal waffling about European integration and how borders are evil. He just deviates from the current norm.

Don't talk about things you don't know anything about, you piece of poo poo.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2017 12:39

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Kurtofan posted:

oof i like this article a lot

http://www.francetvinfo.fr/election...us_2243827.html

pro-read if you want some marcheur tears

Opportunists crashing and burning will never not be funny.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2017 10:26

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Now that the French, the Germans and the Brits have their own thread, Europol's finally ready for its true purpose: Belgian politics

they're poo poo!

# ¿ Jun 28, 2017 17:13

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

unpacked robinhood posted:

Belgium worked reasonably well with no government.

It was better than the current government.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2017 20:49

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

MiddleOne posted:

It's still immensely funny to me that Belgium pretty much made it out well of the Eurozone crisis almost exclusively by not having a government that could enact austerity.

That was the 2007-2008 financial crisis, actually. From 2009 until 2014, we had two semi-stable governments, both tripartite monstrosities that included the social democratic Parti Socialiste and the liberal MR/Open VLD. So we had austerity during those years, but a light version of it. Ever since 2014, though, we've been going full hog.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2017 20:57

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

lollontee posted:

Hey if you wanna go and deny that the Congolese retain a national identity and a state older than their conquest by the colonialist powers, you do you mate.

I haven't really been following the discussion and I probably don't agree with kwarezm's position, but Cerebral Bore use of Congo as an example is disingenuous and your posts about Congolese history are incredibly wrong.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2017 14:04

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Hambilderberglar posted:

What would one read on Congolese history? I don't know enough about that area of the world to know who's wrong and would like to change this. (Mainly to yell at someone for being wrong)

I'm not good with book recommendations, but people seem to really like Congo: The Epic History of a People by David Van Reybrouck. Noted Belgian national conscience when it comes to the matter of Congo, Ludo De Witte, has criticised it for sort of glossing over the brutality of the Belgian regime as well as using mainly pro-regime sources - but it's very well regarded and supposedly a good read. I'm sure the Africa thread would have some more recommendations.

Cerebral Bore posted:

What exactly is disingenious about using the Congo as a counterexample to the idea that a countries with a large population, vast natural resources and a huge amount of land can always industrialize super easily?

I don't agree with the statement that countries with a large population, vast natural resources and huge amounts of land industrialise super easily, but comparing two countries so wildly different in time frame (late 19th c/early 20th c vs late 20th c) and in context (eastern european serf state vs ex-colony) is comparing apples and oranges. Doesn't negate your point, but still.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2017 20:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:18

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

nimby posted:

Speaking of Belgium, a recent poll was leaked that shows the fallout of several corruption affairs in Brussels and Wallonia. The Parti Socialiste which was at the center of them loses big and the voters are going hard left. The PTB (extreme left) would be the biggest party with 24,9%, where in the last election they got 5.

If true, this is the nightmare scenario for the right wing parties in Flanders and we can all watch as we Belgians break our own record in government formation.

Good. We're also slated to break through in Flanders, though due to the inherent inferiority of the Fleming, it's not quite as impressive as in Wallonia.

Cerebral Bore posted:

I don't want to belabour the obvious, but the whole point to a counterexample is to pick an object of comparison that shares the characteristics of the object under disussion that are claimed to be decisive, yet differs from it in some significant way that demonstrates that the characteristics in question were in fact not the decisive ones.

So I'm afraid to say thay your objection makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.

I guess I was working on the assumption that that guy was making a point that was limited in time and scope - let's say early industrialising nations during the nineteenth and early twentieth century - otherwise you might as well have picked some historical empire or somesuch as a counterexample.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2017 13:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

«‹›2 »