 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/14/2011 2:39, Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered why in Japanese, and probably also in Chinese,
> there's no strict one-to-one-to-one correspondence between a kanji symbol,
> its meaning and its pronounciation.
Because Chinese writing is at least 5000 years old or so. The same writing
system has been evolving for about as long as the pyramids have been around,
so rather a lot older than Judaism, for example. You expect anything used
by a billion people for 5000 years is going to be logical and consistent? :-)
> The whole writing system seems to be
> designed precisely for that: One symbol has (exactly) one meaning and one
> pronounciation, making it completely unambiguous.
I'm sure it started out that way. Now spread it slowly across warring
empires that spanned five time zones, let it stew for a few thousand years
without any means of communication faster than horses, and see if everyone
still agrees on the meaning and pronunciation of everything.
> So the whole idea with the kanji writing system seems
> to be completely wasted, making it overly complicated for no good reason.
I don't think saying "the whole idea with the kanji writing system." I think
saying "a logically designed ideographic writing system would have these
beneficial properties." But it wasn't logically designed, any more than
human bodies were.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:38:53 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Some people actually *like* feel-good music. Shockingly enough.
Sure, which is why we all can have different opinions about it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/14/2011 10:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:38:53 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Some people actually *like* feel-good music. Shockingly enough.
>
> Sure, which is why we all can have different opinions about it.
Or, more precisely, that's why there exists any feel-good music at all. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:55:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/14/2011 10:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:38:53 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Some people actually *like* feel-good music. Shockingly enough.
>>
>> Sure, which is why we all can have different opinions about it.
>
> Or, more precisely, that's why there exists any feel-good music at all.
> :-)
Well, that's another view, yes. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-7-2011 19:14, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/14/2011 4:47, Mike the Elder wrote:
>> OK, now for some nice entirley comprehensible lyrics...
>
> In China, they teach english with The Carpenters. "Because you can
> understand what they're saying. That's why they call it easy listening."
As far as understandable lyrics go I am still huge fan of Eric Bogle.
A song with some relation to this topic:
http://ericbogle.net/lyrics/lyricspdf/sillyslangsong.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOdHNGG9yWU
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/07/2011 9:07 PM, andrel wrote:
> As far as understandable lyrics go I am still huge fan of Eric Bogle.
> A song with some relation to this topic:
> http://ericbogle.net/lyrics/lyricspdf/sillyslangsong.pdf
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOdHNGG9yWU
Thanks Andrel, I liked that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/07/2011 9:38 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> I will freely admit though, Starlight Express was surprisingly lame.
> (And I don't mean just the music.)
And racist IM(NS)HO
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/07/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > Oreo is also derogatory American slang.
> I hadn't heard that -
Black on the outside. White on the inside.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/14/2011 18:07, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/07/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> > Oreo is also derogatory American slang.
>> I hadn't heard that -
>
> Black on the outside. White on the inside.
Exactly. I think it refers to individuals of african descent who act in a
way the local community perceives as that of european descent. I.e., a black
guy sucking up to a white guy to get white guy perks would be an oreo.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/07/2011 3:18 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/14/2011 18:07, Stephen wrote:
>> On 14/07/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> > Oreo is also derogatory American slang.
>>> I hadn't heard that -
>>
>> Black on the outside. White on the inside.
>
> Exactly. I think it refers to individuals of african descent who act in
> a way the local community perceives as that of european descent. I.e., a
> black guy sucking up to a white guy to get white guy perks would be an
> oreo.
>
You think? O_O ;-)
AFAIK It also applies to (I'm at a loss for the correct term) people of
colour who want to better themselves and leave their community behind.
Similar to working class folk who want to get out of the slums
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/14/2011 19:55, Stephen wrote:
> You think? O_O ;-)
I wasn't explaining for *your* edification.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/07/2011 4:00 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/14/2011 19:55, Stephen wrote:
>> You think? O_O ;-)
>
> I wasn't explaining for *your* edification.
>
Sorry, jet lag.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:07:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/07/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> > Oreo is also derogatory American slang.
>> I hadn't heard that -
>
> Black on the outside. White on the inside.
Ahh
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 14/07/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> > Oreo is also derogatory American slang.
> > I hadn't heard that -
> Black on the outside. White on the inside.
Honestly, I don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-07-15 01:53, Warp a écrit :
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 14/07/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Oreo is also derogatory American slang.
>>> I hadn't heard that -
>
>> Black on the outside. White on the inside.
>
> Honestly, I don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
>
A black person who doesn't act like the rest of their homies from the 'hood.
cf: Lewis Hamilton, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama.
The inverse (and quite derogatory) is "wigger". White folks who dress
with pants down to their knees and oversided basketball shirts. If I'm
not mistaken, the Brits call them "chavs".
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
> Le 2011-07-15 01:53, Warp a écrit :
> > Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> On 14/07/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> >>>>> Oreo is also derogatory American slang.
> >>> I hadn't heard that -
> >
> >> Black on the outside. White on the inside.
> >
> > Honestly, I don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
> >
> A black person who doesn't act like the rest of their homies from the 'hood.
> cf: Lewis Hamilton, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama.
So it's a derogatory term used by other black people?
Why shouldn't a person be free to act however he likes?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/07/2011 6:56 AM, Warp wrote:
> So it's a derogatory term used by other black people?
>
Yes and some white people as well
> Why shouldn't a person be free to act however he likes?
No reason at all, at all. But that is what people are like.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 16/07/2011 6:56 AM, Warp wrote:
> > So it's a derogatory term used by other black people?
> Yes and some white people as well
I assume that with black people it's some kind of pride thing, and with
white people it's traditional racism? (Although the former is also racism,
technically speaking, although for some reason it's not PC to say it.)
> > Why shouldn't a person be free to act however he likes?
> No reason at all, at all. But that is what people are like.
I wish people acted more rationally about these things. Keeping a subculture
alive is ok and commendable (as long as the subculture in question isn't
destructive and harmful to others), but if you start denigrating and shunning
someone for not caring about it (or not wanting to be part of it), that just
goes too far. Freedom is the highest of virtues, and being able to live and
act however you want (as long as it's not harmful to others) is part of that,
and nobody should have a saying on it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/07/2011 1:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 16/07/2011 6:56 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> So it's a derogatory term used by other black people?
>
>> Yes and some white people as well
>
> I assume that with black people it's some kind of pride thing, and with
> white people it's traditional racism? (Although the former is also racism,
> technically speaking, although for some reason it's not PC to say it.)
>
Not necessarily, it could be sympathy, seeing things from an other
viewpoint.
>>> Why shouldn't a person be free to act however he likes?
>
>> No reason at all, at all. But that is what people are like.
>
> I wish people acted more rationally about these things. Keeping a subculture
> alive is ok and commendable (as long as the subculture in question isn't
> destructive and harmful to others), but if you start denigrating and shunning
> someone for not caring about it (or not wanting to be part of it), that just
> goes too far. Freedom is the highest of virtues, and being able to live and
> act however you want (as long as it's not harmful to others) is part of that,
> and nobody should have a saying on it.
>
I can't disagree with one word you have said.
Sometimes I get disapproval because I am a Scot living in London. (From
fellow Scots, that is. The English keep telling me that their
father/mother/grand-sires came from Scotland.)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Sometimes I get disapproval because I am a Scot living in London.
I can't even begin to imagine the reasoning behind that. :)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-7-2011 3:02, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/07/2011 9:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>> As far as understandable lyrics go I am still huge fan of Eric Bogle.
>> A song with some relation to this topic:
>> http://ericbogle.net/lyrics/lyricspdf/sillyslangsong.pdf
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOdHNGG9yWU
>
> Thanks Andrel, I liked that.
I though about asking if you were a Scot...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-7-2011 16:03, Stephen wrote:
> Sometimes I get disapproval because I am a Scot living in London. (From
> fellow Scots, that is.
... but you answered that yourself
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/16/2011 5:38, Warp wrote:
> I assume that with black people it's some kind of pride thing, and with
> white people it's traditional racism?
Yes. Being an oreo to whites is not "oh, look, he's trying to better
himself" either. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> No reason at all, at all. But that is what people are like.
>
> I wish people acted more rationally about these things.
That's gotta be right up there with "imagine all the people living in
peace". And the guy who wrote that got assassinated...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/07/2011 4:55 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 15-7-2011 3:02, Stephen wrote:
>> On 14/07/2011 9:07 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> As far as understandable lyrics go I am still huge fan of Eric Bogle.
>>> A song with some relation to this topic:
>>> http://ericbogle.net/lyrics/lyricspdf/sillyslangsong.pdf
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOdHNGG9yWU
>>
>> Thanks Andrel, I liked that.
>
> I though about asking if you were a Scot...
>
And did you?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/07/2011 6:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/16/2011 5:38, Warp wrote:
>> I assume that with black people it's some kind of pride thing, and with
>> white people it's traditional racism?
>
> Yes. Being an oreo to whites is not "oh, look, he's trying to better
> himself" either. :-)
>
LOL
Has anyone told you that you can be cruel?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/07/2011 4:55 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 16-7-2011 16:03, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I get disapproval because I am a Scot living in London. (From
>> fellow Scots, that is.
>
> .... but you answered that yourself
You are just teasing Warp, now.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/07/2011 3:44 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Sometimes I get disapproval because I am a Scot living in London.
>
> I can't even begin to imagine the reasoning behind that. :)
>
I wouldn't dare put it in writing.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/17/2011 20:46, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/07/2011 6:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 7/16/2011 5:38, Warp wrote:
>>> I assume that with black people it's some kind of pride thing, and with
>>> white people it's traditional racism?
>>
>> Yes. Being an oreo to whites is not "oh, look, he's trying to better
>> himself" either. :-)
>>
>
> LOL
> Has anyone told you that you can be cruel?
>
Cruel would be including the word "uppity". ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/07/2011 6:44 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/17/2011 20:46, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/07/2011 6:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2011 5:38, Warp wrote:
>>>> I assume that with black people it's some kind of pride thing, and with
>>>> white people it's traditional racism?
>>>
>>> Yes. Being an oreo to whites is not "oh, look, he's trying to better
>>> himself" either. :-)
>>>
>>
>> LOL
>> Has anyone told you that you can be cruel?
>>
>
> Cruel would be including the word "uppity". ;-)
>
Yup! :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/07/15 09:02, Francois Labreque a écrit :
> Le 2011-07-15 01:53, Warp a écrit :
>> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> On 14/07/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> Oreo is also derogatory American slang.
>>>> I hadn't heard that -
>>
>>> Black on the outside. White on the inside.
>>
>> Honestly, I don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
>>
>
> A black person who doesn't act like the rest of their homies from the
> 'hood.
>
> cf: Lewis Hamilton, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama.
>
> The inverse (and quite derogatory) is "wigger". White folks who dress
> with pants down to their knees and oversided basketball shirts. If I'm
> not mistaken, the Brits call them "chavs".
So, it's a degoratory term used to designate someone from an unfavorable
origin, who, through hard work, sacrifices and perseverence, managed to
rise above that background.
If I was in that case, I would receive it as a GREAT compliment, an
awsome acknowlegement and recognaisance of the great hard work of my
parents, possibly grand-perents, and mine.
When you are from some gethoized culture, you realy have a duty of
getting OUT of it and it's stigma. You should never wilignly stay in those.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> So, it's a degoratory term used to designate someone from an unfavorable
> origin, who, through hard work, sacrifices and perseverence, managed to
> rise above that background.
If I understood correctly, it's probably more like they (ie. black people)
see him as a "traitor" to their subculture, one who doesn't want to belong
to his own people, to embrace their customs and culture, but instead tries
to live like the white people (who are often seen as the "oppressors", at
least by association).
Of course the problem here is that they see it as him "trying to be white"
(with all the related culture and customs), when in fact it's probably just
that he wants a better life, as you commented.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/18/2011 13:53, Warp wrote:
> see him as a "traitor" to their subculture,
That is exactly the subtext, yes. "Being black isn't good enough for ya?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-7-2011 5:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/07/2011 4:55 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 16-7-2011 16:03, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes I get disapproval because I am a Scot living in London. (From
>>> fellow Scots, that is.
>>
>> .... but you answered that yourself
>
> You are just teasing Warp, now.
>
Oh I don't know, just trying out some non-linear newsgroup using.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/07/2011 11:41 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 18-7-2011 5:47, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/07/2011 4:55 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> On 16-7-2011 16:03, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sometimes I get disapproval because I am a Scot living in London. (From
>>>> fellow Scots, that is.
>>>
>>> .... but you answered that yourself
>>
>> You are just teasing Warp, now.
>>
> Oh I don't know, just trying out some non-linear newsgroup using.
>
LOL
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/07/2011 11:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/18/2011 13:53, Warp wrote:
>> see him as a "traitor" to their subculture,
>
> That is exactly the subtext, yes. "Being black isn't good enough for ya?"
>
I agree with Darren. Same in the UK.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 7/18/2011 13:53, Warp wrote:
> > see him as a "traitor" to their subculture,
> That is exactly the subtext, yes. "Being black isn't good enough for ya?"
If those same people complain about rampant racism, it's called
hypocrisy. (If they don't, then I suppose it's an internally logical
stance.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/18/2011 2:27 PM, Alain wrote:
>
> When you are from some gethoized culture, you realy have a duty of
> getting OUT of it and it's stigma. You should never wilignly stay in those.
>
>
>
> Alain
Context is everything. The Irish who spoke Gaelic were ghetto for
generations. The American Indians and Australian Aborigines were
repeatedly pressured to assimilate and renounce their ancestors ways.
Now they are the lauded as guardians of their cultural heritage.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin <tom### [at] impnospamorg> wrote:
> Context is everything. The Irish who spoke Gaelic were ghetto for
> generations. The American Indians and Australian Aborigines were
> repeatedly pressured to assimilate and renounce their ancestors ways.
> Now they are the lauded as guardians of their cultural heritage.
Some hundreds of years ago European colonialists had this utopistic
(and rather arrogant) concept that the cultures they were colonizing were
primitive (technically true), undeveloped and in many case even barbaric,
and that they were there to "bring light" to these backwards cultures,
educate them and bring them the joys of modern civilizations and high
culture. Generally speaking the primitive barbaric cultures had no value
and should be left behind.
The results were not purely bad, though. Many of said civilizations did
benefit from the education and technology brought by the Europeans, raising
their standard of living significantly (just look at the recent history of
Zimbabwe to see what happens when this is undone). Of course sabotaging
local cultures wasn't always all that good either.
Nowadays the trend has reversed itself, sometimes even to the point of
detriment. In many European countries the local culture is despised and
even considered "primitive and backwards", while cultures of distant lands
are utopized (to the point of actually ignoring and refusing to acknowledge
any negative sides of those cultures). The preservation of distant cultures,
even when those people immigrate to Europe, is so idolized that it actually
causes more problems than it's worth.
One would think that the ideology of getting rid of cultures of distant
lands and replacing them with the country's own culture would be a thing
of the distant past, not being practiced for a century or so. However, in
some forms this ideology has persisted to surprisingly recently.
A curious example of this is the importing of anime from Japan to the US.
Even as recently as the mid (and even late) 90's, there was an odd principle
among these importers that the Americans would not understand the Japanese
culture, they would want to see everything assimilated to their own culture,
and hence localization of the anime went often far beyond simply dubbing it.
In some cases anime series and movies were severely modified, re-edited,
merged and even partially redone in order to remove all possible cultural
references to Japan, replacing them with American equivalents. In some cases
this went even so far as to actually changing the script itself (by changing
dialogue, the order of events, cutting things out, adding original material...)
It wasn't until the 2000's that the pressure from anime fans finally sunk
in and the importers have started preserving the anime series as well as
possible (many even going so far as to offering completely unmodified
versions, just with English subtitles, something almost unthinkable in
the US of the 80's and early 90's.)
Censorship in imported anime still exists, though, due to some forms of
cultural dissonance.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-8-2011 7:59, Warp wrote:
> Nowadays the trend has reversed itself, sometimes even to the point of
> detriment. In many European countries the local culture is despised and
> even considered "primitive and backwards", while cultures of distant lands
> are utopized (to the point of actually ignoring and refusing to acknowledge
> any negative sides of those cultures). The preservation of distant cultures,
> even when those people immigrate to Europe, is so idolized that it actually
> causes more problems than it's worth.
Are you talking about the same Europe that I am living in?
I am aware that some populist movements try to get this distorted view
across. But things don't get true simply by repeating the same nonsense
over and over again.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/08/13 17:51, andrel a écrit :
> On 13-8-2011 7:59, Warp wrote:
>
>> Nowadays the trend has reversed itself, sometimes even to the point of
>> detriment. In many European countries the local culture is despised and
>> even considered "primitive and backwards", while cultures of distant
>> lands
>> are utopized (to the point of actually ignoring and refusing to
>> acknowledge
>> any negative sides of those cultures). The preservation of distant
>> cultures,
>> even when those people immigrate to Europe, is so idolized that it
>> actually
>> causes more problems than it's worth.
>
> Are you talking about the same Europe that I am living in?
>
> I am aware that some populist movements try to get this distorted view
> across. But things don't get true simply by repeating the same nonsense
> over and over again.
>
>
Not todays Europe, but Europe during the colonial era. You know, the
Spaniards, New France, the Victorian British Empire,...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Are you talking about the same Europe that I am living in?
Maybe it's exclusive to Finland.
The general attitude of left-wing newspaper columnists and commentators
(which forms the majority of the Finnish press) is that the average Finnish
man is extremely sexist, chauvinistic, nationalist, xenofobe, racist and
very propense to resorting to violence. "Wife-hitting" is considered an
unofficial national sport. (If you were to believe what these people write,
you would think that domestic violence would be a very widespread and common
problem in Finnish society. Actual statistics be damned.) Another very clear
aspect of this attitude is that the Finnish culture is very backwards, closed
and nationalistic.
And you don't just have to take my word for it. You simply have to read
some Finnish newspapers.
AFAIK Sweden has a similar phenomenon going on (possibly even worse).
> But things don't get true simply by repeating the same nonsense
> over and over again.
I wish those leftist columnists would understand that. The thing is,
repeating the same multiculturalist propaganda over and over *does* have
an effect on the population, which is why they do it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-8-2011 20:39, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Are you talking about the same Europe that I am living in?
>
> Maybe it's exclusive to Finland.
That would be strange.
> The general attitude of left-wing newspaper columnists and commentators
> (which forms the majority of the Finnish press) is that the average Finnish
> man is extremely sexist, chauvinistic, nationalist, xenofobe, racist and
> very propense to resorting to violence. "Wife-hitting" is considered an
> unofficial national sport. (If you were to believe what these people write,
> you would think that domestic violence would be a very widespread and common
> problem in Finnish society. Actual statistics be damned.) Another very clear
> aspect of this attitude is that the Finnish culture is very backwards, closed
> and nationalistic.
The interesting thing is that this is sort of what, at least in the
netherlands, populist (or conservative/right wing, whichever name you
prefer, although all are wrong) say the left wing people are saying.
Funny thing is that by and large this is not true. Sure, you can always
find some columnist that says something in an exaggerated way and claim
that is what everybody says, but actually there is no evidence of it to
be true in general.
An example is that after the killings in Norway our main populist
(wilders) started complaining that all these left wing people were
attacking him because the guy referred a few times in his papers to him.
His line of though was that because Breivik admired him, he now had to
defend his rhetoric where he was asking for getting rid of the muslims
and the multicultural maffia in the netherlands. Of course he said that
in such a way that he never implied to take that so literal. Long story
short, 'the left wing was taking advantage of the deaths in norway to
attack him'. Back to my point: almost all reactions by the actual left
were very moderate and the more direct demands for a reaction by wilders
came from the right.
The short short version: never believe anyone who claims that some other
group is manipulating the media. (or believe all sides do).
This is probably not the right place, but there is something related to
Breivik that might be worth mentioning. I think I pointed to this TED
talk before:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html
If you think about Breivik: he was part of a group of like minded people
that constantly feeds one another's rage with stories how
multiculturalism leeds to outrageous things. With facebook and google
filtering your results on what they know 'interests' you, the likelihood
of getting a different opinion diminishes. It will become more and more
easy to believe that you are right and that another group, including the
media, do not understand the real problem and are actively trying to
suppress your point of view. Because: when *you* ask for information the
result will always support your POV. From that to the idea that if the
media are not listening to you, you (especially you, because nobody else
seems to take action) need to do something drastic is a small step.
Disclaimer: I am not saying it worked this way for Breivik or for any
muslim terrorist in particular. Yet, I have this feeling that these
inbred subcultures that send one another real and faked youtube videos
and reports of atrocities by a perceived enemy just to enrage the
recipient, will produce more and more of these man made disasters.
(Ok, perhaps not very well worded, but I hope you get my point).
> And you don't just have to take my word for it. You simply have to read
> some Finnish newspapers.
Unfortunately my Finnish is not what it used to be. ;)
> AFAIK Sweden has a similar phenomenon going on (possibly even worse).
>
>> But things don't get true simply by repeating the same nonsense
>> over and over again.
>
> I wish those leftist columnists would understand that. The thing is,
> repeating the same multiculturalist propaganda over and over *does* have
> an effect on the population, which is why they do it.
Here leftist columnists tend not to be so leftist when you actually read
them, there is quite a range of opinions. Also: all sorts of ways to
deal with immigrants have been discussed over the years, with some
people advocating one way to solve associated problems and others other
ways. In practice there are still problems and a certain group now
claims to have the real solution and groups everything in the past
(including all diametrically opposite ideas) as 'multiculturalism'. Come
back in a few years and you will find that the problem is still not
solved (basically because it is unsolvable), that there is still a group
that claims it has the only solution (either the same as today or
perhaps a fresh group), and that people simply seem to refuse to listen
to them.
Short short version: you can not blame someone for not solving an
unsolvable problem.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-08-14 14:39, Warp a écrit :
> "Wife-hitting" is considered an
> unofficial national sport. (If you were to believe what these people write,
> you would think that domestic violence would be a very widespread and common
> problem in Finnish society. Actual statistics be damned.)
Actually, if it is indeed considered normal to physically hit your wife,
then it's very likely that it will go unreported and that statistics
will underestimate the actual numbers.
For example, my Canadian province has a per capita rate of violence
against women that's 10 times higher than the southern states of the
USA. Does this mean that Canadians beat women 10 x more? or that
Canadian women are more likely to call the police when their husband
gets violent?
On top of it, the actual statistic is different. The very definition of
what constitutes violence will be different because "come on... you
can't put that in there! everyone does it!"
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Le 2011-08-14 14:39, Warp a écrit :
> > "Wife-hitting" is considered an
> > unofficial national sport. (If you were to believe what these people write,
> > you would think that domestic violence would be a very widespread and common
> > problem in Finnish society. Actual statistics be damned.)
> Actually, if it is indeed considered normal to physically hit your wife,
> then it's very likely that it will go unreported and that statistics
> will underestimate the actual numbers.
Wife beating is certainly not considered normal here. I don't know how
easily Finnish women report acts of domestic violence as I don't have
first-hand knowledge or experience, but AFAIK the threshold is relatively
low, mainly thanks to a relatively widespread feminism (the positive kind,
ie. the kind that teaches that a woman does not have to tolerate an abusive
husband/boyfriend).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The interesting thing is that this is sort of what, at least in the
> netherlands, populist (or conservative/right wing, whichever name you
> prefer, although all are wrong) say the left wing people are saying.
> Funny thing is that by and large this is not true. Sure, you can always
> find some columnist that says something in an exaggerated way and claim
> that is what everybody says, but actually there is no evidence of it to
> be true in general.
It's certainly possible that when one follows the heated debate between
devoted left-wing multiculturalists and right-wing opponents one easily
gets the idea that the multiculturalists do nothing more than preach all
day about the subject, always spouting the most ridiculous things, while
in reality it might be significantly less prominent.
However, sometimes the multiculturalists go to egregious extremes to
paint the local culture as racist and propense to hate crimes.
For example some years ago a Finnish newspaper published an article
about how a "wave of racism" was sweeping over Tampere (a city here).
The relatively lengthy article cited exactly one alleged hate crime in
the city as an example of this. It alleged that recently (at the time of
the publication of the article) a Finnish man had stabbed an immigrant
with a knife in the city in question.
The Finnish police had to publish an official rebuttal to the story,
as they had not heard of such a happenstance.
The story was fabricated. A complete asspull. (I don't know if this
journalist was reprimended for fabricating a story, but at least I never
heard that this was the case. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just
ignored.)
Or take another example: Last year there was a case of arson against
a restaurant owned by an immigrant. Three people who lived in the same
building (I think they were all Finnish) died because of the fire.
When the news about this got out, a member of the Finnish parliament
rushed to make a strongly worded public statement strongly condemning
such a hate crime, and strongly demanded zero tolerance against racism
and for harsh measures to be taken to immediately stop such acts of
racist violence.
She was later asked where did she get the information that it was, in
fact, a hate crime (because the police had yet not made any statement about
this). She didn't. She just assumed it was. Yet again a complete asspull.
She wasn't the only one. The Finnish press went wild with the story,
writing in length about the widespread of racism and hate crime and whatnot.
Later it turned out that the crime was committed by the two sons of the
owner of the restaurant, seemingly in an attempt of insurance fraud.
(Curiously, although not surprisingly, the tone of subsequent newspaper
articles changed considerably, and basically a small-scale whitewashing
campaign was performed. Articles were published about how hard the life
of immigrant restaurant owners is, working long hours in harsh conditions
yet barely earning a living, and so on. It seems that everybody forgot about
the three Finnish victims as they were seldom mentioned after the culprits
were found.)
> An example is that after the killings in Norway our main populist
> (wilders) started complaining that all these left wing people were
> attacking him because the guy referred a few times in his papers to him.
I have to admit that the Finnish press acted surprisingly neutrally in
this case and didn't take it as an opportunity to launch a full force
attack against the "populists". (Or at least I haven't seen any such
thing.)
> Short short version: you can not blame someone for not solving an
> unsolvable problem.
Perhaps the problem is unsolvable, but I'm sure that it can be alleviated
somewhat. However, the way to alleviate is not to ignore the existence of
the problem.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-8-2011 17:53, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> The interesting thing is that this is sort of what, at least in the
>> netherlands, populist (or conservative/right wing, whichever name you
>> prefer, although all are wrong) say the left wing people are saying.
>> Funny thing is that by and large this is not true. Sure, you can always
>> find some columnist that says something in an exaggerated way and claim
>> that is what everybody says, but actually there is no evidence of it to
>> be true in general.
>
> It's certainly possible that when one follows the heated debate between
> devoted left-wing multiculturalists and right-wing opponents one easily
> gets the idea that the multiculturalists do nothing more than preach all
> day about the subject, always spouting the most ridiculous things, while
> in reality it might be significantly less prominent.
>
> However, sometimes the multiculturalists go to egregious extremes to
> paint the local culture as racist and propense to hate crimes.
>
[snipped examples]
I don't doubt these examples exist, and indeed I know a couple myself.
Yet there are also examples of fabricated stories and rushing to
conclusions by right wing politicians and columnists. I don't deny your
right to be angry about things, just pointing out that you have to be
very careful to avoid selective anger. You are more likely to
disseminate a story where left wing people (say) make mistakes to your
friends then mistakes by the other side. They will be similarly biased
in what the send you and when the group is large enough, for all of you
the counter examples will be drowned out completely by those that are in
favour of what you already think. It is a general group bonding thing
that has always worked this way. The new element might be that google
and facebook are actively promoting such bonding. That is not what it is
meant to do, but it may be the effect.
>> An example is that after the killings in Norway our main populist
>> (wilders) started complaining that all these left wing people were
>> attacking him because the guy referred a few times in his papers to him.
>
> I have to admit that the Finnish press acted surprisingly neutrally in
> this case and didn't take it as an opportunity to launch a full force
> attack against the "populists". (Or at least I haven't seen any such
> thing.)
I don't think it is surprising. ;)
>> Short short version: you can not blame someone for not solving an
>> unsolvable problem.
>
> Perhaps the problem is unsolvable, but I'm sure that it can be alleviated
> somewhat. However, the way to alleviate is not to ignore the existence of
> the problem.
That sort of presumes that in the past the problems were ignored. They
weren't, people were just trying to solve them in another way than by
publicity.
The reason why I think the problem is unsolvable is that the problems
and the groups involved are so diverse that what works for one group
will worsen behaviour in another group. What helps one group to
assimilate into the society will alienate another.
We have had a couple of centuries of culture clashes now and we are in
for a few more. You simply have to accept that, while still trying to do
the best you can to dampen the excesses.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/15/2011 10:29 AM, andrel wrote:
> I don't doubt these examples exist, and indeed I know a couple myself.
> Yet there are also examples of fabricated stories and rushing to
> conclusions by right wing politicians and columnists. I don't deny your
> right to be angry about things, just pointing out that you have to be
> very careful to avoid selective anger. You are more likely to
> disseminate a story where left wing people (say) make mistakes to your
> friends then mistakes by the other side. They will be similarly biased
> in what the send you and when the group is large enough, for all of you
> the counter examples will be drowned out completely by those that are in
> favour of what you already think. It is a general group bonding thing
> that has always worked this way. The new element might be that google
> and facebook are actively promoting such bonding. That is not what it is
> meant to do, but it may be the effect.
>
This is hardly a surprise, and only feeds into the existing, "I
bookmarked all my favorite crazies, so I don't accidentally read
something from someone else's site.", phenomena. Not that long back
there was this crazy law in place called the "fairness doctrine". It
meant that you had to at least make a vague, if possibly fake, attempt
at representing both sides in the press. If it hadn't been overturned,
primarily by radio hosts, who in the US are like 99% conservatives (at
least on AM) now, it might have instead been extended to internet sites
that deal with political positions. Instead it was done away with, then
when brought up again later, not reinstated. Just one more chink in the
armor of unity, in favor of false "freedom of speech", right up there
with the success of putting enough conservative, pro-business, people in
SCOTUS for them to come up with the insane idea that money = speech,
companies = people, therefor unlimited spending of money by companies =
free speech.
Then again, this is hardly surprising, given the moron I am discussing
things with on a long thread recently about what needs to be done to fix
some of the shit in the economy, who recently came up with two **huge**
laughs -
a) Ones own "internal truth" trumps reality, other opinions, or the vast
number of contradictions in the guys own religion, which he uses to
defend some of his ideas. Yep, self centered, circular, references to
your own inability to understand a problems is "so" much better than
paying attention to what qualified people are trying to tell you...
b) Everything that isn't Biblical is "experimental", and all that
experimental stuff, where you try to actually understand how the real
world works, and real people think, is all useless and is going to
destroy the world. Because, like.. claiming you have the one and only
true religion, and arrogantly thinking that, if that where even true at
all, your own personal choice on which one of the flavors of it is truer
(never mind which way that group rewrites/reinterprets the contents of
the Bible) is the "solution" to every problem.
Needless to say, the rest of his politics are much of the same. He
"feels" that certain things will solve the problem, so those must be the
right solution. The fact that all he seems to be doing is ignoring
everyone else's opinions, to spout the talking points of various
politicians, and thus can't even claim that his "internal truths" are
his own, doesn't seem to get through his skull.
But, I am sure he has some place on Sunday to get the same BS, and web
sites he goes to (he is a Wallbuilders fan, it seems), and politically
bent TV shows, which only present one side of things, and, it wouldn't
surprise me to find he had his own favorite right wing (there being
almost no radio presence from the left, even in "liberal" states and
cities, according to a study from a while back), to tell him he is right
about all of it.
And this is someone who is just unwilling to listen to other opinions
(even if he pretends to, by showing up places where his are not shared,
to tell everyone they are wrong), not someone filled with hate, anger,
and a sense of unrequited justice over total bullshit, like the sort of
people you are talking about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-8-2011 0:04, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 8/15/2011 10:29 AM, andrel wrote:
>> I don't doubt these examples exist, and indeed I know a couple myself.
>> Yet there are also examples of fabricated stories and rushing to
>> conclusions by right wing politicians and columnists. I don't deny your
>> right to be angry about things, just pointing out that you have to be
>> very careful to avoid selective anger. You are more likely to
>> disseminate a story where left wing people (say) make mistakes to your
>> friends then mistakes by the other side. They will be similarly biased
>> in what the send you and when the group is large enough, for all of you
>> the counter examples will be drowned out completely by those that are in
>> favour of what you already think. It is a general group bonding thing
>> that has always worked this way. The new element might be that google
>> and facebook are actively promoting such bonding. That is not what it is
>> meant to do, but it may be the effect.
I do appreciate your contribution, but the situation in Europe and the
US are rather different. In a weirdness competition the US will probably
win hands down. OTOH we have discussed that extensively in the past. I
think that every now and then there should also be a place to discuss
the myriad subtleties of European politics and practices without having
to take sides in intra-US discussions. Just a though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/16/2011 10:16 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 16-8-2011 0:04, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 8/15/2011 10:29 AM, andrel wrote:
>>> I don't doubt these examples exist, and indeed I know a couple myself.
>>> Yet there are also examples of fabricated stories and rushing to
>>> conclusions by right wing politicians and columnists. I don't deny your
>>> right to be angry about things, just pointing out that you have to be
>>> very careful to avoid selective anger. You are more likely to
>>> disseminate a story where left wing people (say) make mistakes to your
>>> friends then mistakes by the other side. They will be similarly biased
>>> in what the send you and when the group is large enough, for all of you
>>> the counter examples will be drowned out completely by those that are in
>>> favour of what you already think. It is a general group bonding thing
>>> that has always worked this way. The new element might be that google
>>> and facebook are actively promoting such bonding. That is not what it is
>>> meant to do, but it may be the effect.
>
> I do appreciate your contribution, but the situation in Europe and the
> US are rather different. In a weirdness competition the US will probably
> win hands down. OTOH we have discussed that extensively in the past. I
> think that every now and then there should also be a place to discuss
> the myriad subtleties of European politics and practices without having
> to take sides in intra-US discussions. Just a though.
Sorry, didn't notice this being a Euro-centric discussion. But the same
rules apply. We tend to either see things as everyone being inclusive,
and misjudging how much they disagree with us, which is a better path,
even if it ends up causing surprises, or we assume that our "in group"
has all the right answers, and everyone else is wrong, and get *really*
shocked, to the point of anger and hate, when they don't conform. Which
is not terribly healthy. Yeah, there is a lot of weirdness in the US,
but its panic weirdness. The crazies are finally realizing that they
either need to be running the asylum, or be rendered into the same sort
of kooks you have, instead of being elevated, by people looking for
money and ratings, more often than not, into celebrity status. Its the
reason why a few years back a study showed that 99% of AM radio had been
taken over purely by right wing radio. Their ranting brought in money
that AM was losing to every other form of media, and the centrists/left
where not crazy enough.
Unfortunately, we have started importing some of this crazy into Europe
too, and they function the same way, "If we don't start running the
clinic, they will keep treating us like mental patients!" No shit. Maybe
that should tell you something... lol
So, yeah, I may be referencing just the nuts here, as examples, but its
hardly a non-universal phenomena. The same circular feed back exists in
both cases, and the more circular it gets... :( I mean, you seriously
think these kooks are not listening to some of the stuff over here and
agreeing with them too?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
