Or the anti-abortion activists that literally firebomb places in the States. And if you think those beliefs aren't rooted in a Christian upbringing or literal Christian beliefs, then you're definitely a tad misinformed.
Thread title: "Brexit" Somehow the phrase "Christian militia in Africa" appears. How does this always happen
is it realy sinking though or does it have just some fixable holes? or do you mean ukip being the sinking ship?
the day this stops happening will be the saddest day ever for me. things like these are why I dig this forum
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...age-forced-Nigel-Farage-quit-Ukip-leader.html So a group of people wants to unify Europe and threats those who oppose. It's that enough to call them Nazis in this stupid environment where everything can be simplified to "x was something Hitler did then x=nazi and x=bad"?
I think you need to source better articles than the Daily Mail, and stop sticking up for fascists. I gave you a proper reply beforehand, but yeah it looks like it isn't worth the effort. Death threats are bad nomatter who makes them, but you can't generalise an entire voting populace by them just like Leave voters complained you couldn't the other way around.
You don't get it, do you? I'm trying to show you that your reasoning is illogical. And what's the problem with my piece of news? Do you think it is false that that guy claimed that he has received threats? Anyway you're too radical to understand anything but your simple view of the absolute good and absolute bad.
To show how my reasoning is illogical, you should probably actually address the points I've made, instead of a) repeatedly ignoring my posted content, and b) linking things that have basically zero relation to what I was talking about Case in point: I didn't deny that he had received death threats. Second case in point: you're trying to paint me as a "radical", whatever that means, when discussing a right-wing party with actual ties to neo-Nazi organisations. You want radicals? They're radicals.
@Gorbles -To me radical is thinking "if you are not with me you are against me", is someone that can't understand that I can agree on some things with Nigel Farange and disagree on others. I think that his main problem with EU is indeed a problem. His main problem is "you (EU parliament) have by stealth, by deception... you have imposed upon them (EU people) a political union and when the people in 2005 in the Netherlands and France voted against that political union, when they rejected the Constitution you simply ingnored them and brought lisbon treaty in..." I think EU is bad because: 1. One more layer of politicians without removing any other. It makes it very hard to tell who's responsible for what. In French Revolution it was very clear to know whose head to cut off nowadays it's quite difficult (disclaimer I don't want to decapitate anybody) 2. The permanent European Parliament doing very little and costing a lot (the stupid travel to Strasbourg because french "people" want to feel important). Can't they just meet once every 6 months? 3. The Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the European whatevers that few people knows clearly their function. 4. People don't give a s*** about EU democracy. Turnout: 42.61%, people don't know their parliamentarians. 5. So many chambers and then they say that we have to do as Merkel says. 6. Greece. I agree with Varoufakis on the impotence of the elected government vs unelected (by Greek people) forces. I disagree with him on the possibility of fixing EU. I think EU is good because: 1. Free trade and free movement between evenly developed countries. And we don't need that many institutions for that. 2. Redistribute money so we poor "Jienenses" (36% unemployment) have more to embezzle. -We are not seeing the effect of Brexit, we are seeing the effect of the voting. -I'm against racism, anyway losts of people from outside EU go to UK, so what's the point? -I don't wanna play "spot the fascist/nazi/far-right". People use those words too vaguely(even more if you consider that I'm from a different country), so instead of using any of those words, write how you understand them. That's all I think is worth mentioning about my opinion on the topic.
You have reasonable opinions on the EU, and I appreciate you sharing them. However, this isn't a game of "spot the fascist". Jo Cox, my family's local MP, was shot dead by a man who shouted "Put Britain first!" and is a member of the white nationalist movement called Britain First. Farage and UKIP are the UK's more moderate answer to the far-right British National Party (BNP), which no longer stands for election to the best of my knowledge. Where did its MPs go? Where did its voting base go? This isn't a game. This is real.
We have local government to deal with local problems, national government to deal with national problems. Companies exist that have a greater spending power than entire nations, companies are international. Things like the Panama Papers show why the EU must exist: to prevent companies from exploiting our differences. Nations like Russia (and more importantly, people like Putin) show us that we need to be strongly united to deal with such problems. It's no shock or secret that Russia revels in Europe's weakness. What exactly the EU must look like is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, poor integration (or of the wrong kind) have led to the modern problems, not the mere fact that the EU exists. Schengen can't exist without proper external border control, yet a nation like Greece shows all the things that go wrong when you integrate a system but not it's controlling mechanism. Petty nationalism like this is what i hate about Europe, but blaming this on the EU is shortsighted. Transparency is a problem, one that i like to get fixed too. But the people don't seem to care, and it apparently takes a crisis until there's collective awareness of what something actually does. Few people care how something works until it breaks. There seems to be a common trend toward anti-democracy, also on a national level. Apparently democracy is less important than results. Greece itself is a mess, got itself into a mess and pays the price. What the Greek wanted was something that was never on the table, neither allowed by the people nor allowed by governments. It's a small miracle they got any money at all. Not really sure what you mean by this
Nationalism isn't petty, it's the innate selfish nature of our tribal habits. It's an active distrust of someone who doesmy hold your best interests at heart. It's a disliking of people who don't understand or want to understand the culture dictating how the culture should behave. Nationalism is the people saying that they can take care of themselves. I applaud that attitude. It is so rare these days. Having a big happy family in the EU won't change the selfish motives of all politicians and other leaders alike. They fight for their own. They don't care about the people elsewhere.
Maybe i should rephrase. It's not nationalism in general, it's just the kind that feels pointless. E.g. the European Parliament changing between Brussels and Strasbourg for no other reason than to please france. I think it's fine that people are proud of their country, i know i am.
You literally just explained how nationalism is about being selfish and fighting for our own tribal communities. And then you complained about politicians doing precisely the same thing I'm not defending politicians, by the by. I'm attacking the outdated concept of nationalist pride that tends to trend excessively to xenophobia in this day and age (case in point: making up these magical people that "don't want to understand" your culture).
I think in this modern world, we forget how backwards humans as a species can be. It's the old concept- as individuals we are intelligent, as a large group... well less said the better on that. I like how in the new Independence day, humanity is finally united... how? By being totally xenophobic about an alien race- united in the hatred of something else (admittedly the aliens in Independence day are not shown to have any redeeming features- but the reality in such a situation is unlikely to be as black and white). I mean just look at some of the ridiculous situations that still exist in sports: Females are currently segregated from Males in most sports, including non contact sports such as football (European not US). There is 1 female footballer in a league team in Spain and that took special dispensation, with the agreement she wasn't eligible for selection in the national squad (I mean, why?). Female chess players aren't allowed to play the men (seriously Why?). These are all throwbacks and really should have been changed years ago, yet they persist (and more worrisome is the fact that many women support it because it's the status quo). Same goes for a father who wants to be main carer of his children- that isn't currently viewed as socially acceptable (again why?). The whole mistrust of other countries (or other groups of people) is nothing new. The world is becoming smaller, and eventually it will have to become a more cohesive whole. It's going to take a few more generations for that to happen though in my opinion- the pace of change due to technology is faster than us humans can adapt to it- remember that fast international travel only actually existed from the 1950's (i.e. air travel) and relatively easy mass transit only started in the 1800's (i.e. railways and powered ships). In the scheme of human history- this is a very short space of time.
I think it was fairly clear that he meant politicians should fight for the nation as their "tribe" not their immediate benefactors. I don't think it's that simple. Your parents and family helped build your nation, and there's nothing wrong with being proud of what your predecessors achieved. Secondly, it's not a simple case of "people that don't want to understand your culture" because that knife exists and it cuts both ways. Xenophobia itself is people's unwillingness to understand another's culture, but even so immigrants -when left alone and in the dark- will ultimately distrust and not want to understand our culture.
I do not believe that as a group we're suddenly more stupid. An average crowd would by definition have an average intellect, and an average person plucked off the street too would have an average intellect. Rather, it's when the situation turns dire that we return to our instinct, and part of that instinct is group behaviour. We are, by nature, a social animal after all. Men are built for strength, this is simply biology. While there's technically nothing stopping us from mixing the sexes, i don't see the point as almost inevitably, men will dominate women in physical sports. On the other hand, i don't see any justification for this. Agreed. Although, i suspect that people that are already fairly close (e.g the west) will become closer and people that are far apart (e.g east vs west) will only drift further. Still, we live in an age where if you're being racist, you'll almost immediately get feedback from your target, whereas 50 years ago you could spew all racism and hate you wanted and there was little chance you'd ever hear anyone complain (because those it affected would never be in hearing distance)
