One party says nice things about what they'll do about it, the other party denies it's happening altogether. How anyone "independently" minded can look at that alone and not at least "caucus" with the Democrats is continually baffling to me. — Xtrix

Yes, Xtrix, how can thinking people vote Republican?

Perhaps Eisenhower can be understood, but how could the American people pick Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior, Bush junior and Trump???

(hint: be as condescending towards your fellow citizens as you can in the reasoning.)

Of all the countries in Europe, you choose as an example of political ugliness Sweden?

Baffling. — Xtrix

Quite logically: it's our neighbor. We have a habit looking to Sweden for examples how things ought to be done. We usually don't look to the East, for some reason.

However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions. — Tzeentch

When did that last time happen? Under Obama or earlier?

Unfortunately there's no incentive for the US to change it's unwavering support of Israel at every stance. On the contrary, the support is even more fervent.

yeah that image is dope as hell, but the GOP gleefully calls everyone and everything they don't like a socialist, and they've been doing it for nearly a century so if they are going to call anything the Democrats do "socialist" might as well elect a socialist, or at least a self-described one. — Maw

So it's like now the boy crying "Wolf!" can genuinely cry wolf, because what the heck, let's give him a wolf?

Yes, At least with Bernie you have a politician that has stated to being a socialist. So at least it's not just fabricated lies. And I think you know perfectly well how Trump will go on with the campaign: the only way he knows.

I don't see any other outcome than that the polarization will get worse, any kind of real debate will be marginalized with the ad hominems and the foolish invented topics. Likely it's even worse than in 2016 and this might discourage people from voting.

I fear is that all the ugliness in elections and polarization will come to this continent too as our politicians eagerly mimic what you are doing. At least here it's not so bad as in Sweden, but it could go there.

I could go on citing examples, legal documents and statements by NGOs, but I'm not going to. If this doesn't get through to you, nothing will and I am wasting my time. — Tzeentch

You could actually do that, because otherwise your reasoning is quite lazy.

If you've made academic research or studies about it, then please use those arguments that you know! Enlighten us then. You've visited the country so others should shut up or what? If I have studied and visited the Soviet Union and later Russia, have stayed with an ordinary Russian family, I do have my personal insights, but I won't declare that my understanding of the country is better because of that than others ipso facto. That's just inherently silly.

In the typical manner, perhaps you assume I'm defending Israel for some reason or another (perhaps related to US politcs or so).

Wrong.

What I've said is that the present situation isn't unbearable for Israelis. The low intensity conflict can go on. And it can go on especially as the country has such a devoted ally as the US behind it. Nobody is really pushing the state to change it's ways, as they did in the case of South Africa. It's not only the Likud and the fundamentalist Jews as the culprits. Secular Israelis have to also accept the present, or at least tolerate it. That is an important issue.

It is really important to give the concrete examples, give an objective and well reasoned views than just to declare Israel is racist.

If one thing is very clear from the 2020 election is:

- Aggressive accusations and ad hominem attacks
- not much substance or debate about policies.

And Americans will be even more divided.

Whopee. Can't wait for this shit show.

Am I (are we) even allowed to talk about Israel, because we aren't Israelis!?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. In both cases things haven't worked out. — Tzeentch

Hasn't worked out for Israel? How so?

The low intensity conflict solution has actually worked out quite well. Israel has had better economic growth than the US. Unemployment is low, social mobility is high. In the Human Development Index Israel ranks above Spain, France and Italy. Netanyahu has stayed in power. Things are quite OK for Israel.



A low intensity conflict is totally different from a conventional war. You don't have the military on a wartime footing, which would be a severe strain on the military.

Just like the US has now been at war since 2001. Where do you see this in every day life? Do people notice it? No.

You’ve brought up “cultural Marxism” in reference to my posts many times even if I’ve never mentioned it. For the record I don’t believe in it, nor have I read anyone who espouses the theory. — NOS4A2

I know already your viewpoint (that you don't believe it) and I agree with you.

What I'm commenting is that this is the wrong way to criticize PC culture, because it's nonsense. In fact, in this forum I think we do discuss matters with genuine Marxists (if there are any) or hardcore leftists, and they have nothing to do with "Cultural Marxism".

Recall the lady who made an unfortunate joke about Africa on Twitter just before flying there, only to realize she had been fired from her job before landing. People took offence, found out where she worked, and to save face the company fired her. — NOS4A2

Luckily these are individual occasions. I'm not sure if these kind of incidents are an epidemic. More this shows just how easily people can be fired in the US.

The real question is, WHY would we care about Celeste Ng's totally absurd opinion?

It's a foolish argument.

International law often leaves room when it comes to military necessity. As such, whenever Israel breaches international law, and it makes quite a habit of it, it claims there is such a necessity. — Tzeentch

Foolish or not, that is the line.

You could argue that it's also foolish to occupy a country, because a financial backer of a terrorist strike lived there (but otherwise the country's regime had no involvement in the terrorist attack). That only the numbers of killed made an otherwise police matter so different that the country eagerly went to war and later invading another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist strike (and no WMD project whatsoever). Yet that's the reality.

The Israeli government (the right-wing parts, of course) isn't concerned about security. They are concerned about painting Israel/Palestine in the colors of the Israeli flag. — Tzeentch

One has to remember that the Likud has just a quarter of the seats in the Knesset. And there is a non-religious faction there too. Of all the excesses, shootings, demolitions of homes and etc. in the Occupied Territories, there still are Jews killed by Palestinians.

Republicans will surely want to portray the Democratic candidate being the candidate of uhhh.... your taste, maw. Hence labour unions and Social Democrats (correction!) Democrat Socialists being the true core supporters fits them fine.

I'm much more interested in the fact that several young politicians (of color) who will take up the mantel of Left politics in America, such as Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar endorsed Bernie, as did Pramila Jayapal (et. al.) I'm much more interested that Labor Organizations such as National Nurses United (representing 150K nurses), or the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (representing 36K blue collar workers) and others, endorsed Bernie. — Maw

The Trump team should also like this.

Israel isn't in a war, like in 1973, in 1982 or in 2006 with it's neighbours.

What I've stated is that Israel is in a permanent low-intensity conflict with the Palestinians, in a state of Peace with aspects of permanent war. And that this is the reason, which then makes norms that otherwise you would only find under martial law and at war time present in Israel.

Benkei argues that this is because of Zionism. I argue that Zionism is a minor issue (as the state of Israel already exists) and that the implemented policies are driven by the security viewpoint, not by an ideology. It is putting the carriage before the horse, but that's as like in the US where it was decided that the country would go to war against a method (the War on Terror).

I understand all of your points, but what about the Anglo-American pact to carve up and take over the Middle East after WWII? Surely they are to blame for just as many atrocities. Perhaps that’s a discussion for another thread, but “don’t point out the moat in another’s eye when there is a beam in yours” and all that. — Noah Te Stroete

And what right did the Ottomans have to take over the Middle East?
Or the Muslims before them?
Or the Romans/Byzantines, the Sassanids, the Macedonians, the Persians? Did I forget the Mongols?

What is the convenient culprit for us to blame here?

The one we want to blame?

One thing is what has happened in history and in during wartime.

Another thing is what is happening in peace time and now.

According to its biggest critics it derives from the halls of higher academia, some of the most privileged institutions in the history of the universe. It also manifests in corporate censorship. — NOS4A2

Here is one thing I'd like to point out.

PC "deriving" from higher academia and "manifesting" itself in corporate censorship is the wrong way to think about it (in my humble view). The conspirational view is that the leftist academia teaches PC to the students and these SJWs then occupy positions in the corporate World. I would disagree. It's not an agenda of higher academia, just as higher academia isn't infiltrated and taken over by "cultural marxists". This narrative misses the point and paints a picture of intent. The whole thing is far more unintentional without any objectives and agendas. Sure, there are SJWs, but these really are a small 'youthful minority' as izat so describes them. And perhaps this is something that many people don't get: many things in the World happen without a culprit pushing it to happen. Phenomena are just the end result of many different things coming together without active coordination by some individual entity.

Let's think about corporate censorship. Corporations typically handle public relations with a PR department, which usually isn't part of marketing, but a tool of the corporate leadership. The way these departments and spokesperson view this is seeing that their most important objective is to avoid scandals or issues that might send the stock price going down. If you ever have listened to PR people making their case (for their existence), it goes along these lines: public relations and interaction with stakeholders is important to avoid problems. Without taking care of these relations, the corporation is in trouble (hence you need the PR department).

This opens the door for 'PC culture' because there's people who's JOB is to engage with the community. And who wouldn't think their job was important? Hence you have what NOS4A2 describes as 'corporate censorship'. It doesn't derive from an ideology. Corporate leadership has usually outsourced PR and media relations to 'media' people, just like states have created diplomats to handle the delicate interaction with other states, because those relations are important: if everything goes really wrong, people die. (Hence the need for diplomacy and diplomats)

Let's then think about the academia. Yes, it's mainly liberal, but few are truly Marxists. And how I describe Marxists is that they really say that they are Marxists and genuinely believe in Marxism. Here too the PC attitude emerges unintentionally. Nobody thinks that promoting racism or discrimination is a good thing. Hence the window of discourse is and can be moved, because just defining what is 'racism' and what is 'discrimination' can differ. Add virtue signalling to the picture and that's all you need. You'll get a 'Keynesian Beauty Contest", where the judges don't pick the most beautiful contest they themselves believe, but think what the other stupid judges desire and pick that contestant, even if they don't consider themselves the most beautiful.

I think you’re right about this. Political correctness is not limited to any sort of political party or persuasion, manifests in many ways, and all sides practice variations of it (though in the hidden tribes study only 30% of American progressives believed political correctness is not a problem, deviating from the norm who mostly think it is). — NOS4A2

Correct. Usually the over the top PC arguments are caused by a huge overreaction to something where the 'outraged' people who are there to 'defend' correct values have quite a conspirational view of something valuable being attacked indirectly or in a hidden views. It is all about dog whistles and hidden meanings. And the normal response would be "You cannot be serious!", but the current climate makes us more likely just to be mute.

From the perspective of the right-wing and conservatives, Political Correctness can be seen from issues like defending "family values". Jerry Falwell attacking the British childrens TV show 'Teletubbies' and accusing one of the characters being gay because of the color purple and other 'gay symbols' is a good example right-wing PC outrage. The denial of the producers of having any sexual innuendos in a program intended for toddlers doesn't matter. It just "shows" how vast the "conspiracy" is when it's started at such young age.

And phenomenon won't go anywhere, it will likely just become worse.

Sanders on how big Jeremy Corbyn's win will be. If Sanders is nominated, it would be deja vue all over again. — Wayfarer

YESS!!!

Drawing parallels between anti-establishment anger at both ends of the political spectrum in Britain and the US, the former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination also applauded Jeremy Corbyn’s efforts to reshape the Labour party.

“What has impressed me – and there is a real similarity between what he has done and what I did – is he has taken on the establishment of the Labour party, he has gone to the grassroots and he has tried to transform that party … and that is exactly what I am trying to do,” said Sanders.

“I am also impressed by his willingness to talk about class issues,” he added

:razz:

The comrades want this! They deserve it.

Let's have that Trump Bernie meeting, which Trump chickened out last time.

The difference is that the "return home" cases you cite were not made to the detriment of the existing population there. Israel "went home" by expelling the Palestinians and making the remaining ones second-class citizens. And that discriminatory policy is increasing every day. That is racism.

On the other hand, if you want to compare Israel with all the aberrations of the past I think we will agree. But I think it is a bad policy on your part. — David Mo

Wars change borders and put people to leave their homes. That's just what wars do. Here I think the worth wile discussion would be to focus on your argument "that discriminatory policy is increasing every day".

Is It? Every day?

You have to give reasons for your argument, because otherwise I think you'll fall to the "Jeremy Corbyn-trap": that basically critique of Israel will be seen as anti-semitism. Drinking up too eagerly only one side of the story will be counterproductive.

(The real ethnic cleansing happened during the war in 1948. Atrocities did happen like with Deir Yassin massacre. Again, that's the ugly part of history.)

The trend of PC’s emancipated terminology brings us to a consensus that does not welcome dissent. It makes differences on matters of principle almost unspeakable. This deadening of our language leads to a culture of euphemism and dog-whistle. — NOS4A2

This is partly true. Sure, you can find examples of this, but on the other hand you can find the opposite too. There is great open discussion also. And is this REALLY such a big problem is a valid question. And where I disagree with (for example Jordan Peterson) is that this trend would be a well thought agenda pushed by some (Marxists) leftists. It isn't. Nobody has planned this. It's not even the woke left that actually make this any kind of problem. The left has been all the time like this. It was worse when there still was the Soviet Union. Hence to think that this is a big issue is wrong. The World is far more conservative than it looks to be.

The real problem is simply three things:

1) The vitriol of the social media and the low standards public discussion (when everybody can participate so easily) have changed public discussion. After the 2016 election the hate mongering continued and has basically turned ranting and character assassination into the new norm. Without the historical firewalls of newspapers (which picked just what would be an opinion worthy of print), the public discourse has turned very ugly. Algorithms pick the most aggressive, most outrageous views. This creates the 'toxic' environment.

2) Far too easily we are put into our own echo chambers.

3) People and organizations are so afraid of public accusations that they self censor themselves and start being PC, even if they wouldn't otherwise give a damn.

Given the voice if anti P.C. is far shriller, louder, and more powerful, and the shut-them-down P.C. contingent is a small, youthful minority, — Izat So

How so? Small youthful journalists do have an effect on just what is talked. Both sides here see the other side as shiller, louder and more powerful.

I would say that your fears of P.C. being able to bring consensus to a closed point is misplaced. The FAR greater threat is the far right. — Izat So

Yet you seem not to get it that your paranoid fear of the right, when it comes to Jordan Peterson or whoever, is misplaced. These commentators (like Peterson etc.) denounce the far right, right wing terrorism and racist attacks etc. That seems not to matter to you at all. Perhaps there is this absolutely ludicrous idea that "They have to say that, but they don't mean that", which is ridiculous.

Asking that question in my welfare country would be quite different. Because the homeless people here are:

a) people from other EU countries (mostly from Romania) that have come here to beg.

And basically nobody else.

However, if we look at the problem more carefully, you can see that earlier there were a lot of homeless men in Finland. Absolute poverty had been basically eradicated in the start of the 20th Century, so it wasn't abject poverty anymore. One of the largest groups was at first basically WW2 veterans that didn't fit into the society, couldn't get a job or stay in a job. Then there were the ordinary alcoholics. Hence response of them "having a dual diagnosis of mental illness and substance addiction" would come closer to an universal definition.

(Famous Finnish Cartoonist's take on homelessness in the 1960's. "Puistotäti", 'Park Aunt' refers to a Kindergarten teacher taking care of children in a park. "Puistosetä", 'Park Uncle': those men who spend all of their times in public parks.)


Now the country has become more wealthier homelessness has basically been eradicated, except of the travelling beggars that have found a lucrative niche.

And this thread gets funnier by the minute. — Baden

What else could a thread called "The Roots of Racism" become today?

Hopefully the silliness would be confined just to race & gender issues and the typical 'culture war' talking points, but I'm afraid it will radiate to other topics too.

Once again, Israel gets to decide who can become a citizen and how. It should not discriminate between its own citizens based on their ethnicity or religion. — Benkei

You have to make the case why the state of Israel, not the ultra-orthodox Jewish, are SO different from other countries in this sense. When Israel occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967, it did offer citizenship for occupants of these areas.

And is the idea of 'Homeland' inherently racist?

Nation states do have this tendency to give special treatment to 'their' people living outside the borders of their country. Russia is good example of this today, but so is Germany too. Or how does the German Federal Expellee Law of 1953 sound:

The law applies to refugees and exiles (also known as expellees), which it defines as a German citizen or an ethnic German who resided in the former eastern territories of the German Reich, "located temporarily under foreign administration", or in areas outside the German Reich as at 31 December 1937, who as a result of the events of World War II suffered expulsion, in particular by removing or escape. Those expellees who were not already German nationals became entitled to German citizenship.The law also contained a heredity clause entitling children of expellees to inherit German ethnicity and citizenship. The persons entitled to German citizenship also include (former) foreign citizens of states of the Eastern Bloc, who themselves - or whose ancestors - were persecuted or discriminated between 1945 and 1990 for their German or alleged German ethnicity by their respective governments.

Or how about my country? In 1988 the KGB chief in Helsinki hinted to the Finnish authorities that it would be a good idea to send Ingrians, a small Finnish speaking people living in the Leningrad area, to Finland. And the Finnish President said that fine, we can take them, and roughly about 25 000 immigrated to Finland and got citizenship as "returning" nationals in the 1990's. And what do you know: nobody of the anti-immigration people said hardly anything about this small group entering Finland from the side door.

Was this a racist thing? Or the behaviour of the West German government? How is Israel different?

So the argument is, Israel is a racist country, it's racist because it discriminates between Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Israelis. It has put in law and has Supreme Court rulings enforcing law, institutionalising it and defending it on the basis of Zionist thinking (e.g., it must be a Jewish State, as opposed to a State safe for Jews). It is therefore not anti-semitic to claim that, what I'll call - political -, Zionism is racist. — Benkei

If I've understood your point correctly, our disagreement is on the reason of the oppression. You say it's racism inherent to Zionism. I argue that it is more about the perpetual conflict and security concerns that have pushed the majority in Israel to accept such policies. I still argue that it's a minority of the Jewish Israelis that are religious fundamentalists. State of Israel is more secular than it looks (especially from the viewpoint of Western Europe). Zionism was the rallying cry to create the modern state of Israel, but as the state exists it's objective has been actually met. Israel isn't same as it was in 1949 just as Iran isn't the same as in 1979.

Hence if what you argue would be totally correct, this religious racism (or basically intolerance) based on Zionism would be clearly visible from treatment of the 2% Christian minority in Israel. My security argument wouldn't hold: there hasn't been a Christian uprising and the Christians in Israel don't want an independent homeland for themselves. The relations that Jews and the Notzri have is hence telling of the 'racism' problem. Christian Arabs in Israel are one of the highest educated groups and naturally are in far more better situation than anywhere else in the Middle East. Yes, there is hostility from the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, but are their actions the same as the state of Israel? I don't think so. But here I don't know the situation so clearly, so perhaps I may be simply ignorant.

Perhaps you should state your argument more clearly. We know that you think that the state of Israel is oppressive to minorities. I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you on that. But what does it take for two groups of people that identify themselves as different people to live in one country?

The only solution is there has to be an identity above that, which both can relate to. Being British is a perfect example. Those smart and cunning Englishmen!!! Or then you talk of a confederation or an union. The EU is an perfect example, because it's made up of nation states.

Everyone of us is a child of our time, so was Thomas Hobbes.
He lived through the bloodiest time of English history, and was influenced by exciled royalists when writing Leviathan. And was also a teacher to the Prince of Wales, later king Charles II.

The fact is that events in the real World have an effect in philosophers and their philosophy.

You can ridicule others' justifications for possessing land, but it's doubtful they're more ridiculous than the justifications you have for possessing your land. — Hanover

I agree. The whole talk of 'justice' or somebody having more justification for lands than others is hypocritical stupidity. If enough people make a claim to the land they live in and can hold on to it, that's the "justification". We can hope that nation states behave well to their citizens and to others, but nation states are sovereigns in their own territory...as long as they can defend themselves. The truth is that people have moved, created new states where old states have been and pushed aside others. Things aren't permanent and justice has nothing to do with it. Yeah, history sucks, but's that is the truth.

If McConnell and Trump fail to block Bolton testifying, Trump is toast. — Baden

I'm not sure if any Republican will want to toast Trump. You can allways say that you don't remember.

The "solutions" they come up with are all going to slow down innovation. And innovation is, funnily enough, the very thing that's allowed us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the first place. — Hallucinogen

Luckily this isn't Greta, the teen does know something, it is that she doesn't know everything and it's for the adults to solve the issues. This the good thing about Ms Thunberg.

Yet this can be the real problem even if it might be overblown, it Still is there. Energy policy towards nuclear energy shows that public policy can be very unrealistic and based on prejudices.

I am wagging my finger?

Nope.

It's just that the hostility is so typical, it really does tell what is wrong nowdays with public discussion. You see, this ought to be a Philosophy Forum. That's really, REALLY the telling thing here. If this is people who are interested on philosophy, think about those that just watch sports and follow politics occasionally.

And you can think people are attacking you personally. Wrong. People here are quite anonymous. And sometimes they agree, sometimes not. But usually when they don't know you, they'll be very keen on putting you into a box as some stereotype.

Trump speaks the world goes wild. — NOS4A2

Just like the guy who went on a ferry to the UK and started driving his car on the right lane. When the radio said "Emergency bulletin, one car driving on the wrong lane on the Harwich London road" the guy shouted: "One? Jesus Christ with this Fake News: EVERYBODY is driving on the wrong side!!!!"

Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. It is therefore an error to engage with him. The real clues are in his language. All of his arguments are fallacious. Not least because of their frequent categorical nature. — tim wood

Tim Wood’s hysteria has polluted his reason, so much so that he see’s enemies in everyone who disagrees with him. His borderline McCarthyism reeks of paranoia and fear, and this while he touts justice from the other side of his mealy mouth. — NOS4A2

Philosophy Forum 2020 edition.

If it's all downhill from here, I wonder where the discussion will be in 2024.

Issue #1: How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land — EricH

There is the practical reason that truly gives credibility to all philosophical, ethical, legal and whatever reasons: Other people with similar plots of land accept it.

Hence the recognition of independence by other states creates that independence. You could call it recognition by peers.

Thanks for the links! Looked at them briefly.

Looking at the acri report (Overview of Anti-Democratic Legislation Advanced by the 20th Knesset),I think it shows my point:

The erosion of democracy is manifested in a range of
interdependent initiatives: an attempt to erode the power, authority and activity of
"gatekeepers" - the institutions that make up the democratic structure and constitute the
set of checks and balances that are vital to democracy and ensure the rule of law, good
governance, the protection of human rights and minorities, and the elimination of
corruption and the tyranny of the majority; an attempt to silence critical voices of the
government, including silencing public criticism expressed by social or political minorities;
an attempt to delegitimize political opponents, human rights organizations and minorities;
an attempt to restrict the actions of those holding up to positions that are inconsistent
with those of the political majority; and portraying the minorities in the Israeli society in a generalized manner as enemies of the state, while legitimizing the violation of their civil and political rights.

Portraying the minorities as enemy of state, which is most like written between the lines and not directly, is a symptom of the present conflict. Martial laws are in every country quite undemocratic and do fringe civil rights. The problem in Israel is that when the country is in permament low intensity war, those martial law decrees start to be 'normal' law. The Basic Law ISRAEL - (THE NATION STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE) is said by acri to be undemocratic, but many laws without looking at others might seem so too. But yes, Zionists have been happy with this law.

Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and I've been talking about citizens all this time. They are different things. The institutionalised racism is informed by ultra nationalism and zionism, not the security issue. — Benkei

Really? So what are the one million,one fifth of the Israeli citizens that have Israeli citizenship, but assume that their nationality is Palestinian? Some of the non-Jewish people can indeed live in Israel with just a permanent residence, but many are citizens.

So what's the difference between the non-Jewish resident that lived in after 1949 on Israel and one that lived in the West Bank? Especially if after 1967 the person on the West Bank took the offered Israeli citizenship.

Yes, there's oppression. But my argument that it's done for the sake of security. Only for a minority it's Zionism and racism.

Yes, I'm well aware which is why I said probably. And do you expect the Scots to then discriminate between the English and Scottish Scots living in Scotland based on their ethnicity? Or do you expect they'll treat all Scottish citizens equally? — Benkei

Let me give you another example. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia. There wasn't any violence, any oppression and actually no popular push for the dissolution. In fact, Slovakia just wanted the state to be a loose confederation, while the Czech leadership wanted a tighter federation. Only a small minority wanted the dissolution of the state (in a September 1992 opinion poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favoured dissolution). There was just disagreement on what state would be, yet this velvet divorce happened. This just undermines your "if there is no oppression, people are fine living together" argument.

Basically there has to be some kind of a bond. Just like English and the Scots have the identity of being British, which has worked at least for now. Just like with a marriage, it doesn't work if you just assume that the "I do" in Church years ago is enough. You have to work to keep people together.

You're saying that to the wrong person! I really couldn't care less whether it would be Spain or a centralised EU government as long as it results in a fair society. — Benkei

This explains your view a lot. Then the next question is what would you define as fair and what as oppression? Would it be oppression if every fifth euro you pay taxes would go to Spain as wealth transfer or would it have to be Spanish troops coming to your home and taking away that nice piano you have? What is fair and what is oppressive is a slippery slope.

That’s hilarious. There are, of course, more simple explanations for reserving criticism of a world leader, but sure, Trump’s the Manchurian candidate. — NOS4A2

I don't know what candidate he is, but really, have listened through a Putin-Trump press conference?

It's REALLY different (like Twilight Zone different) from let's say Trump speaking with an "NATO ally", who Trump can pummel all he wants.

But just listen to him speaking to his followers. Then Trump make sense and is consistent. It's a great Witch hunt against him lead by the Obama-Hilarites of the deep state.

What? Like the Sami? — Benkei

Far better treatment for +50 000 Sami people than for the 30-40 million Kurds. Besides, If the Sami would be 1 million people in the nothern parts of the Nordic countries, likely yes, they would have had an independent country long time ago. There as stubborn as Finns are (and totally unrecognizable from Finns without their traditional drees). When there's a will and unity and enough people, there's a way.

Not having an own state isn't the cause of repression: living in a state with institutionalised racism causes it or if it cannot uphold the rule of law. — Benkei

Living in any country where you are considered "other" can be problematic, even if it isn't really institutionalized.

The Kurds are an oppressed people. If they wouldn't be oppressed they'd probably wouldn't have a wish to have an independent country. — Benkei

I disagree. How oppressed are the Scots now? Many of them want an Independent country.

Perhaps we ought to give Netherland back to Spain. I gather that they can behave better this time around and won't oppress you. You don't need Mark Rutte, Pedro Sanchez in Madrid will do just fine.

This is an entirely different issue and is more about international law than Israeli internal laws and policies. — Benkei

Actually it isn't. Especially when you are talking about 'institutionalized' issues, meaning what the goverment does and implements by law. The focus is security, not zionism. It's security issues that are in the forefront when the dealing of the Palestinians in Israel. It is security issues that have made Gaza into what it is today.

It's a general trend that income inequality and social immobility are linearly related. — fdrake

I would have suspected that the UK has high immobility (low social mobility) as it is one of the most traditional class societies. And the stats do tell it.

You can correct inequality through wealth transfers, but you cannot change people when they actually love their class society.

(Reminds me of the story of a Finnish bank manager who went to lead the UK subsidiary. Trying to socialize with his British assistant manager, the Finn thought they would have something in common with sports and took the British banker to watch a football match in London, a thing the Finn had never done before. Well, it was a first for them both.)

The statistic also tells well the story of Latin America. Bigger the portion of the Indian population, bigger the immobility.

And don't forget the leaked Nuland-Pyatt phonecalls when the revolution happening (two of them discussing future Ukraine leadership), or the leaks of the Estonian foreign minister and Catherine Ashton about the confusion of the Maidan snipers ...all brought to you by the same guys that were annexing Crimea and instigating a civil war in Ukraine successfully.

And it worked!

That Maidan revolt was just a bunch of fascists was accepted and worked as charm ...as can be noticed even today.

I suspect this is all connected to “Russian meddling”, and the current impeachment attempt against Trump is an attempt at a cover up. — NOS4A2

No wait? It isn't anymore the 400 pound guy on the bed? Ohh... It's the 'Steele dossier'. Ah yes, Russia is totally innocent. Poor, poor Russia. They wouldn't hurt even a fly.

You know, on this issue I just base my view just on Trump's obscene adulation of Putin, the utterly crazy propositions Trump has made (and has had to quickly backtrack) and the sheer devotedness on NEVER EVER saying one critical thing about his best friend Vlad. Listening through a Donald and Vladimir press conference was like listening to a leader of a Great Power and a proxy puppet government giving a press conference. Hence I reason that yes, we really can talk of Agent Trumpov in the White House. It's the biggest intelligence coup ever in the history of intelligence work.

God forbid someone finds out what went on in Ukraine. — NOS4A2

God forbid you would find out. Washington can keep secrets so well, as we all know.

Ignorance is a precondition for successful media manipulation.