Print

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

[Culise]

The world will always have conflicting interests.

That's true, but in a world of democratic governments those interests don't have to resort to violence. They don't even necessarily have to get what they want as long as they believe they can get it without bloodshed. 

We are most likely going to have an economic breakdown soon, followed by installing of extremist governments, thus leading to war.

The economic breakdown I grant you, but it won't lead to extremist governments, it will lead to a long-needed recognition that our current financial system is unsustainable and trying to do something we can no longer really do (that is, get larger and larger). The resulting reconstruction will be a positive influence, not a negative one. We might see some war because of it, but ultimately the war trend will continue as it has been-downward.

Living in harmony is basically impossible. How do you balance the needs of hundreds of different powers?

Living in harmony is not impossible. It just requires an honest, open political system and a culture of peace. These things are both growing and spreading. The Western world is pretty much there in regards to one another, for example.

Actually, I'll disagree on that second point for three reasons, at least two of which play together:
1. It relies on politicians, people working in a field where egotism and self-aggrandisement are survival traits, to be readily willing to admit when they are incorrect. 
2. It relies on people having a great comprehension of economic theory, a field where even economists are divided
3. It relies on people being unwilling to accept quick and easy, but radical nostrums promised by parties that themselves live on one of the far ends of the political/economic spectrum. 

We've already seen a sharp increase in radicalism in Greece, courtesy of Golden Dawn and even Syriza.  Historically, economic or political unrest has almost always resulted in a sharp increase in extremism, whether it is in Greece, Germany, Russia, Hungary, medieval Europe, or any of another host of examples.  It may not result in an extremist government being ushered into power this time, if we're lucky, but that is far from a guarantee.

The western world, yeah sure. But there are hundreds of different cultures, races, ideals and such that absolutely hate each other. How will you get rid of that hate?

The same way we did it in the West.  Slowly and gradually deepening the bonds between people through communication, trust, trade, and mutual development.  It'll take time, there will be growing pains, and I'm not saying that trade and communication will be a simple heal-all panacea (fun fact: Nazi Germany's biggest trade partner in 1939 was France, and their biggest trade partner in 1942 was the USSR).  However, I believe that it can be done in the rest of the world as hatreds become rivalries or even partnerships, as between France and Germany, Poland and Germany, Austria and Germany, Denmark and Germany, Sweden and Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain, Hungary and Austria, Italy and Austria, Italy and Yugoslavia/Serbia/Croatia, Italy and the Papacy, Italy and Italy...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And the Internet? The Internet breeds hatred. Go on a number of websites, and political ideals and race/religion are heavily criticised. You a gun-owner? Baby-killing hillbilly. Muslim? Terrorist. Right-wing? Obviously a cisprivilged white male who oppresses people. It is breeding hate at the same rate it breeds tolerance.

You're missing the point. There's a lot of arguing, and yes, even a lot of hate on the internet, but it creates a sea-change in that these radically different viewpoints are now communicating. That has never happened before on this scale.

An analogy would be the trade cities of the pre-industiral world. Trade centers had to become centers of tolerance because everyone trying to kill each other and foreign merchants over cultural and religious disagreements would be bad for business. But unlike trade centers, the internet is becoming a facet of the common man the world over rather than just one city, and we don't even have the option to go against the grain and try to kill each other because of the physical separation. All of this ceaseless talking is having an effect on us.

[kingfisher1112]

And the Internet? The Internet breeds hatred. Go on a number of websites, and political ideals and race/religion are heavily criticised. You a gun-owner? Baby-killing hillbilly. Muslim? Terrorist. Right-wing? Obviously a cisprivilged white male who oppresses people. It is breeding hate at the same rate it breeds tolerance.

You're missing the point. There's a lot of arguing, and yes, even a lot of hate on the internet, but it creates a sea-change in that these radically different viewpoints are now communicating. That has never happened before on this scale.

An analogy would be the trade cities of the pre-industiral world. Trade centers had to become centers of tolerance because everyone trying to kill each other and foreign merchants over cultural and religious disagreements would be bad for business. But unlike trade centers, the internet is becoming a facet of the common man the world over rather than just one city, and we don't even have the option to go against the grain and try to kill each other because of the physical separation. All of this ceaseless talking is having an effect on us.

Sorry mate, going to have to stop now. It's literally 3 am here, and I need some sleep. But, you have said some interesting stuff. Goodnight.

[Culise]

And the Internet? The Internet breeds hatred. Go on a number of websites, and political ideals and race/religion are heavily criticised. You a gun-owner? Baby-killing hillbilly. Muslim? Terrorist. Right-wing? Obviously a cisprivilged white male who oppresses people. It is breeding hate at the same rate it breeds tolerance.

You're missing the point. There's a lot of arguing, and yes, even a lot of hate on the internet, but it creates a sea-change in that these radically different viewpoints are now communicating. That has never happened before on this scale.

An analogy would be the trade cities of the pre-industiral world. Trade centers had to become centers of tolerance because everyone trying to kill each other and foreign merchants over cultural and religious disagreements would be bad for business. But unlike trade centers, the internet is becoming a facet of the common man the world over rather than just one city, and we don't even have the option to go against the grain and try to kill each other because of the physical separation. All of this ceaseless talking is having an effect on us.

Actually, we do have an option.  The Internet is a grand tool of communication and discovery, one that connects the world as it has never before been connected, but not all people use it to talk to all other people.  People can just bottle themselves up into their own little website circles within the Internet, functioning as echo chambers where the only people they ever hear are those who mirror their own opinions.  That's what kingfisher is getting at, sites, forums, and listservs where Communists talk only to Communists, fascists talk only to fascists, conspiracy nuts talk to squirrels, and all generally avoid ever having their political opinions constantly belittled and dissected because they actively avoid websites where that kind of stuff happens seriously.  In analogy to your suggestion, in the preindustrial world, there were also small farming villages far off the trade lanes, where "foreign" meant three day's travel and strangers were met with distrust.  It's a fascinating theory that has cropped up in a wide range of research, but there's one tiny problem with it: some of the latest research suggests that it may not exist.  There's a lot of theoretical work in sociology going into this sort of stuff, to try and figure out how people connect to each other, precisely because it's hard to tell if the old cliques are breaking down or simply being reinforced as people from all walks of life simply get louder. 

[Edmus]

My local member has just proposed a referendum for gay marriage.
My feelings are mixed, with our appalling history for referendums it doesn't bode well, but if opinion polls are anything to go by this might be a good thing.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html

[Max White]

Mr. Windsor, like a boss.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That article's sidebar is pretty negligent not to include any of the sub-national jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage. That's nine states and D.C. in the US, Mexico City in Mexico, and about half of Brazil.

[scriver]

I didn't know those were countries, MSH.

[Osmosis Jones]

My local member has just proposed a referendum for gay marriage.
My feelings are mixed, with our appalling history for referendums it doesn't bode well, but if opinion polls are anything to go by this might be a good thing.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html

While I initially agreed with it, on further reading a referendum may be a bad idea, and potentially even lead to an uptick in cases of self harm among the LGBTI population.

[kingfisher1112]

My local member has just proposed a referendum for gay marriage.
My feelings are mixed, with our appalling history for referendums it doesn't bode well, but if opinion polls are anything to go by this might be a good thing.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html

While I initially agreed with it, on further reading a referendum may be a bad idea, and potentially even lead to an uptick in cases of self harm among the LGBTI population.

Umm, what's the I?

[Descan]

Intersex, probably

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I didn't know those were countries, MSH.

It doesn't matter that they aren't countries. If you're going to make a sidebar to an article listing areas where same-sex marriage is allowed, it is rather erroneous not to include some jurisdictions because they are sub-national.

[Scoops Novel]

Intersex, probably

Thank you, i was similarly clueless :L.

[Dutchling]

I didn't know those were countries, MSH.

It doesn't matter that they aren't countries. If you're going to make a sidebar to an article listing areas where same-sex marriage is allowed, it is rather erroneous not to include some jurisdictions because they are sub-national.

But it was a sidebar listing countries where same-sex marriage is allowed. No errors were made at all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I didn't know those were countries, MSH.

It doesn't matter that they aren't countries. If you're going to make a sidebar to an article listing areas where same-sex marriage is allowed, it is rather erroneous not to include some jurisdictions because they are sub-national.

But it was a sidebar listing countries where same-sex marriage is allowed. No errors were made at all.

It's a sidebar detailing public support for same-sex marriage, countries where it is allowed, countries where it might soon be allowed, and how the Australian vote might happen. To have all that and leave out sub-national jurisdictions is an error by omission.