Brexit.

[madvanced]

5 hours ago, Nosebleed said:

Freedom of movement in Europe has to do with the Schengen Area, not the EU itself (Iceland, a non EU member, is in the area, for example). The UK wasn't in that area to begin with though, so nothing really changes on that front.

While true the UK is giving up any right of being part of the Erasmus program(among other things) which is going to fuck university students so much in the arse, as well as any grants that they gave to foreign students that are citizens of another EU country.

[Okarin]

Well, seems like we'll be learning a lot of German in the future.

I'd love to know Kurisu's views on the Brexit (Break-shit?)

[Lewycool]

Watching Non Brits discuss Brexit. 

[Darklord Rooke]

2 hours ago, Lewycool said:

Watching Non Brits discuss Brexit. 

Heh, does this include watching Merkel and the other European leaders hold an emergency meeting to discuss the Brexit  

[Lewycool]

13 minutes ago, Rooke said:

Heh, does this include watching Merkel and the other European leaders hold an emergency meeting to discuss the Brexit  

Depends if they've whipped out their PhD's in brexit

FWI we're not the first to leave, but I don't have a PhD. So someone else can tell me wrong.

 

 

No. You're not allowed rookie

[Darklord Rooke]

5 minutes ago, Lewycool said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

No. You're not allowed rookie

Wha? No fair. Boooo  

[Darklord Rooke]

BTW, in case it interests anyone, the idea that unqualified people shouldn’t discuss various things is something which is brought up as a downside to democracy itself. 37 million people voted in the Brexit elections, and while they live in that place and the decision ultimately affects them, how many of them actually know the impacts of such a decision? And no, ‘living there’ doesn’t automatically grant you magical insight everyone else doesn’t have. People like to say that because you live there, you should have a say how things are run. I find this an acceptable argument ... as long as those people know how things are run, and actually know what they're voting for. Otherwise I question why this automatic right is even a thing.

So if millions of those people are too unknowledgeable to know the impacts, why are they qualified to dictate Government policy through their ignorance? Because they live there? What a quality and well-thought out reason. Consider Joe Doe down the road who voted based on a pack of misinformation and lies, his ignorance affected the decision the Government has made and the future of everybody in that nation. Why should this ever be acceptable?  

Don’t think the political parties don’t know this, which is why both sides of politics bombard the airwaves with slogans and crap aimed at the lowest common denominator. People who are educated can mostly make up their own mind, but WHA-HEY, look at all these uneducated folk we can sway with a massive scare campaign.

This sort of stuff is one of the bigger downsides of democracy. Tyranny of the masses is one thing, it’s quite another when a significant portion of the majority is made up of people who don’t really know. 

Which is one of the reasons why the voting age should be raised to 25, btw …

Now when consider all of the above, you'll start to figure out why disqualifying certain people from 'commenting' on stuff is a Pandora's box. I'm actually waiting for somebody to open it, then we'll all transition to a society led by the intellectual elite ... which will inevitably end in a revolt when that same intellectual elite start culling the population. And no, I haven't been reading too many sci-fi novels.

EDIT: I've been seeing quite a few people get annoyed when outsiders start commenting on a nation's internal issues (like that ever concerns America and their citizens when discussing China. Or Russia.) This is one of a few posts I've wanted to make on the issue for a while.

[Jibril]

^You may haven't read too many sci-fi novels, but it seems you've re-read Mein Kampf too much 

Besides, if the people of UK would truly knows what's best for them, then the polls wouldn't even be a close match of 48% vs 52%. It should've been a truly one sided winning.

Oh well, at least the drop in pounds make it much cheaper for me to travel there for vacation...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rooke said:

BTW, in case it interests anyone, the idea that unqualified people shouldn’t discuss various things is something which is brought up as a downside to democracy itself. 37 million people voted in the Brexit elections, and while they live in that place and the decision ultimately affects them, how many of them actually know the impacts of such a decision? And no, ‘living there’ doesn’t automatically grant you magical insight everyone else doesn’t have. People like to say that because you live there, you should have a say how things are run. I find this an acceptable argument ... as long as those people know how things are run, and actually know what they're voting for. Otherwise I question why this automatic right is even a thing.

So if millions of those people are too unknowledgeable to know the impacts, why are they qualified to dictate Government policy through their ignorance? Because they live there? What a quality and well-thought out reason. Consider Joe Doe down the road who voted based on a pack of misinformation and lies, his ignorance affected the decision the Government has made and the future of everybody in that nation. Why should this ever be acceptable?  

Don’t think the political parties don’t know this, which is why both sides of politics bombard the airwaves with slogans and crap aimed at the lowest common denominator. People who are educated can mostly make up their own mind, but WHA-HEY, look at all these uneducated folk we can sway with a massive scare campaign.

This sort of stuff is one of the bigger downsides of democracy. Tyranny of the masses is one thing, it’s quite another when a significant portion of the majority is made up of people who don’t really know. 

Which is one of the reasons why the voting age should be raised to 25, btw …

Now when consider all of the above, you'll start to figure out why disqualifying certain people from 'commenting' on stuff is a Pandora's box. I'm actually waiting for somebody to open it, then we'll all transition to a society led by the intellectual elite ... which will inevitably end in a revolt when that same intellectual elite start culling the population. And no, I haven't been reading too many sci-fi novels.

EDIT: I've been seeing quite a few people get annoyed when outsiders start commenting on a nation's internal issues (like that ever concerns America and their citizens when discussing China. Or Russia.) This is one of a few posts I've wanted to make on the issue for a while.

Wow, you (or they, don't know if it's you) really take people for stupid fucks.

Like it or not, Bob the farmer has the right to vote for things that he thinks are best for him.

As far as I know, nobody - be it the "educated" or "uneducated' - can make any correct prediction. Things are way too complex and its extremely irritating to see people treating the problem as if they were right while they base their argument on a few of the hundreds of indicators. Or course they want people to agree with them, so they have to show confidence. But it's Bullshit. If the way things were running were predictable, we'd rely on facts.

Condescending attitudes are the worse. That's one "education" that hasn't been done correctly.

 

As for the brexit, Great Britain never felt like they really wanted to be in 100%. They are out now, good for them, I don't give a shit.

[Darklord Rooke]

1 minute ago, maefdomn said:

Wow, you (or they, don't know if it's you) really take people for stupid fucks.

Re-read the part of my post where I said:

Now when you consider all of the above, you'll start to figure out why disqualifying certain people from 'commenting' on stuff is a Pandora's box.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rooke said:

Re-read the part of my post where I said:

Now when you consider all of the above, you'll start to figure out why disqualifying certain people from 'commenting' on stuff is a Pandora's box.

??

Oh ! I misunderstood this sentence, I understood the opposite.

Sorry dude. See how this angered me ^^, I really hate people who could say those kind of things.

Appologies once more.

[Suzu Fanatic]

Just found out about this - gotta say, it must suck for the 48-49% that voted against. Wonder how many will renounce citizenship and file for immigration? (albeit that's a lot of effort - but who willingly stays on a sinking ship?)

[KuroganeHomura]

6 hours ago, Rooke said:

BTW, in case it interests anyone, the idea that unqualified people shouldn’t discuss various things is something which is brought up as a downside to democracy itself. 37 million people voted in the Brexit elections, and while they live in that place and the decision ultimately affects them, how many of them actually know the impacts of such a decision? And no, ‘living there’ doesn’t automatically grant you magical insight everyone else doesn’t have. People like to say that because you live there, you should have a say how things are run. I find this an acceptable argument ... as long as those people know how things are run, and actually know what they're voting for. Otherwise I question why this automatic right is even a thing.

So if millions of those people are too unknowledgeable to know the impacts, why are they qualified to dictate Government policy through their ignorance? Because they live there? What a quality and well-thought out reason. Consider Joe Doe down the road who voted based on a pack of misinformation and lies, his ignorance affected the decision the Government has made and the future of everybody in that nation. Why should this ever be acceptable? 

If I feel like it, I'm free to become an alcoholic or gamble all of my possessions away. Changing the scale from one person's life to an entire country doesn't change anything about that since every single person only has one vote. Which is to say there's no difference between one guy throwing his life away or a large group of people deciding to throw their lives away. Any limit or condition put on the ability of the group to decide their fate themselves as they see fit equals doing the same to the ability of a single person to decide their own fate.

But even if we disregard that, the fundamental issue with the idea is that whoever gets elected to decide who's fit to vote and who isn't would have to be voted in by a pool of voters including those meant to be sorted out afterwards. Unless they're not elected, in which case they'd qualify for the job by excelling at whatever gets you there in that particular system. Is someone who's great at scheming or violence automatically qualified to decide whether someone's fit to vote?

[Down]

I like a lot this analysis of Brexit by Glenn Greenwald which puts it in a broader perspective. I think he's right on many points.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

[Narcosis]

>Great Britain

[Guest]

Democracy is only good when my opinions prevail.

Also people who disagree with me shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're just racists and bigots anyway, and they're not as educated as me.

[Velociraptor]

On 6/30/2016 at 0:03 AM, frogstat said:

Democracy is only good when my opinions prevail.

Also people who disagree with me shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're just racists and bigots anyway, and they're not as educated as me.

I'm glad you see the light, Frogstat.