Members of those groups are doing quite well in a lot of countries.
LOL! Please tell me 2/two countries where Gypsies integrated / "do quite well" by any standard. That means the majority of the population taking a job, going through the education system, etc.
But they are thoroughly marginalized in Romania and other Eastern European countries where they are living below subsistence level and are forced to be criminals just to survive
Nobody is forcing anyone in Eastern Europe to be criminal, that's a ridiculous claim. So many Gypsies in Eastern Europe live in poverty because those countries are, by European Union standards, quite poor themselves. A lot of people there live in poverty - some of them are Gypsies.
What would have been better in the 1930s: being intolerant of Hitler's speech and preventing the Nazis rising to power
First and foremost it's interesting to see your obsession with Hitler and only Hitler, a discredited dictator with basically no real supporters (expect for some fringe minuscule number of idiots).
Why only Hitler but not Lenin + Trotzky + Mussolini + + Stalin + Hitler + Mao, in chronological order?
Now, the Nazis didn't rise to power based on speeches, but based on violence against the German states, the German republic, the Communists, the Jews, the homosexuals, and their own factions (Strasser etc.). The Nazi speech was never the problem, their ability to bring brown shirts fury against their political opponents was.
The Bolsheviks didn't rise to power based on speeches, but based on violence against the Kerensky government, against the Russian Constituent Assembly, the priests, the rich peasants (kulaks), the political parties, and their own factions. The Communist speech was never the problem, their ability to bring red shirts fury against their political opponents was.
The problem is VIOLENCE, not speech.
waiting until violence was the only solution?
Violence only justification is against violence, and such justified violence may come ONLY from the state (as the lawful monopolist of violence), not from non-state actors.
Popper had a VERY WRONG point. He didn't distinguish between violence/calls for violence vs. free speech.
"WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it."
Nowhere Popper refers to the appeasement, nor was the appeasement in any way related to Hitler's military build up (which he did anyway in secret, long before the appeasers), nor was Hitler the only problem (he was arguably the junior evil in comparison with Stalin / communism). But interesting how you mix facts with fiction.
"By being tolerant of Nazis a lot of people ended up dead"
There was LITERALLY nobody dead because of tolerating Nazis. There were LITERALLY millions of people killed for allowing / tolerating VIOLENCE & CALLS FOR VIOLENCE from all kind of totalitarians (Communists, Nazis, Fascists, etc.). You're again mixing facts with fiction just to promote a totalitarian call to violence against speech you disagree with. The whole point of free speech is not to protect speech we agree with, but to protect speech we disagree and even find repugnant.
"in the end we had to be intolerant of them in order to preserve freedom for everyone else"
No, that's the whole fallacy: nobody HAS TO be intolerant with free speech. As for violence and calls for violence, there are enough laws to deal with them. Stop hiding your totalitarian aims behind big banner words: you and your kin are never interested in freedom but in enslaving everyone you guys disagree with.
It originates with philosopher Karl Popper, and by now is well debunked as a fallacy, because it is obviously broken logic.
"In order to preserve freedom"
Funny how SJWs as yourself and openly Communists such as this person always come up with big banner words (such as "In the name of humanity" which actually have nothing to do with the problem they are so eager to offer a totalitarian "solution".
we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
Funny how totalitarian proponents such as yourself never clearly say their definition of "we" doesn't match the "we" any normal person would assume (but rather "only we, the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists") and how they try to obfuscate the true meaning of "certain things" (which sounds benign until it is revealed it means "anything the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists disagree with, including your right to private property, safety, pursuit of happiness, and even life").
Here is a proper rendering of the tolerance vs intolerance balance in a tolerant and open society: "our tolerance should not tolerate physical violence (including attempted/incitement to physical violence)".
The "sweet spot" is about 30-40% socialism and 60-70% capitalism. That is enough for infrastructure and a social safety net, but not enough to stifle innovation and economic growth.
And yet you still didn't receive the Nobel prize for economics. Strange, isn't it?
In essence, any government that collects taxes already has a government-owned means of production.
No, simply no. Your claim is beyond absurd, since "means of production" refer to any tangible way to generate a product or a service. The tax comes AFTER said product or service is being sold.
The government produces tax income.
The government COLLECTS tax income, it does not "produce" it.
Denmark isn't engaged in autocratic centralized control of all facets of the economy. Yet some people spit at the word "socialism" as if it were equivalent to Stalinism or Maoism.
Denmark is NOT socialist, it's a democracy (just like the US or France or Germany).
Moreover, the political leaning of most of their governments was not socialism but social-democracy.
Can I guess that you do not believe that there is any difference between socialists and communists?
I'm not the original poster, but you're nitpicking here in the worst way. Yes, there are differences between socialists and communists, but those differences are in a continuum Despite what extreme-left apologists such as yourself claim, the socialism and the communism are not discrete ideologies and implementations.
Do you think that the Nazis were socialists because their full party title had that word in it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
The Nazi party was officially called National Socialist German Workers' Party for a good reason: it was Socialist and it was focused on the working class.
Just read their political program: - Every citizen should have a job. - No one should live off money from rents or other income unless they have worked for that money. - We want all very big corporations to be owned by the government. - Big industrial companies should share their profits with the workers.
The Nazi were the textbook example of what Socialism is. They could make Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proud!
f so, presumably you think that the old East Germany was a democracy because its name said so.
Actually that's what Bernie and his kind used to claim. They claimed the same about USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and any other heinous totalitarian shithole that claimed they were Socialist or Communist. And, to add salt to your shame, those countries themselves used the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" interchangeably or at least demonstrating the continuum between those concepts. usually the country itself was named as Popular then Socialist, while the Party itself was called Communist (that was because they saw themselves as leading from ahead, as "revolutionary" minority, on the "scientifcally proven path to Communism").
The "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was as Socialist.
But it was. Even Bernie agrees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KCoR6UYs1k
The USSR may well have been heading towards communism under Lenin.
Sure. A path of mass murder.
Stalin did not continue that journey and it slid into something that he wanted.
That's a claim only true fanatics can make. Stalin was continuing whatever Lenin started. There is literally *NOTHING* which Stalin invented, he only had more time and more resources to expand the criminal organization which the Soviet Russia was under Lenin.
Those people way off to your left may be in the middle. Where does that mean you are?
He's agreed many times to be interviewed by Sweden on neutral ground.
Assange could not "agree" to that for the simple reason Swedish prosecutors have never proposed such silly idea.
In reality Assange as a fugitive of justice made unreasonable proposals to the Swedish prosecutors, proposals inadmissible under the Swedish law (which means the prosecutors couldn't agree to them even if they wanted to).
Please stop spewing absurd propaganda. You have the right to defend Assange as much as you like, but not by disseminating fake information.
Really hard to empathize with a leftist drone who believes the best way to secure the cooperation of security guards in case of the Event is by treating them nice NOW. So what happens with their families in the event? What if the Event happens past the expiry date of active duty for this or that security guard? How would one define "nice treatment"?
The actual left is the Bernie Sanders and Justice Democrat wing of the party.
You seem to wilfully mislabel the extreme left as "the real left". Nice try.
They've been hammering away at Medicare for All[...]. You know, sound economic policy.
I never heard ANYONE claiming this absurd idea that Medicare for all is sound economics. It's always about the compassion for the others, the solidarity within a nation. One may or may not agree with having their money taxed more in order to cover Medicare for the untaxed, but to see your absurd claim is truly bizarre.
The "profit at all costs" mentallity is exactly what's driving the economy towards failure.
Yet the US economy is so dynamic, it's the envy of the world. From startup dreamers to economic immigrants to foreign private companies, the US economy is the place to be.
You seem unable to see the forest because of the trees.
Then we compared the prices of a market basket of goods that we were able to find past prices for. I am just going to say that the results were "discomforting."
For those incapable of reading between the lines, the inflation rate we found was very different from the official inflation rate.
First wrong assumption: that China is calculating inflation using the CPI method.
Second wrong assumption: that inflation rate is similar over various product groups.
Slashdot Mirror
Members of those groups are doing quite well in a lot of countries.
LOL! Please tell me 2/two countries where Gypsies integrated / "do quite well" by any standard. That means the majority of the population taking a job, going through the education system, etc.
But they are thoroughly marginalized in Romania and other Eastern European countries where they are living below subsistence level and are forced to be criminals just to survive
Nobody is forcing anyone in Eastern Europe to be criminal, that's a ridiculous claim. So many Gypsies in Eastern Europe live in poverty because those countries are, by European Union standards, quite poor themselves. A lot of people there live in poverty - some of them are Gypsies.
What would have been better in the 1930s: being intolerant of Hitler's speech and preventing the Nazis rising to power
First and foremost it's interesting to see your obsession with Hitler and only Hitler, a discredited dictator with basically no real supporters (expect for some fringe minuscule number of idiots).
Why only Hitler but not Lenin + Trotzky + Mussolini + + Stalin + Hitler + Mao, in chronological order?
Now, the Nazis didn't rise to power based on speeches, but based on violence against the German states, the German republic, the Communists, the Jews, the homosexuals, and their own factions (Strasser etc.). The Nazi speech was never the problem, their ability to bring brown shirts fury against their political opponents was.
The Bolsheviks didn't rise to power based on speeches, but based on violence against the Kerensky government, against the Russian Constituent Assembly, the priests, the rich peasants (kulaks), the political parties, and their own factions. The Communist speech was never the problem, their ability to bring red shirts fury against their political opponents was.
The problem is VIOLENCE, not speech.
waiting until violence was the only solution?
Violence only justification is against violence, and such justified violence may come ONLY from the state (as the lawful monopolist of violence), not from non-state actors.
"Popper had a pretty good point"
Popper had a VERY WRONG point. He didn't distinguish between violence /calls for violence vs. free speech.
"WW2 was just ending in Europe, and the policy of appeasement was widely blamed for allowing Hitler to build up his military and start it."
Nowhere Popper refers to the appeasement, nor was the appeasement in any way related to Hitler's military build up (which he did anyway in secret, long before the appeasers), nor was Hitler the only problem (he was arguably the junior evil in comparison with Stalin / communism). But interesting how you mix facts with fiction.
"By being tolerant of Nazis a lot of people ended up dead"
There was LITERALLY nobody dead because of tolerating Nazis. There were LITERALLY millions of people killed for allowing / tolerating VIOLENCE & CALLS FOR VIOLENCE from all kind of totalitarians (Communists, Nazis, Fascists, etc.). You're again mixing facts with fiction just to promote a totalitarian call to violence against speech you disagree with. The whole point of free speech is not to protect speech we agree with, but to protect speech we disagree and even find repugnant.
"in the end we had to be intolerant of them in order to preserve freedom for everyone else"
No, that's the whole fallacy: nobody HAS TO be intolerant with free speech. As for violence and calls for violence, there are enough laws to deal with them. Stop hiding your totalitarian aims behind big banner words: you and your kin are never interested in freedom but in enslaving everyone you guys disagree with.
"Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. "
It originates with philosopher Karl Popper, and by now is well debunked as a fallacy, because it is obviously broken logic.
"In order to preserve freedom"
Funny how SJWs as yourself and openly Communists such as this person always come up with big banner words (such as "In the name of humanity" which actually have nothing to do with the problem they are so eager to offer a totalitarian "solution".
we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
Funny how totalitarian proponents such as yourself never clearly say their definition of "we" doesn't match the "we" any normal person would assume (but rather "only we, the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists") and how they try to obfuscate the true meaning of "certain things" (which sounds benign until it is revealed it means "anything the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists disagree with, including your right to private property, safety, pursuit of happiness, and even life").
Here is a proper rendering of the tolerance vs intolerance balance in a tolerant and open society: "our tolerance should not tolerate physical violence (including attempted/incitement to physical violence)".
You realize you're trying to reason with unreasonable, extreme-left-wing SJWs?
Your opinion doesn't count because you're a SJW and a defender of SJWs.
You're confusing republic with democracy. These are two separate areas.
Republic vs. monarchy. Democracy vs. autocracy.
Of course, as a simple citizen, you get no option or recourse.
This has nothing to do with being a citizen but 100% with being a consumer. Stop mixing unmixable things.
The "sweet spot" is about 30-40% socialism and 60-70% capitalism. That is enough for infrastructure and a social safety net, but not enough to stifle innovation and economic growth.
And yet you still didn't receive the Nobel prize for economics. Strange, isn't it?
In essence, any government that collects taxes already has a government-owned means of production.
No, simply no. Your claim is beyond absurd, since "means of production" refer to any tangible way to generate a product or a service. The tax comes AFTER said product or service is being sold.
The government produces tax income.
The government COLLECTS tax income, it does not "produce" it.
Your argument is a total fail.
For what would I need more than 50,000 - 100,000 disposable income?
This questions should be answered by the individual, not by the government. That's the fallacy of your silly argument.
Denmark isn't engaged in autocratic centralized control of all facets of the economy. Yet some people spit at the word "socialism" as if it were equivalent to Stalinism or Maoism.
Denmark is NOT socialist, it's a democracy (just like the US or France or Germany).
Moreover, the political leaning of most of their governments was not socialism but social-democracy.
Please stop spewing lies.
Cheap DIY rodent trap
Can I guess that you do not believe that there is any difference between socialists and communists?
I'm not the original poster, but you're nitpicking here in the worst way. Yes, there are differences between socialists and communists, but those differences are in a continuum Despite what extreme-left apologists such as yourself claim, the socialism and the communism are not discrete ideologies and implementations.
Do you think that the Nazis were socialists because their full party title had that word in it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
The Nazi party was officially called National Socialist German Workers' Party for a good reason: it was Socialist and it was focused on the working class.
Just read their political program:
- Every citizen should have a job.
- No one should live off money from rents or other income unless they have worked for that money.
- We want all very big corporations to be owned by the government.
- Big industrial companies should share their profits with the workers.
The Nazi were the textbook example of what Socialism is. They could make Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proud!
f so, presumably you think that the old East Germany was a democracy because its name said so.
Actually that's what Bernie and his kind used to claim. They claimed the same about USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and any other heinous totalitarian shithole that claimed they were Socialist or Communist. And, to add salt to your shame, those countries themselves used the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" interchangeably or at least demonstrating the continuum between those concepts. usually the country itself was named as Popular then Socialist, while the Party itself was called Communist (that was because they saw themselves as leading from ahead, as "revolutionary" minority, on the "scientifcally proven path to Communism").
The "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was as Socialist.
But it was. Even Bernie agrees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KCoR6UYs1k
The USSR may well have been heading towards communism under Lenin.
Sure. A path of mass murder.
Stalin did not continue that journey and it slid into something that he wanted.
That's a claim only true fanatics can make. Stalin was continuing whatever Lenin started. There is literally *NOTHING* which Stalin invented, he only had more time and more resources to expand the criminal organization which the Soviet Russia was under Lenin.
Those people way off to your left may be in the middle. Where does that mean you are?
It means I'm right.
He's agreed many times to be interviewed by Sweden on neutral ground.
Assange could not "agree" to that for the simple reason Swedish prosecutors have never proposed such silly idea.
In reality Assange as a fugitive of justice made unreasonable proposals to the Swedish prosecutors, proposals inadmissible under the Swedish law (which means the prosecutors couldn't agree to them even if they wanted to).
Please stop spewing absurd propaganda. You have the right to defend Assange as much as you like, but not by disseminating fake information.
Really hard to empathize with a leftist drone who believes the best way to secure the cooperation of security guards in case of the Event is by treating them nice NOW. So what happens with their families in the event? What if the Event happens past the expiry date of active duty for this or that security guard? How would one define "nice treatment"?
The actual left is the Bernie Sanders and Justice Democrat wing of the party.
You seem to wilfully mislabel the extreme left as "the real left". Nice try.
They've been hammering away at Medicare for All[...]. You know, sound economic policy.
I never heard ANYONE claiming this absurd idea that Medicare for all is sound economics. It's always about the compassion for the others, the solidarity within a nation. One may or may not agree with having their money taxed more in order to cover Medicare for the untaxed, but to see your absurd claim is truly bizarre.
The "profit at all costs" mentallity is exactly what's driving the economy towards failure.
Yet the US economy is so dynamic, it's the envy of the world. From startup dreamers to economic immigrants to foreign private companies, the US economy is the place to be.
You seem unable to see the forest because of the trees.
Then we compared the prices of a market basket of goods that we were able to find past prices for. I am just going to say that the results were "discomforting."
For those incapable of reading between the lines, the inflation rate we found was very different from the official inflation rate.
First wrong assumption: that China is calculating inflation using the CPI method.
Second wrong assumption: that inflation rate is similar over various product groups.
So far they've been used to [...] check on climate change
How exactly can *ANYONE* search for climate change? By definition this is a long-term process (as opposed to weather).
Those who used Cyrillic in the Eastern Europe continue to use Cyrillic. Some former soviet union countries in Cental Asia switched to Latin
Moldova switched in 1989 from Cyrillic to Latin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_Cyrillic_alphabet
As the first case to test the "right to be forgotten" in England's High Court
There is no such institution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice
Am I the only one who...
Yes.
that as long as it is possible for nearly anyone to walk into a store and walk out with a gun or guns without any background checks
That's not possible in the United States. So it's a standard case of straw man fallacy.
(3 of the top 10 are Asian, 6 are Western European and the 1 remaining is Israel).
Israel is located in Asia, hence it is an Asian country.