Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Yannanth]

I'm pretty sure that's not why the site was chosen...

Besides, it will probably bring a little bit of development to a historically neglected area. Nothing bad about this. And let's not forget that the Circassian genocide (possibly ethnic cleansing instead of genocide) happened around 150 years ago for Christ's sake. Nothing to do with Putin or his government. It has nothing to do with any Bolshevik government either.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I'm pretty sure that's not why the site was chosen...

Besides, it will probably bring a little bit of development to a historically neglected area. Nothing bad about this. And let's not forget that the Circassian genocide (possibly ethnic cleansing instead of genocide) happened around 150 years ago for Christ's sake. Nothing to do with Putin or his government. It has nothing to do with any Bolshevik government either.

Sochi is far from neglected area

It's not a poplar move when in huge country you invest billions from budget in one small region

Neither USSR nor modern Russia ever admitted the genocide. They could spent 1\100th of the funds they spent on the Olympics and built some monument, say something like "this was wrong and horrible and we are ashamed that Russians did it". But no, official Russian position is the same for more than century - no genocide ever happened. That equals to supporting the genocide

When you have a war at your home with people dying everyday and someone starts celebration at your doorstep - it's a spit in your face. It's not a spit from Russia alone. That's a spit in the face from the whole world. 

[Owlbread]

I'm pretty sure that's not why the site was chosen...

Besides, it will probably bring a little bit of development to a historically neglected area. Nothing bad about this. And let's not forget that the Circassian genocide (possibly ethnic cleansing instead of genocide) happened around 150 years ago for Christ's sake. Nothing to do with Putin or his government. It has nothing to do with any Bolshevik government either.

Well considering that the Bolsheviks continued the ethnic cleansing by deporting the remaining Circassians to Central Asia and later "liberal" governments refused to let them return to their homes (Russians live in those houses now) I think they had everything to do with it. It was originally genocide, however. Ethnic cleansing in an act of genocide. There's still elderly Circassians in Central Asia, Israel, Jordan, Turkey and all over the world that aren't able to return to their ancestral homes because they were deported and someone else took them.

As Ukrainian Ranger said though Sochi isn't a neglected area. It's a very popular holiday spot for Russian and other Eastern European people because it's so warm and it's quite a beautiful city.

In Scottish news...

There are now genuine concerns going around in the Conservative Party that we could actually pull this campaign off because the No to Independence Campaign is so unrelentingly negative and abysmal.

[MonkeyHead]

I am suprised the Tories are going to manouver against Scots independance, seeing as if it were to come to pass it would give them a massive advantage in whatever remains of Westminster. Thi is an old "Union" thing, isn't it?

[Owlbread]

I am suprised the Tories are going to manouver against Scots independance, seeing as if it were to come to pass it would give them a massive advantage in whatever remains of Westminster. Thi is an old "Union" thing, isn't it?

It wouldn't necessarily be a massive advantage though. If the Tories hadn't had to worry about Scots MPs over the last 60 years I understand we'd only have changed the result of elections about 3-4 times, and among those 3-4 it was stuff like changing what would have been a Labour minority to a majority, hung parliament to Labour and so on. But you're right, there should really be no reason for the Tories concentrating on this so much besides the old beliefs that still linger. In Scotland it makes sense - our Conservative Party used to be called the "Unionist" Party, and now it is officially the Conservative and Unionist Party of Scotland. It's even in the name. In the UK as a whole though there isn't that kind of link.

[GreatJustice]

I am suprised the Tories are going to manouver against Scots independance, seeing as if it were to come to pass it would give them a massive advantage in whatever remains of Westminster. Thi is an old "Union" thing, isn't it?

Man, I was going to make basically this exact post, decided not to, and come back to find someone else did it instead

Anyhow, it's funny how Conservatives just about everywhere have a tendency to oppose things that would benefit them substantially. It's the same in Canada; if Quebec left, the Tories would be capable of passing just about anything short of declaring Stephen Harper to be Emperor For Life, and they could probably manage even that on a good year. Yet they're pretty solidly against Quebecois independence.

[kaijyuu]

There's a bit of "the opposition can NEVER get their way!" attitude among most conservative groups.

[Yannanth]

There's a bit of "the opposition can NEVER get their way!" attitude among most conservative groups.

This statement sounds silly, but it was actually found to be accurate in an American study (link). Leftists think they're special snowflakes, conservatives think everyone agrees with them.

[Loud Whispers]

There's a bit of "the opposition can NEVER get their way!" attitude among most conservative groups.

This statement sounds silly, but it was actually found to be accurate in an American study (link). Leftists think they're special snowflakes, conservatives think everyone agrees with them.

What if you're a special snowflake who thinks everyone agrees with you?

[kaijyuu]

I think that's a libertarian.

[Max White]

I thought libertarians thought nobody but a select breed of super humans agreed with them, and the rest of the populas were worthless parasites who use democracy to crush freedoms... 100% special snowflakes, but far from thinking everybody agrees with them.

No, that would be religious fundamentalists.

[Owlbread]

I thought libertarians thought nobody but a select breed of super humans agreed with them, and the rest of the populas were worthless parasites who use democracy to crush freedoms

Yes, they are often called "sheeple".

[Max White]

Spoiler: Has these been posted here yet? (click to show/hide)

Anyway, I have a special degree of disdain for the libertarian attitude of "I can dismiss anybody elses opinion out of hand because they are just trying to oppress meeeeee!"

[Descan]

Spoiler: I don't really know what to say. I'm just gonna leave this here. I have no idea what I'm talking about. (click to show/hide)

I dislike libertarians because they're moral. In the bad sense. In the "We want to do the Right^tm thing, even if it'll lead to horrible consequences!" sense. We've been over what kind of thing I'd like, i.e. basic income, publicly funded healthcare/tuition, and a proportional senate/district-based house. But that's only because I'm pretty sure those would help immensely, if someone proved to me one of them wouldn't, I'd be all "Well shit, gotta change my mind!"

While libertarians (or the ones I've talked to/encountered) will go "But it's still the Right^tm thing to do! So we gotta do it, for your own good! Even though it won't actually help you and will hurt you, it's the principle of the thing!"

Same with any fundamentalist. "I'm against contraceptives and abortion!" "But contraceptives drive down abortion and STD rates, and banning abortion just leads to more deaths, and not less abortions." "It's the principle of the thing!"/"You just want to kill babies and have sex out of marriage!"/"BlahblahblahI'msomuchbetterthanyoublahblahblah."

Also, pretty sure the reason small-c conservative parties do that kind of thing is because they're conservative. I.E. don't like change. I.E. would be against an independence of a nation, even if it would help them, because it's change.

Big-C Conservative parties might not necessarily do that. There's been a whole LOT of change under the Big-C Conservative party in Canada, but that's just because they're not actually small-c conservative, they like change, just not very -good- change. I.E. Defunding the federal health-care council (which is there to keep all the provincial systems using best-practices, by researching what those practices are and informing the provincial systems), getting rid of a lot of science and education funding, increasing military funding, forming a cult of personality and degrading rights. You know, the usual right-wing stuff.

[Andrew425]

Or its the fact that Libertarians look at the government with disgust.

That Edward Snowden guy was making well over 140k a year working for the government. All that money that's just being pissed away into contracts and stuff that no one really needs. The reason why teachers and social programs get attacked is because they are in the public eye and thus get the centre of the blame. Combine this with taxes that don't ever seem to benefit what needs to be helped.

In Europe it's even worse, as the taxes are higher and the social programs vaster. It can make many feel like they are just paying other people's way through life. Which just about all are okay with, as long as the guy's getting back on his feet or training for a new job or doing something so that one day they'll be helping out. It just seems to them, with their sort of sample size that some people just don't do anything with their life and expect others to baby them along



And don't diss principle.

Liberty or Death!