Print

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

[ChairmanPoo]

Nothing. I was curious about that too. I guess OP either made it up or meant some other Neil Gaiman

[Korbac]

Because this is so ridiculous, maybe we should, umm, be sceptical?

*cue people saying "Oh, didn't you know we were just having one huge joke?" while lying through teeth.*

[Leafsnail]

Honestly, the world would be much better if the US had pressed the advantage that nuclear weapons gave it to establish a global hegemony before any other nation could develop their own, and thus prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst opposing powers. China would have wound up more like Japan, a castrated, semi-westernized minor power, Russia and the rest of eastern europe would have wound up like the rest of europe, Africa and the middle east would have been... well, that's all an idle fantasy, because we didn't press the advantage, and who knows what bullshit would have resulted from a lack of conflict

America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,

without the bogeyman of COMMINIZMZ, the US may very well returned to its roots of not fucking the poor for shits and giggles, since the handling of reconstruction after WWII in Europe is one of the driving reasons they have more socialist attitudes).

I'd probably have to call bullshit on that.  The Labour party existed in Britain before the reconstruction money was given.

In any case, this sets a nasty precedent...

[Cthulhu]

Here's the actual amendment.

Here's the relevant change made:

"In operative paragraph 6 (b), replace any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation with discriminatory reasons on any basis"

In case it isn't obvious, "on any basis" covers sexual orientation.  Every single piece of "journalism" I've seen on the subject glosses over this fact entirely, because "journalism" these days amounts to a dick-swinging contest based around who can write the most stupidly sensationalist headline.

Well, this should end the thread, shouldn't it?
I just want to know what did Neil Gaiman have to do with it.

I don't it changes that much.  Now "discriminatory reasons" is in the eye of the beholder.

[ECrownofFire]

Here's the actual amendment.

Here's the relevant change made:

"In operative paragraph 6 (b), replace any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation with discriminatory reasons on any basis"

In case it isn't obvious, "on any basis" covers sexual orientation.  Every single piece of "journalism" I've seen on the subject glosses over this fact entirely, because "journalism" these days amounts to a dick-swinging contest based around who can write the most stupidly sensationalist headline.

I can't access it due to NO AUTHORIZATION. Interesting...

And yes, thread is over. Or it would be, until Cthulhu brought the "in the eye of the beholder" thing up.

[ChairmanPoo]

clearly carlrogan is an UN operative

[Il Palazzo]

I don't it changes that much.  Now "discriminatory reasons" is in the eye of the beholder.

So, previously, somebody could petition the UN to intervene, because there were some people, incuding homosexuals, being discriminated against, and now, they can only petition the UN to intervene, because there are some people, e.g.homosexuals being discriminated against?
The difference elludes me.

[KaelGotDwarves]

When I was traveling through Singapore, there was this Australian television show I saw about fictional characters in the UN. Basically it went thus, the UN and individual members in the field do their best to educate, help the local poor, and be all around good guys- but are bogged down by apathy, lack of money/supplies, bureaucrats, and often reactionary conservative/isolationist locals (think Taliban, religious folk pissed over condoms/abortions/education for women...etc often out for the UN workers' heads).

Basically, I think the show did a good job of highlighting that UN does a metric shit-ton good in the world but you only tend to hear about them when they fuck up on the higher world stage.

Also, they would never create such an educational TV show in the US. Sad really.

[Neonivek]

The difference elludes me

It is the reasons why certain countries have Organised Crime lists.

Because without these lists you first have to prove that the person belongs to a group that IS part of an organised crime group. So without a list you would have to prove, lets say, the mafia is an organised crime syndicate every single case.

Without Homosexuality being on the list you would need to prove that descrimination against homosexuals is descrimination warrenting the UN everytime.

[Il Palazzo]

The difference elludes me

It is the reasons why certain countries have Organised Crime lists.

Because without these lists you first have to prove that the person belongs to a group that IS part of an organised crime group. So without a list you would have to prove, lets say, the mafia is an organised crime syndicate every single case.

Without Homosexuality being on the list you would need to prove that descrimination against homosexuals is descrimination warrenting the UN everytime.

Of course not. ALL cases of discrimination count, as you can read in the amendment. You don't have to prove anything about homosexuality, just that you've been discriminated against.
If we were to follow your train of thought, then each time there is some racially based discrimination, the victimized party would have to prove that racial discrimination counts as well. Which I belive is not the case.

[Neonivek]

No you have to prove it is descrimination that warrents the UN's attention

There is such a thing as possitive forms of descrimination.

In fact you live in a society that practices it all the time such as Bonafide occupational requirements.

[Jackrabbit]

Here's the actual amendment.

Here's the relevant change made:

"In operative paragraph 6 (b), replace any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation with discriminatory reasons on any basis"

In case it isn't obvious, "on any basis" covers sexual orientation.  Every single piece of "journalism" I've seen on the subject glosses over this fact entirely, because "journalism" these days amounts to a dick-swinging contest based around who can write the most stupidly sensationalist headline.

Well, this should end the thread, shouldn't it?
I just want to know what did Neil Gaiman have to do with it.

The only reason I noticed this and made the thread was because Neil Gaiman mentioned this on his twitter.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

without the bogeyman of COMMINIZMZ, the US may very well returned to its roots of not fucking the poor for shits and giggles, since the handling of reconstruction after WWII in Europe is one of the driving reasons they have more socialist attitudes).

I'd probably have to call bullshit on that.  The Labour party existed in Britain before the reconstruction money was given.

I didn't say it created the sentiments, just led to more widespread acceptance, given the whole "everything's blasted to hell and the government's the only entity with the resources and motivation to rebuild everything" thing, which naturally encouraged the sentiment of "wow, it's pretty nice when the government helps its people instead of laughing at them while they rot in destitution".


At the end of WWII, most developed nations had been ravaged by war, with the exception of the US, which emerged with a massively increased industrial base, the largest surviving army, with the possible exception of the soviets (who received a not-insignificant amount of their supplies from the US), and a monopoly on the most terrifying superweapon the world had ever seen. In addition, for most of the world, the US was a liberating hero that had beaten down brutal, genocidal regimes, if handled right they would have welcomed them as, if not a formal ruler then as a benevolent overseer (never underestimate the power of spin and diplomacy), not to mention the fact that with the increased (and intact) industrial capacity the US then had they'd be the ones handling a good portion of the reconstruction efforts (even without the other advantages being pressed, the US came to dominate world politics for decades, until problems like Vietnam and incompetent dicking around in middle eastern politics). The only major obstacle would have been the USSR, and even they could probably have been browbeaten into submission and demilitarized given the whole "single bomb that can vaporize an entire city" that the US had. The dirty work of forcing weaker countries that didn't want any part of it could have been handled with foreign conscripts (former soviet soldiers, presumably), who would doubtlessly do the job of pacifying hostile populaces with an excess of brutality, after which the most visible offenders could be made examples of and the "kind and benevolent" US forces could move in to rebuild and handle the occupation. The smartest locals would realize it was all a ruse to both pacify and gain the support of the populace, but such people are always a vocal but ignored minority (just look at the people who bitch endlessly about how horrible and corrupt the government is (allegations that are often true), yet they're completely ignored by everyone who is not already one of them).


Perhaps I've been reading too much Machiavellian shit...

[ChairmanPoo]

Perhaps you've been reading too much Starship Troopers

[Phmcw]

Pseudo you're wrong on many point ( such as the strategic interest of an A bomb, for instance) but as it's a major derail of a dead thread, I won't explain why. Create a new one if you want to discuss that fictional, but actually envisaged at the time, scenario.