Post Difficult Questions Here

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Duke
WBNWM&BVC
Best answers
0
I like it. It means you can be away for several days and still follow a thread because only 2 people have posted.
 

lordJehovah

Grandmaster Knight
M&B
Best answers
0
It mirrors the expected future of our own universe. There is stuff going on for several billions of years, but the ultimate fate is a dark wasteland torn apart by silence.

:cry:
 
Best answers
0
I wanted to hear an outsider's perspective about this debate in Turkey. What should be your attitude when a politician you do not trust undertakes a policy you prefer? People were quite heated up on this when Erdogan decided to negotiate with PKK 6 years ago. Many intellectuals in the opposition preferred negotiations to conflict but also did not trust Erdogan at all so were ambivalent in their support for negotiations. They were commonly accused of being hypocrites for this. Negotiating with terrorists is also a very delicate matter so any kind of support was instrumental for the success of this policy.
 

Abraxium

That is a very interesting question.

I am really lacking in examples here, the worst offender(s) would perhaps the Left's party leader, that was the only one in parliament party leader to oppose profiteering from welfare measures. As he was quite ideologically close to the party I then supported (2018 ), let's go to the other side. The leader of your average European social conservative with controversies ahoy and a ladle of Euroskepticism. Their leader suggested that the best measure against 2015's refugee crisis was to help on site, I fully agreed with him, this was however as relayed from a contemporary quote from the Dalai Lama. I was and still am more sure that the Dalai lama had the refugees' best interest in mind, whereas with the controversial party leader surely only using it as an excuse to keep them out of our country. To summarise: I doubted his sincerity to actually implement humanitarian actions on site due to his political agenda. The best comparison for the PKK in the western world would perhaps be the ETA, responsible for killing Spain's PM following Franco's regime that ended in the 70's. From what I've understood, the Kurdish struggle for independence is more tolerated in Europe than in the US, and is sometimes seen as necessary action against a oppressive regime. As was the case for eta initially, but its members and civilians grew wary of the violence that came with. I would be very grateful for the input of any Spanish people who oppose their then Social Democratic government, as they were the one to sign a truce. For this though, the opposition added in some demands as to not claim that they were wrong, merely adopting a harder line that stands out from their rivals demands.

Is it very stigmatised to voice an individual opinion or otherwise stand out among the party members in Turkey?
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
Best answers
0
I think you should bite the bullet and give credit where credit is due. You can point out (reasonable suspicions of) ulterior motives, but opposing something you like just because someone you dislike now likes it too, is childish, if not pathetic.
 

Bromden

Archduke
Best answers
0
That's the only thing I learned in high school, that even assholes can be right every once in a while. Won't stop them from keep being assholes, though.
 

Antonis

Marquis
WBWF&SVCNW
Best answers
0
I learned functions and to translate Ancient Greek and Latin to modern Greek, in high school, among many other interesting subjects, in a variety of fields. It seems that Hungarian education is lacking. :unsure:
 

Abraxium

I think you should bite the bullet and give credit where credit is due. You can point out (reasonable suspicions of) ulterior motives, but opposing something you like just because someone you dislike now likes it too, is childish, if not pathetic.
Well that was harsh.

Why is it such a problem? The guy and his party has made several comments in the recent past (1-2 years ago) to show their real, uncensored ideas. If they were able and allowed to curb the influx of migrants, while at the same time arranging humanitarian action on site, I would applaud them. But as long as their wish was being met, that is keeping them out of here, any action taken on site would be half-assed at the very best.

I can give credit where credit is due, Carl Bildt is an extraordinary economist and fiscal politician that offered the Swedish economy a great deal of stability. Despite this, he is one of the most controversial figures in not only the political arena, but also the moderate party, which is my party's outspoken rival.
 

Bromden

Archduke
Best answers
0
I learned functions and to translate Ancient Greek and Latin to modern Greek, in high school, among many other interesting subjects, in a variety of fields. It seems that Hungarian education is lacking. :unsure:
To be frank, there were occasions when I didn't pay full attention to what the teacher was saying.
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
Best answers
0
@Abraxium

Sorry, man, didn't mean nothing by it :smile: It was more in response to Bilgesi's general question than your specific dilemma. I assumed we were talking about proposals by people in power, that are about to happen/can realistically happen. Not just a minor perma-opposition party running their mouth because they know their ideas will never actually be tested by reality.
 
Best answers
0
People keep criticising European colonisers for drawing borders that do not respect ethnic/religious identities. Is it even possible to carve states in a clean way that does not cause this problem? It looks like you always have to keep some 'similar' people out and 'different' people in because people don't spread out so rigidly
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
Best answers
0
Europeans didn't even draw their own borders with respect to ethnic and religious identities and it took a century or so of pan-continental warfare, ethnic cleansing, population transfers and assimilation programs to make it semi-work, and there's still at least 10 potential powder kegs. Why should anyone else get a free pass? :razz:
 
Best answers
2
The "real" complaint about european statebuilding in Africa and Asia is that they put together these provinces and flared up or even created ethnic tension in order to maintain control. Then when independence movements happened the colonisers completely withdrew and didn't even attempt to try and resolve the tensions, resulting in these states with irreconcilable antagonisms between whichever ethnic group worked closest with the colonisers and whichever ones that didn't.

For general postcolonial rhetoric in the west this has been simplified down to "they drew borders without respect for ethnicity" which is exactly what the colonisers would have liked to believe, because it excuses them of starting many of these conflicts in the first place, and essentialises the problems as just part of the scenery in Africa and Asia.
 

Abraxium

Oh yeah, it´s all coming together. Time for some human geography


Is it even possible to carve states in a clean way that does not cause this problem? It looks like you always have to keep some 'similar' people out and 'different' people in because people don't spread out so rigidly
Very short and un-academic answer, no. Even a region that has managed to remain somewhat ethnically homogenous in a very diverse and tumultuous place such as Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, sees "intrusions" into the drawn border. What causes this might very often be marriages and relations across borders, historic migrations or refusal to leave their native home despite it having gone through drastic change. (Such as Christians or other non-muslims residing in the Middle East, at times very isolated)
For modern times, it might also be a factor of work reasons. You'll find a great deal of labourers originating from Eastern Europe in Central Europe that have settled. Which is why the eastern and coastal parts of modern Germany is home to the majority of the country's Polish minority, despite the region's historical ethnic transfers.


The "real" complaint about european statebuilding in Africa and Asia is that they put together these provinces and flared up or even created ethnic tension in order to maintain control. Then when independence movements happened the colonisers completely withdrew and didn't even attempt to try and resolve the tensions, resulting in these states with irreconcilable antagonisms between whichever ethnic group worked closest with the colonisers and whichever ones that didn't.

For general postcolonial rhetoric in the west this has been simplified down to "they drew borders without respect for ethnicity" which is exactly what the colonisers would have liked to believe, because it excuses them of starting many of these conflicts in the first place, and essentialises the problems as just part of the scenery in Africa and Asia.
Did you take African studies in uni? :smile:
If we're using Rwanda as an example, you're extremely correct in that one group might have received better societal status due to their compliance with colonial forces. Tutsi and Hutu aren't very dissimilar in any way but class, I am unsure whether this was the case before or after colonial intervention, but I know that the colonial government heightened the Tutsi to a more lavish role in society.