Ghemotoc said: Zefyris said: Not in France. France is a true secular state, where no Religion can pretend to influence in any way or form the state decision; and the French citizens themselves are deeply in favour of such secularism. That kind of religion based far-right would be stillborn. That's why the far-right movements you're seeing in France are not having that component; something like the Hungarian or Pole case simply cannot happen here. In the end,you just need to remember that "far right"'s definition will depend of the political spectrum of the country you're speaking of. There's literally no point in reserving far right or far left for cases that cannot really survive in said country's political environment. So yes, Le Pen is "far right" for France. her ideas (for the few she actually has) may not be labelled as far right in some other countries, but that doesn't mean a thing in this case. That's... a half truth lol. "christian traditions" That is just indigenous culture, why do you hate aborginal people and culture? You literally can't watch the news in France without suffering some diverse non-French shlock. Keeping the freedom of cult while attempting to separate religion and state was stupid. Religious ticks refuse to live without trying to dominate others. We should have thrown them all out of the frontiers and burnt every one of their temples. That is very Islamophobic. |
RuneImperialist said: That is just indigenous culture, why do you hate aborginal people and culture? You literally can't watch the news in France without suffering some diverse non-French shlock. Keeping the freedom of cult while attempting to separate religion and state was stupid. Religious ticks refuse to live without trying to dominate others. We should have thrown them all out of the frontiers and burnt every one of their temples. That is very Islamophobic. Being a submissive sheep isn't part of our culture, that's why we beheaded our catholic king, genius. I'm not surprised it's hard to understand for a brit who feeds a royal family since his birth. I was obviously talking about all religions, including christians back in 1789 (^: ESPECIALLY christians. What is the pope doing anyway except making AIDS pandemic and overpopulation worse in Africa? Yeah nothing. DW migrants don't reach our frontiers nowadays, we drown them in the mediterranean sea. That should make you happy. |
 |
Ghemotoc said: RuneImperialist said: That is just indigenous culture, why do you hate aborginal people and culture? That is very Islamophobic. Being a submissive sheep isn't part of our culture, that's why we beheaded our catholic king, genius. I'm not surprised it's hard to understand for a brit who feeds a royal family since his birth. Christianity is a part of French culture, just like Juduaism is a part of Asheknazi culture, or Islam is a part of Turkish culture. I was obviously talking about all religions, including christians back in 1789 (^: ESPECIALLY christians. In 1789, who was throwing rocks at adulters and who wasn't? Catholics or Muslims? Which were more religious? What is the pope doing anyway except making AIDS pandemic and overpopulation worse in Africa? Yeah nothing. That is not because of Christianity, as Africans have high rates of AIDS everywhere in the world, America, Europe and Africa. DW migrants don't reach our frontiers nowadays, we drown them in the mediterranean sea. That should make you happy. DW, Deep Water? Even Australia get the Sudanese, France has the highest African population in Europe. |
Zefyris said: Ryuk9428 said: @RuneImperialist Maybe on the immigration issue specifically. But wouldn't somebody who is truly "far-right" be somebody attempting to bring France back to its historically Catholic origins? Not in France. France is a true secular state, where no Religion can pretend to influence in any way or form the state decision; and the French citizens themselves are deeply in favour of such secularism. That kind of religion based far-right would be stillborn. That's why the far-right movements you're seeing in France are not having that component; something like the Hungarian or Pole case simply cannot happen here. In the end,you just need to remember that "far right"'s definition will depend of the political spectrum of the country you're speaking of. There's literally no point in reserving far right or far left for cases that cannot really survive in said country's political environment. So yes, Le Pen is "far right" for France. her ideas (for the few she actually has) may not be labelled as far right in some other countries, but that doesn't mean a thing in this case. Far right, by definition, means it is radical and those views are not held by the majority of people even on the right. A far right government/country could be seen as a government or country that is considered to have radical views compared to the countries around them which is why Hungary’s government is sometimes referred to as far right. If Le Pen is getting 33% of popular support then she clearly isn’t far right anymore. While I agree that any kind of genuine conservatism in France would probably be seen as far right just as would be the case with California or New York in the US, I do think that genuine conservatism should be the bare minimum at least to be considered far right. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: @RuneImperialist Maybe on the immigration issue specifically. But wouldn't somebody who is truly "far-right" be somebody attempting to bring France back to its historically Catholic origins? The Muslims would be an issue because they don't fit in with Catholicism. But many of the people being called far-right in France don't seem to have any desire for overturning secularism and often attack Muslim immigrants from a liberal perspective that Muslims basically threaten secular/liberal values. This isn't really very far-right, its just defensive liberalism. Hungary on the other hand is actually trying to become a Christian based democracy. Limiting immigration is certainly part of Viktor Orban's platform but its much more comprehensive then a lot of the politicians in Western Europe who seem to hyperfocus on immigration. "Defensive Liberalism" to me it kinda sounds funny how the Conservative Right wingers want to Defend certain progressive Values. The thing is that such defensive Liberalism will only result in Muslims retreating further into their conservative values that go against secularism/liberalism which then only leads to Right wingers to go further with their defensive liberalism. in other words it Created a vicious Cycle. The Hyperfocus on immigration also ignores another root cause of such issues and that is poverty Divide. the divide between the Rich and the poor Divides ppl, putting poor Families into poor communities and Many immigrants (Majority of them) fall into these communities and thus creating bubbles. The Immigrants probably would have been more Liberal if the wealth divide wasn't an issue. But it is an issue. immigrant Families come into the country and then get put into such communities. These communities and Right wingers then push them into their own conservative values because that's what ppl do when it gets tough. It also doesn't help that Progressives and Left wingers embrace the Conservative Values of the immigrants and then parade them like a progressive thing. So immigrants come here only to get pushed into more their conservatism from all sides. Now how do we solve that complicated issue? Solving the Wealth Divide issue would be one of the solutions right? |
Bourmegar said: Ryuk9428 said: @RuneImperialist Maybe on the immigration issue specifically. But wouldn't somebody who is truly "far-right" be somebody attempting to bring France back to its historically Catholic origins? The Muslims would be an issue because they don't fit in with Catholicism. But many of the people being called far-right in France don't seem to have any desire for overturning secularism and often attack Muslim immigrants from a liberal perspective that Muslims basically threaten secular/liberal values. This isn't really very far-right, its just defensive liberalism. Hungary on the other hand is actually trying to become a Christian based democracy. Limiting immigration is certainly part of Viktor Orban's platform but its much more comprehensive then a lot of the politicians in Western Europe who seem to hyperfocus on immigration. "Defensive Liberalism" to me it kinda sounds funny how the Conservative Right wingers want to Defend certain progressive Values. The thing is that such defensive Liberalism will only result in Muslims retreating further into their conservative values that go against secularism/liberalism which then only leads to Right wingers to go further with their defensive liberalism. in other words it Created a vicious Cycle. The cycle is completely artificial, would there be a divide between the muslims and Liberals, if not for the importation of a culturally and politically different population into France. The Hyperfocus on immigration also ignores another root cause of such issues and that is poverty Divide. the divide between the Rich and the poor Divides ppl, putting poor Families into poor communities and Many immigrants (Majority of them) fall into these communities and thus creating bubbles. The hyperfocus on immigration makes, sense, because why are there poor Muslims in France? Were they rich in North Africa? Nope, so immigration brought a poor religious and ethnic minority into France. And focusing on poor foreigners distracts attention from poor indigenous French people. The Immigrants probably would have been more Liberal if the wealth divide wasn't an issue. Completely absurd, so because they were let into France, and thus an ARTIFICIAL wealth divide was created, that has to addressed, through what? Welfare, Affirmative Action, Investments into their communities? Are rich Muslims in Saudi Arabia or UAE liberal??? If they were just left poor in North Africa, there would be none of these problems in France. But it is an issue. immigrant Families come into the country and then get put into such communities. These communities and Right wingers then push them into their own conservative values because that's what ppl do when it gets tough. It also doesn't help that Progressives and Left wingers embrace the Conservative Values of the immigrants and then parade them like a progressive thing. So immigrants come here only to get pushed into more their conservatism from all sides. Muslims are far more liberal in France and Europe than they were in their country of origin, so your comment is inaccurate, nobody is pressuring Muslims to be conservative, other than themselves. Now how do we solve that complicated issue? Solving the Wealth Divide issue would be one of the solutions right? And how is that solved? Reappropriating funds towards Europeans, and giving them to Muslims. The problem is solved by not letting in poor foreigners that will cause division. Then there is no Wealth, Religious, Political and Social divisions in this context. There will still be issues between French, Bretons, Ocittans and Basques, but that is a native issue, that is not preventable. The Hyperfocus on immigration also ignores another root cause of such issues and that is poverty Divide. the divide between the Rich and the poor Divides ppl, putting poor Families into poor communities and Many immigrants (Majority of them) fall into these communities and thus creating bubbles. By referring to the discussion on immigration as a "hyperfocus", you are demeaning it's legitimacy within the discussion, as in, reducing/limiting immigration is irrelevant or negligable. And then you go on to say, that putting these poor immigrants into poor immigrant communities creates bubbles. However, the core of that problem is not poverty, but immigration that you dismissed as a hyperfocus, because how can there be poor immigrants being put into poor immigrant communities without immigration. So, to 100% avoid these bubbles, just have a sensible limited immigration policy, disallowing large numbers, and impoverished people. Does South Korea have large poor immigrant Middle Eastern & Northern African communities in bubbles? This is similar to the Dark Elves in Windhelm, a poor disenfranchised refugee/immigrant community, and the problems stemming from it. Well does the Sumerset Isles have that issue? No, they don't because they just closed their borders, problem averted. |
RuneRemMay 4, 2021 3:21 PM
RuneImperialist said: Were the Algerians supporting Diversity too in 1960? Just stop with your racist nonsense, Were the anti-colonialists racist too? no one cares if your family leaves in France since three centuries. In the past, you had to present 16 quarters of nobility at the royal court, and now, you would have to present what? The ashes of your ancestors and a DNA test? So are the Arab Paletsinian Muslims Israeli? They have a lot more claim to Israel/paelstine, than Algerians/Non-Indigenous have claim to France. And you are the one deeming the comments of others "lazy"? You must enjoy making a fool of yourself. Algerians fought for their independence after suffering from one of the harshest colonisations in history (Aphatie was right by the way). Their fight was perfectly justifiable. Stop drawing false equivalences, some people do speak about "reverse colonisation", but this is nothing comparable. For example, colonisers always live a privileged life (to say the least) in colonies, and what kind of privilege have immigrants in France? Again, this is a false equivalence. Another false equivalence... No one "has claim to France" (just so you remember, the immigration you are complaining about after WWII was needed and in particular legal, and the people from Mahgreb and Sub-Saharan Africa who came to France had to do the most physically straining jobs and live in very unpleasant places), and secondly, the creation of Israel has nothing to do with France. This is probably one of the most laughable comparison I have heard between a millennium old kingdom that a country created less than a century ago in very special circumstances... ProfessionalNEET said: Meusnier said: No, there are no risks for a coup to happen any time soon. Ah, so it's just another nothingburger You have an uncanny obsession with France, NEET. You do have a point there, I like picking on France for some reason. I cannot believe that you took this bait and ignored the global security law a couple of weeks ago. In short, if you do not film policemen and almost get beaten to death, nothing will happen for them, but if you film them, you will go to jail and be fined. The surveillance of the population will only get stronger will flying drones everywhere to add to the folklore. https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/28/why-is-france-s-new-national-security-bill-controversial Hmm, I haven't been following that. I am not sure how that would affect a coup attempt, especially since the people who who be responsible for enforcing that law seem like they would be inclined than the general population to support a coup. As Ghemotoc said, the police and the military in France tend to have fascist and racist sentiments. It is also well known that, in a lot of countries, the police tend to treat the far-right more gently than other groups, like leftists and ethnic minorities. Just look at how police responded to the Capitol Riot in the United States versus how they responded to the Black Lives Matter protests before that. So... retired generals (aka civilians) whined in some blog the 13th of April about the insecurity and similar things. It was later republished by Valeurs Actuelles on the anniversary date of the Algiers putsch, and one can indeed suspect that there was some malice in this choice. Well the wording is kind of confusing, but it seems that the 20 generals weren't retired but rather "reservists". I am guessing that means they aren't actively leading any troops or anything, but can be called upon by the army to do so if they see it fit. There were also some active-duty soldiers, including some officers, who signed the letter. The fact that no active-duty generals signed it is a good sign though. However, this is factually wrong: Valeurs Actuelles is not right-wing but far-right by the way. Its articles are 1:1 with the trendy topics in Current Events. Ah, I see. This is a non-event, and Macron only tried to make it big to damage Marine Le Pen before the next election that will take place in a year, while he is the one who gets more authoritarian by the day. In fact, Macron did not want to react until he realised what the date of the 21st of April meant. But Le Pen made a huge mistake in supporting this tribune, and it is only normal that Macron tries to take advantage of it. Well the fact that a major politician like Marine Le Pen would support this letter is somewhat concerning, although it remains to be seen if it will hurt her prospects in the 2022 presidential election. That a majority of people agree that Paris and Marseilles is as safe as Chicago does not make them far-right or anything (although 45% of voters would be ready to vote for Le Pen next year according to polls...), but I hope that they do not buy into the rest of the nonsense, for there is no sign of civil war coming whatsoever, just a bunch of grandpas who regret that they do not live in the times of the crusades. Made me chuckle, nice Indeed, you replied to the question yourself; there are no reason for a coup d’État to happen. The yellow vests were never really a threat to the country's stability to be honest. And unemployement or the country's relative economical decline is not a cause of revolution by itself. Not so sure about the immigration part honestly, but the number of illegal immigrants in France is estimated to be 0.6% of the population: https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/europe/limmigration-illegale-representerait-1-de-la-population-europeenne-1147556 Ah, so France isn't as unstable as some would have you think. But this is not about the eventual coup, but rather on the importance of the news. Here, we only have speculations, and with this law, a definitive turn to a more and more authoritarian State. @Ghemotoc is writing satire as usual and the police and the military are nowhere "fascist" for the simple reason that they are politically illiterate to know about fascism. Traditionally right, yes, but that stops here. Not too sure about racism honestly, there is no data supporting that and the right dichotomy is policemen/non-policemen as it should be clear looking at the latest affairs involving police brutality. Those American events are irrelevant for the American police can hardly be compared to the French one (first, they are a bit better trained, and do not have to deal with so much violence). True, but they were all minions. The leader was a former security head of the Front National... Enough said. Le Pen made a huge mistake and one can only rejoice about it. Ryuk9428 said: Figva said: Have you seen recent poll results in terms of support for Marine Le Pen on different age groups tho ? It seems that there is a good shot at making a dream come true since Macron failed to sway away islam extremist and refugee immigration problems, he only talked about few times but never taken any action which is shamefull when France is at this state already The fact that Le Pen is considered "far right" in France just shows me how liberal the status quo is in France. Le Pen is increasing her support by basically crafting an image of her being "liberal in every other way. I just don't like Islam." Let's be honest, if the only position a person has that is right-wing is "I don't like those Muslim immigrants." They're not right-wing or conservative. They're just a liberal who's actually consistent about their beliefs. I know the idea of a liberal being consistent is pretty shocking but it does happen occasionally. The people who really don't like Muslims are people who are afraid that Muslims are threatening the status quo of liberalism and that more Muslims could result in a radical return to conservatism. You can see this given how people who are anti-Islam often use the fact that the Muslims' views are extremely right-wing in order to convince people to ban immigration from their countries or kick them out. Basically, the Muslims don't belong here because they're not liberal enough. The idea that people who think this way are "far-right" is quite frankly laughable. A real far-righter would be advocating for things like a religious theocracy, traditional gender roles, nationalistic, moral, and religious based education, reducing the legal age of marriage, and policies which push young people into marrying early in life and building families. Viktor Orban really is trying to do that in Hungary, which is why he is currently my favorite politician. She is far-right compared to French politics, not in some abstract realm of politics and she is not a fascist wannabe leader either. Besides the political labels, a good reason to pray that she will never run France is her political incompetence, limited intellect and lack of any political vision whatsoever. For example, she claimed for the "Frexit" a few years ago and to go back to the "franc" (old French money), but stopped doing so for it does not seem very popular anymore. She is not the ancestor of Hildegard von Mariendorf. The idea that people who think this way are "far-right" is quite frankly laughable. A real far-righter would be advocating for things like a religious theocracy, traditional gender roles, nationalistic, moral, and religious based education, reducing the legal age of marriage, and policies which push young people into marrying early in life and building families. Very odd ideas. Fascism is traditional a synonym of anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalist, anti-clerical, etc. Especially in France where the separation between the Church and the State goes back to 1905; no one wants a theocracy and having trials for "offense to religion" and "offense to public morality" as in the 19th century (Baudelaire, Flaubert, Courier, etc). I will not discuss the other points for they are off-topic, but I will just mention that Marine Le Pen is a woman and that no one will ever accept to go back to times where women were not working (because to start with, this was only possible in the nobility, and all women of my family worked since at least two centuries... and with today's wages, supporting a family with a single salary is almost impossible for most people). Having lectures on ethics and morals in school would not hurt by way. Ghemotoc said: Zefyris said: Not in France. France is a true secular state, where no Religion can pretend to influence in any way or form the state decision; and the French citizens themselves are deeply in favour of such secularism. That kind of religion based far-right would be stillborn. That's why the far-right movements you're seeing in France are not having that component; something like the Hungarian or Pole case simply cannot happen here. In the end,you just need to remember that "far right"'s definition will depend of the political spectrum of the country you're speaking of. There's literally no point in reserving far right or far left for cases that cannot really survive in said country's political environment. So yes, Le Pen is "far right" for France. her ideas (for the few she actually has) may not be labelled as far right in some other countries, but that doesn't mean a thing in this case. That's... a half truth lol. "christian traditions" and anti-muslim rethoric are part of the right and far right's vocabulary since ages, duh. The whole public debate since two decades is dominated by religious bullshit. You literally can't watch the news in France without suffering some religious shlock. They discuss the right to pray in public, then what they can wear, then comapre their morals, then they tell you tour favorite (and only) atheist newspaper is actually antisemtic/antimuslim/anticatholics because they hate anything that goes against them and want more power. Most people I meet here are also catholics by habit (not in facts, I'm about as catholic as them, if not more considering I'm at least vaguely educated on the subject) and believe the complete package of "non catholics are amoral beasts, gays are against nature," yada yada Keeping the freedom of cult while attempting to separate religion and state was stupid. Religious ticks refuse to live without trying to dominate others. We should have thrown them all out of the frontiers and burnt every one of their temples. Each day I spend on MAL I revel on the idea that atheism is not a religion. I agree that those omnipresent religious questions in politics are insufferable. Imagining that it went from the chador controversy at school in the late 80s (that could have been dealt with by imposing a dress code or a uniform... as in some Muslim countries) to the interdiction of the veil for minors, it is clear that it took a ridiculous proportion and a very unpleasant authoritarian turn. Are you seriously speaking about forbidding religion and burning churches? What kind of dictatorship would that be? Just from an aesthetic viewpoint, it would be a tragedy (you should try reading Proust's En mémoire des églises assassinées and La mort des cathédrales from Pastiches et Mélanges). But I am not even sure that the separation between the Church and the State was such a great idea for the populace needs to live in fear to be controlled, and what can work better than the idea of Hell? |
| funny that I see this thread today of all days, it's been 200 years since the Emperor's death on the island |
    |
| @Meusnier Traditional gender roles may actually economically make sense in the future. And I think there'd be plenty of women who'd enjoy a chance to live a more relaxing life at home instead of working in the office. I think the first country we are going to see this happen in is Japan. Japan has only very recently started having a clear majority of women in the workforce. There still aren't as many Japanese women in the workforce as there is in Western countries. But a lot of women who are working in Japan don't like that they are working. I listen to a lot of RandomYoko's videos and according to her, a lot of Japanese women are only working because the government says the economy is bad and they need women to work. However, Japan is also one of the most advanced countries in terms of adding robots to their workforce. Unlike a lot of people in America (don't know what the prevalent attitude is in France), Japanese people don't worry about robots stealing their jobs and welcome the fact that robots are the best solution to the labor shortage. The more robots enter the workforce, the less work all the humans have to do, and wages for humans subsequently rise. Currently, Japan has 370 robots per 10,000 workers. They are gonna need a lot to truly fix their labor shortage. However, there are two things that are looking good for Japan. One is that the fertility rate is actually projected to rise in Japan's future. The fertility rate reached its lowest point during the 2000s and has now bounced back a little and is expected to move towards more of the 1.6-1.7 range in future decades. This means that as the old generation dies off in the upcoming two decades, the situation of lots of old people and not enough young people will slowly start to improve. A smaller population for Japan means that the cost of living will decrease and there will be more money spread over a smaller population. This alongside the fact that Japan is rapidly introducing more robots into the workforce means that Japan's prospects for the future are looking really good. This upcoming decade is going to be the toughest in Japan's recent history. If Japan gets through this upcoming decade, they may never need to adopt any of the Western strategies for curing labor shortage. Its very well possible that we will see something similar happen in the US and Europe but it will happen much more slowly then it is in Japan. Japan is ahead of the curve. In the West, we're going to have a much tougher time because of public pushback against automation. Because of feminism, people will not automatically decide that a job shortage should be fixed by reverting back to traditional roles. Instead, it could screw over men even more and damage their ability to provide for a family. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
No one "has claim to France" Algerians fought for their independence after suffering from one of the harshest colonisations in history (Aphatie was right by the way). Their fight was perfectly justifiable. The French have no claim to France, yet Algerians have a justifiable claim to Algeria... I have heard between a millennium old kingdom that a country created less than a century ago in very special circumstances... First you criticise colonisation, then you justify it, lol. Good to know that the people from the 1000 year old kingdom have less claim to their land, than the people from half century old settler colonial apartheid state. There is no point in continuing this disingenious discussion. |
RuneRemMay 5, 2021 1:46 PM
Ryuk9428 said: @Meusnier Traditional gender roles may actually economically make sense in the future. And I think there'd be plenty of women who'd enjoy a chance to live a more relaxing life at home instead of working in the office. I think the first country we are going to see this happen in is Japan. Japan has only very recently started having a clear majority of women in the workforce. There still aren't as many Japanese women in the workforce as there is in Western countries. But a lot of women who are working in Japan don't like that they are working. I listen to a lot of RandomYoko's videos and according to her, a lot of Japanese women are only working because the government says the economy is bad and they need women to work. However, Japan is also one of the most advanced countries in terms of adding robots to their workforce. Unlike a lot of people in America (don't know what the prevalent attitude is in France), Japanese people don't worry about robots stealing their jobs and welcome the fact that robots are the best solution to the labor shortage. The more robots enter the workforce, the less work all the humans have to do, and wages for humans subsequently rise. Currently, Japan has 370 robots per 10,000 workers. They are gonna need a lot to truly fix their labor shortage. However, there are two things that are looking good for Japan. One is that the fertility rate is actually projected to rise in Japan's future. The fertility rate reached its lowest point during the 2000s and has now bounced back a little and is expected to move towards more of the 1.6-1.7 range in future decades. This means that as the old generation dies off in the upcoming two decades, the situation of lots of old people and not enough young people will slowly start to improve. A smaller population for Japan means that the cost of living will decrease and there will be more money spread over a smaller population. This alongside the fact that Japan is rapidly introducing more robots into the workforce means that Japan's prospects for the future are looking really good. This upcoming decade is going to be the toughest in Japan's recent history. If Japan gets through this upcoming decade, they may never need to adopt any of the Western strategies for curing labor shortage. Its very well possible that we will see something similar happen in the US and Europe but it will happen much more slowly then it is in Japan. Japan is ahead of the curve. In the West, we're going to have a much tougher time because of public pushback against automation. Because of feminism, people will not automatically decide that a job shortage should be fixed by reverting back to traditional roles. Instead, it could screw over men even more and damage their ability to provide for a family. This is a good point, I was not really thinking of robotisation. But let us be clear, feminism only advocates for the right to do white collar jobs (not the one to clean the streets, build constructions and die in foreign lands after landing on a land mine), and considering that a wide variety of people hate their job in the U.S.A. and Japan due to the harsh working conditions (65-80 hours a week), and I am sure that any of those people, man or female, would gladly stop working if they could. Or just work a few hours a day, which would work great in some communist utopia. But it is known that the productivity of workers in Japan is rather low, and that working long hours is inefficient, and one should probably be more concerned about improving the conditions of workers rather than deciding that only men should slave at work. In France, where the fertility rate is about 2, one can expect a lot of resistance against robotisation (one just has to read the press and see the morbid obsession journalists have with algorithm, machine learning and artificial intelligence). I think that the population is Japan is expected to converge around 100 millions of inhabitants, and they will indeed need of robots, but it is unlikely that it will change much the wages of the average person. I remember reading FreeThought saying in another thread that employers had taken advantage of the entrance of women in the workforce to decrease the wages. Although I have not checked this assertion, assuming that it holds true, it would be extremely naïve to assume that employers will choose to increase again the salaries if women decide to leave the workforce. Therefore, I do not think that there is any going back unless the State forces companies to adopt an unreasonably high minimal salary. The more robots enter the workforce, the less work all the humans have to do, and wages for humans subsequently rise. This is a very naïve take, did you study economics in college? The more robots enter the workforce, the less work all the humans have to do, the more money goes to the shareholders. In the West, we're going to have a much tougher time because of public pushback against automation. I also think that there will be resistance due to the higher fertility rate and the reasonable worries one might one to just end up jobless. Because once more, the educated people will probably go through but what about the dozens of millions of degree-less/untrained workers? Because of feminism, people will not automatically decide that a job shortage should be fixed by reverting back to traditional roles. Instead, it could screw over men even more and damage their ability to provide for a family. This "solution" does not benefit the companies (less profitable) or the State (less taxes), so I fail to see why any government would try implementing it. Now, from a personal viewpoint, I do not see what is so wrong having both parents working. I think that my mother had to stop working a few years when my sister and I were born, and otherwise, she has always working and I have never felt that having both parents working was detrimental to our family (notice that it was in France and my mother would work 30-35 hours a week and my father a bit more than that). With automation, perhaps we will not have to work more than 30 or 40 hours a week, and with such a small amount of working hours, two working parents can easily raise children. Why would you want to impose to women to have such a career (raising children)? As respectable as it is, it clearly does not suit everyone, why would you remove to women the ability to dream? (this is aside of obvious economical aspects) There is a Nana that only wants to get married since a young age, and another one who wants to have a career in music, and none is better than the other. I think that a reasonable society is one that advocates for both equally, or rather, does not advocate for anything and leaves people free to choose. Lastly, from a practical side, considering how unstable marriages typically are (not to mention accidents and deaths), all women should have the possibility to get a good enough level education to keep the possibility to work and be independent whenever they need it; otherwise, you create a society where women are at the mercy of their potentially abusive husband; traditional society and domestic abuse unfortunately work well together: "[...] a bald doctor who backs my mother against doors and tries to kiss her; when she timidly complains, my grandfather exclaims: "You're setting me at loggerheads with everyone I" He shrugs and concludes: "You've been seeing things, my dear daughter," and it's she who feels guilty." Sartre, The Words. Some will claim that feminism has made marriage more unstable, but that does not mean that marriages are less happy now than they were in the past, but rather, that divorce was so frown upon in the past that it remained rare. Just observe the numerous divorces and adultery in the nobility during all ages (which can also be linked to the idleness of this corrupt milieu; those who work can more easily be moral). RuneImperialist said: No one "has claim to France" Algerians fought for their independence after suffering from one of the harshest colonisations in history (Aphatie was right by the way). Their fight was perfectly justifiable. The French have no claim to France, yet Algerians have a justifiable claim to Algeria... I have heard between a millennium old kingdom that a country created less than a century ago in very special circumstances... First you criticise colonisation, then you justify it, lol. Good to know that the people from the 1000 year old kingdom have less claim to their land, than the people from half century old settler colonial apartheid state. There is no point in continuing this disingenuous discussion. This is not what I said, France is not being colonised by an imperialist country, so your parallel is indeed vacuous. When Britannia starts invading us with its nightmare frames, I will be the first to propose my services to the invader join the resistance. Yes, there is no point discussing about the creation of the State of Israel (decided after a vote of the United Nations, and that is very different from a ruthless invasion, not to mention the post-war circumstances) with an English Nazi in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Try replying in the dedicated thread and stay on-topic here. Disingenuous? Says the sad fellow who keeps derailing every thread and tries sewing brown shirts with them. Last, but not least, not quoting me properly is a quite ungentlemanly thing to do, especially when it is manifestly made on purpose. |
ProfessionalNEET said: Ryuk9428 said: And I think there'd be plenty of women who'd enjoy a chance to live a more relaxing life at home instead of working in the office. I've frequently noticed that you have this naïve idea that being a housewife is relaxing and doesn't require much work, but that isn't actually true. Being a housewife doesn't mean you can just goof off and watch TV all day. According to multiple surveys, the average stay-at-home mom works about 98 hours a week, or the about the equivalent of two and half full-time jobs. For fuck's sake NEET you really believe those garbage studies? These studies are taking some vague idea of "work" and magnifying it in order to produce as many hours as possible. This is why I say you guys are so easily manipulated by authority figures with agendas. Under this study, something as simple as talking to her husband is qualifying as "working hours." 14 hours a week as chef? My mom makes dinner in 30 minutes. And its not even like you are actually doing something the entire 30 minutes that you cook dinner. Lots of it is watching TV while waiting for the food to cook. You could literally reduce that "14 hours" to maybe an hour at most. I literally asked my mom once how many hours she thinks she works per week and she told me 5 or 6. The laundry does not need to be done every day or even every week for that matter. Cooking is only done 4 times a week cause she only cooks dinner, not lunch. Cleaning the house only needs to be done once a week at most and the whole house can be cleaned in four hours tops. Everybody I've ever known has mentioned to me that my house is very clean. So I know for a fact that it works. Being a housewife can be a long "work week" when your kids are infants and very small children. But every year they get older, the work becomes significantly easier even when they turn like 4 or 5 its already a lot easier than it is when they're a 1 year old. Have you ever actually known stay at home mothers? Both my mother and my sister are stay at home mothers. Stay at home moms basically choose how much work they want to put on their own plate. @Meusnier Not saying every single woman has to be a housewife. That would be extremely unrealistic anyway, not even in the 50s, or the middle ages for that matter would that have been the case. Even in 1950s America, approximately 65% of women were full time housewives. One reason for this is that young women with no children, for obvious reasons, are rarely full time housewives. There are several reasons though why a high number of women being stay at home mothers is a good thing. Reason #1 is simply that a high number of women being housewives is the inevitable result of women having a positive mindset towards marriage, having children, and being feminine in general. The reason why so many women these days are not stay at home mothers is because they are prioritizing career and independence over family life. Because women these days are taught that marriage is "restricting their freedom," and that children are nothing but a drain on your finances. I do believe we'd ultimately be a much happier society if we went back to a norm of everybody being married and everybody building families (even if they are relatively small ones of 1-3 children instead of the larger, 2-4 child families of the 1950s). A much larger percentage of women becoming stay at home mothers would be the inevitable result of people getting married and having kids more. Basically, if women see getting married, having children, and being a full time housewife as being the ideal lifestyle. You build a much more family oriented society, and thus, a much happier one. Obviously this would result in the fertility rate rising, so you would offset some of the economic damage resulting from less people working. The #2 reason is that it does result in a closer relationship between the mother and her children and it does result in children growing up better. Babies and children who have more physical touch with their mothers and are taken care of in the home rather than going to daycare centers are less aggressive as children, grow up to be more intelligent, and graduate school with higher GPAs. There is evidence showing that babies brains develop much better on a permanent basis when they grow up with a stay at home mother. One such benefit is that they are more shielded from negative self-thought and thus are less likely to experience depression later in life or at least, their depression may be less severe... https://www.romper.com/p/how-being-a-stay-at-home-mom-changes-your-babys-brain-according-to-science-9814448 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865952/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/675070?seq=1 https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01438.x The #3 reason is because it results in a better relationship between men and women, husbands and wives. Women, generally, are not attracted to men based on looks alone. Based on looks alone, women actually rate 83% of men below average. However, this biological reality can be offset by the fact that women are much more attracted to men who are good providers. Women are 1000x more sensitive, in terms of attraction, to a man's salary then men are to a woman's salary. So men don't feel more attracted to a girl because she makes more money. But women literally do feel more attracted to you, on a physical basis, the more money you make compared to how much money she makes. This effect is so strong that women who marry men who make more money are significantly more likely to orgasm during sex. Men who only contribute 20% of the household's income or less were twice as likely to have had no sex with their wife in the past year. You can actually put, in monetary value, how much money a man needs to be considered as desirable to women as the most attractive men are. So a man who is in the bottom 10% in terms of facial attractiveness can propel himself to being just as attractive as a man who is in the top 10% of facial attractiveness and makes an income of $62,000 by making $250,000 a year. However, it is worth noting that the difference is much higher due to the fact that women these days work and earn their own incomes. So women need men to make significantly more money these days in order to feel attracted to a guy then women in the past needed. Lots of women outright refuse to marry men who make less money then they do. This is part of the reason why so many more people these days are unmarried is because men literally don't have one of the most important elements available to them that makes them attractive to women and thus able to get a wife which is being able to be their provider in life.  People push for "gender equality." For women to be paid as much as men are, for women to work as much as men do. This is a disaster in the making for men and women's relationship though because men literally need to make more money then women do in order to be attractive to them. Gender equality does not work the same as racial equality does. Pure finances are not the only dynamic at work here. By paying women the same as men and pushing them to be in the workforce as much as men are, by telling them to be independent, we are literally sabotaging men and making them less attractive to women. Thus, women respect them less, and both genders grow more resentful towards the other. The fact is, gender equality doesn't work because men and women aren't wired the same way and if you treat them like they are, you're going to destroy their relationship with one another. |
Ryuk9428May 5, 2021 9:55 PM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: Not saying every single woman has to be a housewife. That would be extremely unrealistic anyway, not even in the 50s, or the middle ages for that matter would that have been the case. Even in 1950s America, approximately 65% of women were full time housewives. One reason for this is that young women with no children, for obvious reasons, are rarely full time housewives. I'd question even that amount. These street question interviews are from 1961 in I think Australia. Sure doesn't align with what you thought the past was. |
traedMay 6, 2021 12:18 AM
| Well they are certainly trying to start a war in Jersey today and that's a war they won't win. |
 |
| @Meusnier I'd gladly turn them into housing places for homeless and migrants but they look really poorly isolated. As much as I'd miss Noyon's cathedral, there's probably better use of our money than keeping useless religious buildings alive, despite the fact nobody even prays in them anymore. Every village here has a church that is closed 99% of the time. Anyway, it's not as if anyone was asking my opinion. They'll use my taxes to rebuild Notre-Dame instead :'''^) Fuck this country. Use of taxpayers' money in France: - Gifts to banks and car manufacturers when they screw up - No money for bankers and workers who get fired from banks and car manufacturers so CEOs can take a couple million euro bonus. Handicap rents reduced regularly. - Rebuilding Notre-Dame - No money to build public, laic schools in Vendée - Pays to be filmed 24/7 by cameras everywhere - Cops don't go in zones where they're needed because underfunded and undertrained. Maybe my country would be a dictatorship, but it's not as if France was a real democracy/republic. Catholics don't give a fuck about their religious buildings, don't even go in them, but somehow they made us swallow (France, a laic country) that paying for their churches' upkeep was somehow a cultural duty. It's not. If they want to keep their temples they can open their pockets. |
|
Meusnier said: This is not what I said, France is not being colonised by an imperialist country, so your parallel is indeed vacuous. So what you are asserting is people only have a claim to land if they've been "colonised". Well Palestine was "colonised" by the Brits, so they have the most claim to Palestine. The French invasion of Algeria was justified, they put an end to the Barbary slave trade. The French (Pied-Noir) population in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia was smaller than the Northern African population in France, so it can't be classified as a settler colony, unless by that logic France is being settler colonised (by multiple nations). Colonisation just is a meaningless designation, it can range from simple conquest, to protectorates, to settler colonies, to being peripheral to being integral. So England has been "colonised" by the French, does that mean the English have a claim to England. The Normans transformed the culture and replaced the native elites. France has been colonised by the Germans (German settlements in northeast France during WW2) or Muslims historically, so I guess they have a claim to France. When Britannia starts invading us with its nightmare frames, I will be the first to propose my services to the invader join the resistance. France has already been invaded by England.  Hopefully that gives the French just as legitimate claim to land as the Algerians, yet I doubt any intellectual consistancy from you. Yes, there is no point discussing about the creation of the State of Israel (decided after a vote of the United Nations, and that is very different from a ruthless invasion, not to mention the post-war circumstances) Well what is there to discuss about the legitimacy of Israel, if we use your standard in regards to land claims, no one has a claim, meaning Ashkenazi Jews have no claim to Israel. If we use the UN standards, well they assert Indigenous people rights to their land and National Self-Determination. "Post-war circumstances" "very special circumstances" these are dogwhistles trying to justify Ashkenazi displacement of Indigenous Palestinians. with an English Nazi in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Try replying in the dedicated thread and stay on-topic here. What the supposed 'nazi says: Indigenous people have a right to their land. What the pretentious 'intellectual says: Jews are allowed displace indigenous people because muh 1940s. I wonder which person has more reasonable ideology. Last, but not least, not quoting me properly is a quite ungentlemanly thing to do, especially when it is manifestly made on purpose. I quoted you properly, showing the inconsistancy between your own statements. You justified Algerians land claims via justifying their war and justified Jewish land claims via UN, while asserted no one has claim to France. Pure hypocrisy. @Ghemotoc I'd gladly turn them into housing places for homeless and migrants but they look really poorly isolated. By giving that housing space to migrants, that deprives homeless people. |
RuneRemMay 6, 2021 8:21 AM
RuneImperialist said: @Ghemotoc I'd gladly turn them into housing places for homeless and migrants but they look really poorly isolated. By giving that housing space to migrants, that deprives homeless people. 1- there's no homeless in churches here, so you could house football teams in them without depriving anyone of a roof. 2- with the amount of churches we have in France, we can house a small country if we want to lol. Every small village has one, and no priest in it. They merely open their doors fur burials. |
|
| @RuneImperialist The way the legends on that map are biased is ridiculous. That's a map from the Angevin Empire. The ruler of this and the various aristocracy behind him were French. Its rulers were not speaking english, some of them never set a foot in England during their whole life (as the capital was Angers ) This map shows a period during which the French governed England, not the contrary. Its ruler was King of england, yes, just like it was duke/king etc of all the other regions (that's how a composite state works). The way it's written in that map makes it look like england ruled France, which is simply not correct. The reason why modern English has around 30% of its vocabulary coming from French language is due almost entirely to this period of time. |
 |
Ghemotoc said: @Zefyris Nyu: "England conquered France back in the days!" Wikipedia: "French count of Anjou marries english king's daughter and has a son called Henry" LMAO The Hundred Years War was largely England against France, a monarch isn't representative of an entire country. |
RuneImperialist said: Ghemotoc said: @Zefyris Nyu: "England conquered France back in the days!" Wikipedia: "French count of Anjou marries english king's daughter and has a son called Henry" LMAO The Hundred Years War was largely England against France, a monarch isn't representative of an entire country. The hundred years war is 100 to 200 years after your map. And the map from then looks nothing like this. The hundred years war happened because of the very collapse of the Angevin empire, and descendant of the Angevin Empire rulers being stuck as simply being kings of England, and these English rulers, still French btw, wanting to take back from the French kingdom the territory that belonged to their ancestors when they were rulers of the Angevin Empire. The Angevin Empire is a part of the French nobility that conquered England, ruled it and separated from the French kingdom authority, obtained through marriages after several generations other titles of dukes & earl and the like in other French and British isles territory. And the fall of the Angevin Empire has the the French kingdom reclaiming the French part of the territory, and the Angevin rulers being stuck on mostly the British isles while dreaming of getting back what their ancestors had and lost. Hence the 100 years war, where they ultimately failed to reclaim it and lost even more. Hence 600 years of bickering between the two nations and countless wars that drenched in blood the whole world. That's right; the long feud between France and England that killed so many peoples all across the world and lasted for 600 years started as a feud between French nobles. Not between English and French. The English commofolks, just like most of Europe that got dragged into it, then a good part of the world through the colony race, were just hit by collateral damage. |
ZefyrisMay 6, 2021 8:50 AM
|
Zefyris said: @RuneImperialist The way the legends on that map are biased is ridiculous. That's a map from the Angevin Empire. The ruler of this and the various aristocracy behind him were French. Its rulers were not speaking english, some of them never set a foot in England during their whole life (as the capital was Angers ) This map shows a period during which the French governed England, not the contrary. Its ruler was King of england, yes, just like it was duke/king etc of all the other regions (that's how a composite state works). The way it's written in that map makes it look like england ruled France, which is simply not correct. The reason why modern English has around 30% of its vocabulary coming from French language is due almost entirely to this period of time. Mr. Disingenuous has edited his post to change the original image:  Too bad that he forgot that I knew of his odd habits. |
Zefyris said: RuneImperialist said: The Hundred Years War was largely England against France, a monarch isn't representative of an entire country. The hundred years war is 100 to 200 years after your map. And the map from then looks nothing like this. The hundred years war happened because of the very collapse of the Angevin empire, and descendant of the Angevin Empire rulers being stuck as simply being kings of England, and these English rulers, still French btw, wanting to take back from the French kingdom the territory that belonged to their ancestors when they were rulers of the Angevin Empire. The Angevin Empire is a part of the French nobility that conquered England, ruled it and separated from the French kingdom authority, obtained through marriages after several generations other titles of dukes & earl and the like in other French and British isles territory. And the fall of the Angevin Empire has the the French kingdom reclaiming the French part of the territory, and the Angevin rulers being stuck on mostly the British isles while dreaming of getting back what their ancestors had and lost. Hence the 100 years war, where they ultimately failed to reclaim it and lost even more. Hence 600 years of bickering between the two nations and countless wars that drenched in blood the whole world. That's right; the long feud between France and England that killed so many peoples all across the world and lasted for 600 years started as a feud between French nobles. Not between English and French. The English commofolks, just like most of Europe that got dragged into it, then a good part of the world through the colony race, were just hit by collateral damage. Tonnes of aristocrats and monarchs are overlapping and have many claims, such as the Windosor claim to Hannover, England, Scotland and Ireland. However personal unions or previous claims does not remove the individuality of the kingdoms. England was ruled by Normans & Hannoverian, but it was still England. Had GB invaded Hanover after it the personal union ended, it would've still been an Anglo-Hanoverian conflict, not a inter-Hanover conflict. During the 100 Year War, the House of Plantagenet based within England, the capital was London, the troops were English. So it was no longer an inter-French war, but an Anglo-French war. |
| I find it quite amusing that this thread has become a debate on women, atheism and Israel due to the respective obsessions of the three fellows quoted below. Ryuk9428 said: @Meusnier Not saying every single woman has to be a housewife. That would be extremely unrealistic anyway, not even in the 50s, or the middle ages for that matter would that have been the case. Even in 1950s America, approximately 65% of women were full time housewives. One reason for this is that young women with no children, for obvious reasons, are rarely full time housewives. There are several reasons though why a high number of women being stay at home mothers is a good thing. Reason #1 is simply that a high number of women being housewives is the inevitable result of women having a positive mindset towards marriage, having children, and being feminine in general. The reason why so many women these days are not stay at home mothers is because they are prioritizing career and independence over family life. Because women these days are taught that marriage is "restricting their freedom," and that children are nothing but a drain on your finances. I do believe we'd ultimately be a much happier society if we went back to a norm of everybody being married and everybody building families (even if they are relatively small ones of 1-3 children instead of the larger, 2-4 child families of the 1950s). A much larger percentage of women becoming stay at home mothers would be the inevitable result of people getting married and having kids more. Basically, if women see getting married, having children, and being a full time housewife as being the ideal lifestyle. You build a much more family oriented society, and thus, a much happier one. Obviously this would result in the fertility rate rising, so you would offset some of the economic damage resulting from less people working. The #2 reason is that it does result in a closer relationship between the mother and her children and it does result in children growing up better. Babies and children who have more physical touch with their mothers and are taken care of in the home rather than going to daycare centers are less aggressive as children, grow up to be more intelligent, and graduate school with higher GPAs. There is evidence showing that babies brains develop much better on a permanent basis when they grow up with a stay at home mother. One such benefit is that they are more shielded from negative self-thought and thus are less likely to experience depression later in life or at least, their depression may be less severe... https://www.romper.com/p/how-being-a-stay-at-home-mom-changes-your-babys-brain-according-to-science-9814448 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865952/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/675070?seq=1 https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01438.x The #3 reason is because it results in a better relationship between men and women, husbands and wives. Women, generally, are not attracted to men based on looks alone. Based on looks alone, women actually rate 83% of men below average. However, this biological reality can be offset by the fact that women are much more attracted to men who are good providers. Women are 1000x more sensitive, in terms of attraction, to a man's salary then men are to a woman's salary. So men don't feel more attracted to a girl because she makes more money. But women literally do feel more attracted to you, on a physical basis, the more money you make compared to how much money she makes. This effect is so strong that women who marry men who make more money are significantly more likely to orgasm during sex. Men who only contribute 20% of the household's income or less were twice as likely to have had no sex with their wife in the past year. You can actually put, in monetary value, how much money a man needs to be considered as desirable to women as the most attractive men are. So a man who is in the bottom 10% in terms of facial attractiveness can propel himself to being just as attractive as a man who is in the top 10% of facial attractiveness and makes an income of $62,000 by making $250,000 a year. However, it is worth noting that the difference is much higher due to the fact that women these days work and earn their own incomes. So women need men to make significantly more money these days in order to feel attracted to a guy then women in the past needed. Lots of women outright refuse to marry men who make less money then they do. This is part of the reason why so many more people these days are unmarried is because men literally don't have one of the most important elements available to them that makes them attractive to women and thus able to get a wife which is being able to be their provider in life. People push for "gender equality." For women to be paid as much as men are, for women to work as much as men do. This is a disaster in the making for men and women's relationship though because men literally need to make more money then women do in order to be attractive to them. Gender equality does not work the same as racial equality does. Pure finances are not the only dynamic at work here. By paying women the same as men and pushing them to be in the workforce as much as men are, by telling them to be independent, we are literally sabotaging men and making them less attractive to women. Thus, women respect them less, and both genders grow more resentful towards the other. The fact is, gender equality doesn't work because men and women aren't wired the same way and if you treat them like they are, you're going to destroy their relationship with one another. I do not think that you have addressed the point about the potential increase of salaries if women were to massively disengage from the working force. #1 It seems that we get back to square one here for I still do not see why most women would prefer to be stay-at-home mothers. Having a career or be a stay-at-home mother are both respectable things to me, and this is not up to me to judge of what women would like or not to do. #2 This is honestly interesting, but only really makes sense for the first few years. Once the children are old enough, I fail to see how having both parents working is an issue. #3 Sorry, but I cannot believe you on word here, and this graphic about orgasm really looked laughable to me; why isn't there anything between "always" and "never"? The success of a marriage is not measured by the number of times one "orgasms," this is a first over-simplification you have made. If one is very poor, then chances are that he will have to work two or three jobs to try surviving and I do not think that salarymen who work 80 hours a week have enough energy to transform into Casanova during the night... Secondly, you did not provide a source, and thirdly, romantic attraction is not just about the looks and the salary, people just do not work like that. Reality is not described by two or even of hundred of variables. To me, you sound like an adept of Pythagoras who wanted to reduce everything to integers and according to the legend, had one of his followers drown after the latter dared claiming that √2 was irrational. This obsession to reduce reality to a few simple parameters has now become the invisible backbone of most conspiracy theories (the CIA is a good example). Finally, almost no one earns $250,000 a year, and removing women from the workforce will not change that. If women are working, it is only normal and even fair that they get paid as much as their male peers. But I do not even know why you referred to that because the gender gap is not such a huge issue; people compare average (or median) salaries without taking the job or degrees into consideration, while for the same job, it is close to negligible (between 2 and 6% [1]), and it should be clear that a lot of career choices are dictated by the burden to have a family and raise children. If I think that this is possible to argue that men and women are different (for example, Chateaubriand made a very beautiful description of women healing war-wounded soldiers with a care that most men would be simply unable to display; and that probably explains better the over-representation of women in jobs related to health care than any social pressure which hardly exists for those jobs are rarely seen as prestigious), this does not mean that women should follow any standardised career you choose for them. This is a little too easy to put everything on society if you think of the countless examples of women such as Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun, Jane Austen, Clara Schumann, Sofya Kovalevskaya, Emmy Noether and Camille Claudel who all wanted to have an artistic or scientific career despite living in a society generally opposed to that and generally suffered from this opposition. I would prefer to learn about an unknown symphony of Clare Schumann rather than hearing that she got a seventeenth child. Ghemotoc said: @Meusnier I'd gladly turn them into housing places for homeless and migrants but they look really poorly isolated. As much as I'd miss Noyon's cathedral, there's probably better use of our money than keeping useless religious buildings alive, despite the fact nobody even prays in them anymore. Every village here has a church that is closed 99% of the time. Anyway, it's not as if anyone was asking my opinion. They'll use my taxes to rebuild Notre-Dame instead :'''^) Fuck this country. Use of taxpayers' money in France: - Gifts to banks and car manufacturers when they screw up - No money for bankers and workers who get fired from banks and car manufacturers so CEOs can take a couple million euro bonus. Handicap rents reduced regularly. - Rebuilding Notre-Dame - No money to build public, laic schools in Vendée - Pays to be filmed 24/7 by cameras everywhere - Cops don't go in zones where they're needed because underfunded and undertrained. Maybe my country would be a dictatorship, but it's not as if France was a real democracy/republic. Catholics don't give a fuck about their religious buildings, don't even go in them, but somehow they made us swallow (France, a laic country) that paying for their churches' upkeep was somehow a cultural duty. It's not. If they want to keep their temples they can open their pockets. Here, this is not really to debate that I write the following, but rather to give you an idea of what I feel about it. Have you ever made a similar experience? During a hot day of Summer, you stumble while doing a stroll on a small church that you had never seen before, and decide to visit it. First pleased by the cool air of the place, you start feeling glad that you are not wearing shorts and have enough dignity to visit the place. Although you do not believe, you are taken by the solemnity of the place and start walking silently, observing perhaps a couple of people praying and examine in details the stained-glass windows, trying to recall to which passage of the Bible the scenes refer to. And despite all your doubts or so-called certitudes, you take this time to reflect on those events and cannot help but noticing how metaphysical and poetic this experience is. I had such an experience a couple of years ago when I had to sign a rental contract for an apartment and was an hour too early, and it made the visit to this gloomy suburban town much less insufferable. I think that it is worth living in a country that allows one to daydream in a similar way. There are no emotions in most modern constructions, look at hideous creations like La Défense. Your country would not be a dictatorship but a place even sadder to what France has become since many decades, a place where I do not even want to go back. The examples that you are giving hardly compare to the preservation of the cultural heritage of France, and churches are clearly part of it. And here, this is very different from the famous Chambord subscription Courier made fun of with so much brio, because this is not as if you were paying so that Senators live a vie de château for anyone can appreciate those living monuments. They also attract tourism (the most famous ones; Paris, Chartres, Amiens, etc), so they also seem to be a good investment to me. Compared to the billions given to banks and hedge funds, or even the insanely high military budget, complaining about the few millions spent to rebuild Notre-Dame seems quite petty to me. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6121619g.texteImage# - Gifts to banks and car manufacturers when they screw up - No money for bankers and workers who get fired from banks and car manufacturers so CEOs can take a couple million euro bonus. Handicap rents reduced regularly. - No money to build public, laic schools in Vendée - Pays to be filmed 24/7 by cameras everywhere I agree with all that. One of the worst point is the video-surveillance (sorry, "video-protection" in Newspeak) that is known to serve nothing to prevent crimes and is just an excuse to monitor the population. But the taxpayers money precisely do not go to upkeep churches, so I do not really know what you are complaining about here. RuneImperialist said: Meusnier said: This is not what I said, France is not being colonised by an imperialist country, so your parallel is indeed vacuous. So what you are asserting is people only have a claim to land if they've been "colonised". Well Palestine was "colonised" by the Brits, so they have the most claim to Palestine. The French invasion of Algeria was justified, they put an end to the Barbary slave trade. The French (Pied-Noir) population in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia was smaller than the Northern African population in France, so it can't be classified as a settler colony, unless by that logic France is being settler colonised (by multiple nations). Colonisation just is a meaningless designation, it can range from simple conquest, to protectorates, to settler colonies, to being peripheral to being integral. So England has been "colonised" by the French, does that mean the English have a claim to England. The Normans transformed the culture and replaced the native elites. France has been colonised by the Germans (German settlements in northeast France during WW2) or Muslims historically, so I guess they have a claim to France. When Britannia starts invading us with its nightmare frames, I will be the first to propose my services to the invader join the resistance. France has already been invaded by England. Hopefully that gives the French just as legitimate claim to land as the Algerians, yet I doubt any intellectual consistancy from you. Yes, there is no point discussing about the creation of the State of Israel (decided after a vote of the United Nations, and that is very different from a ruthless invasion, not to mention the post-war circumstances) Well what is there to discuss about the legitimacy of Israel, if we use your standard in regards to land claims, no one has a claim, meaning Ashkenazi Jews have no claim to Israel. If we use the UN standards, well they assert Indigenous people rights to their land and National Self-Determination. "Post-war circumstances" "very special circumstances" these are dogwhistles trying to justify Ashkenazi displacement of Indigenous Palestinians. with an English Nazi in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Try replying in the dedicated thread and stay on-topic here. What the supposed 'nazi says: Indigenous people have a right to their land. What the pretentious 'intellectual says: Jews are allowed displace indigenous people because muh 1940s. I wonder which person has more reasonable ideology. Last, but not least, not quoting me properly is a quite ungentlemanly thing to do, especially when it is manifestly made on purpose. I quoted you properly, showing the inconsistancy between your own statements. You justified Algerians land claims via justifying their war and justified Jewish land claims via UN, while asserted no one has claim to France. Pure hypocrisy. @Ghemotoc I'd gladly turn them into housing places for homeless and migrants but they look really poorly isolated. By giving that housing space to migrants, that deprives homeless people. So what you are asserting is people only have a claim to land if they've been "colonised". No, I have never asserted that, but you kept trying to push this interpretation since the beginning. I am slightly annoyed to use this cursed word, but your pitiful attempt at fighting a strawman is becoming honestly wearisome. Try proving that immigration in France=colonisation in Africa next time. Good luck with that. Because how much you try twisting what I wrote, I have never said something as silly as: People have a claim (whatever that means) on a land if and only if they were colonised. So, just to be clear to whoever is bored enough to follow this exchange, when I said that "no one had a claim on France," that rather meant that "no one was making a claim right now to conquer the country." You wrote: They have a lot more claim to Israel/paelstine, than Algerians/Non-Indigenous have claim to France. by conflating the independence war Algeria fought against France to the legal immigration of Algerians in France. Algerians do not have a claim to France, whatever that means, but they can legally try to immigrate in the country, I hardly see how that relates to anything related to colonisation. I know that you try very hard to say that immigration=colonisation, but rather than just asking questions, try providing some arguments for this claim. So I ask you again: what kind of advantages did Algerians have when they came in France after WWII? Were they anything comparable to the ones colons had in Algeria? The answers to these questions are respectively "None." and "Absolutely not, they did the worst possible jobs and did not have any political influence." Not to mention the lovely climate of France in the 50s and the 60s (I am not sure whether there are English subtitles or not). The French invasion of Algeria was justified, they put an end to the Barbary slave trade. The French (Pied-Noir) population in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia was smaller than the Northern African population in France, so it can't be classified as a settler colony, unless by that logic France is being settler colonised (by multiple nations). The main goal of the military expedition in Algiers was for Charles X to regain some political prestige in the end of his reign. Once more your historical ignorance is obvious. The size of the population is not a good criterion to decide whether a territory is a colony or not, so this argument does not hold much weight. The French did control the State, the agriculture, the education system, etc, and Algeria eventually became a French department in 1848, so I fail to see how this is anything similar to the immigration in France unless France has become an Algerian department without anyone realising it. Colonisation just is a meaningless designation, it can range from simple conquest, to protectorates, to settler colonies, to being peripheral to being integral. No one is asking you to quote lists of Wikipedia definitions, that brings nothing to your argument. I will just skip the next paragraph where you try using "my" criterion in a comical way and the fake map. Well what is there to discuss about the legitimacy of Israel, if we use your standard in regards to land claims, no one has a claim, meaning Ashkenazi Jews have no claim to Israel. If we use the UN standards, well they assert Indigenous people rights to their land and National Self-Determination. "Post-war circumstances" "very special circumstances" these are dogwhistles trying to justify Ashkenazi displacement of Indigenous Palestinians. No, this is a thread about France, not about Israel. And this is not "my standard," please stop trying to make me defend a silly definition that I have never stated. You do not really have a good idea of what dog whistles mean so I will give you a few examples that I hope will come out handy in the future: "The globalists poisoned our wells!" "Oh... you dared talking about them." "Skyrim belongs to the Sub-Nordids!" Let me also mention @FreeThought 's excellent definition that works particularly well here: FreeThought said: Dog Whistling is another term for putting words in other peoples mouth by pretending they said something they didn't so that leftist can avoid addressing their points and use that as an excuse to deplatform/cancel them. Because leftist ideology can only work within confines of the echo-camber, their ideas can't compete in free open market place of ideas since they don't stand up to scrutiny that is why they require censorship. -Isms -Ists, -Phobias and other leftist buzzwords serve as merely means to that end. If I am elliptic about Israel, this is for two reasons: 1) This is off-topic. 2) Discussing it with someone who hate Jews is pointless for he is not able to think rationally. What the supposed 'nazi says: Indigenous people have a right to their land. What the pretentious 'intellectual says: Jews are allowed displace indigenous people because muh 1940s. I wonder which person has more reasonable ideology. Ah yes, keep denying. "Those are my old opinions" said Mr. I Edit My Threads Three Years Later to Erase all the Traces. Except that your opinions have never changed, and your obsession with Israel shows it very well, not to mention your constant complaints about Europe that is not enough "white" to your taste, or asking about "representation" of white people in Asia while you precisely hate this concept in the UK. That someone like you calls me a hypocrite will not even made me smile. Better be pretentious than a Tartuffe or your kind, who pretends to be against colonisation only to say that Europe is being colonised and that the "non-indigenous people," or as you call them incorrectly, "the non-aboriginal people," should be kicked out of the country. The pretentious intellectual never wrote that, nice sophistry. Nuance is not your forte I see. I quoted you properly, showing the inconsistancy between your own statements. You justified Algerians land claims via justifying their war and justified Jewish land claims via UN, while asserted no one has claim to France. Pure hypocrisy. You removed the "[quote=Meusnier]" so that I do not receive a notification, stop being of bad faith. I have already addressed above the point about "no one has claim to France," and I did not "justify" anything when it comes to Israel, merely stated what happened to say that it qualitatively differed from the French colonisation in Algeria or from the immigration in France you always want to deem similar to the colonisation of Algeria by French natives. If you want to speak about Israel, use the four or five open threads about it, and stop derailing this one. Your obsession with Jews is uncanny. OT: The drama continues: New Military Letter Warning of ‘Brewing’ Civil War Prompts Outrage in France The French Army’s chief of staff called on soldiers who anonymously signed the letter to quit the armed forces. By Constant Méheut May 12, 2021, 12:30 p.m. ET PARIS — The French prime minister and the chief of staff of the army have condemned an anonymous letter signed by people claiming to be active-duty troops warning about impending “civil war” in France. Prime Minister Jean Castex told Le Parisien newspaper that the letter was a “political maneuver” by the “extreme right.” Gen. François Lecointre, the army chief of staff, said that the signatories should quit the armed forces if they wanted to freely express their political opinions. It is unclear how many soldiers are behind the letter, the second such message from active-duty or retired military personnel to appear in the past month. The managing editor of Valeurs Actuelles, the right-wing magazine that published both letters, said the latest was from “active military personnel” and that a bailiff would certify their signatures. When that might happen was unclear. The anonymous letter, addressed to President Emmanuel Macron, said: “We see violence in our towns and villages. We see communitarianism taking hold in the public space, in public debate. We see hatred of France and its history becoming the norm.” The word “communitarianism” is frequently used in France to describe resistance to the supposedly universalist and colorblind French model of society, in which identity politics is anathema. The letter continued: “A civil war is brewing in France and you know it perfectly well.” If an “insurrection” breaks out, it said, “the military will maintain order on its own soil.” The anonymous letter came in support of a previous one, signed by some 1,500 mostly retired identified military personnel, including dozens of generals, which described France as being in a state of disarray and warned of a possible coup in thinly veiled terms. The second letter, which is open for readers to sign, had garnered some 250,000 signatures of support as of Tuesday evening. The new letter is an unusual escalation in the political involvement of military personnel, with active-duty soldiers now backing retired officers. It has fanned the flames of an already heated debate on security in France, where a series of Islamist terrorist attacks over the past seven months, as well as other violence against the police, have spread unease. With a presidential election less than a year away, the political atmosphere is tense. Mr. Macron, moving right, has recently toughened his stance on security, and against what he calls “Islamist separatism,” in an attempt to blunt the appeal of the far-right leader Marine Le Pen. She expressed strong support for the first letter from the military, and urged the retired officers to join her campaign. ImageThe letter challenges the authority of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and fuels the discourse of the far right on security issues. The letter challenges the authority of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and fuels the discourse of the far right on security issues.Credit...Pool photo by Francisco Seco The anonymous signatories of the second letter, who described themselves as active-duty soldiers from a younger generation, said the impending civil war would be fueled by Islamism and identity politics in the banlieues — the poor and marginalized neighborhoods where many immigrant families live. In open defiance of civilian control over the military, the letter criticized the government’s “cowardice” in dealing with the alleged threats. The signatories said that many of them had served in the various antiterrorism operations that France has started abroad in recent years, including the seven-year anti-Islamist operation in the Sahel, a vast region of sub-Saharan Africa, which has had mixed results. “They have offered up their lives to destroy the Islamism that you have made concessions to on our soil,” the letter read. A significant proportion of the military in France has long supported the far right in elections. Nearly half of the police and military would vote for Ms. Le Pen in the first round of the 2022 presidential election, according to a survey revealed by the newspaper L’Opinion on Tuesday. Reacting to the first letter signed by retired generals, the French Army’s chief of staff, General Lecointre, said that some signatories would go before a senior military council and would face punishments ranging from forced full retirement to other disciplinary action. He softened that stance in a letter to military personnel on Tuesday, a copy of which The New York Times obtained. It contained no threat of punishment but pointed out that the letters “have contributed to dragging the army into political debates where it has neither the legitimacy nor the vocation to intervene.” Citing a violation of military obligations, Gen. Lecointre encouraged the signatories to “leave the institution in order to freely express their ideas and convictions.” Members of the far right were quick to voice their support for the new letter on Monday, just as Ms. Le Pen had endorsed the first letter in April, when she called on the retired generals “to join our movement and take part in the battle that is beginning.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/world/europe/france-letter-military-civil-war-warning.html https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societe/exclusif-signez-la-nouvelle-tribune-des-militaires/ |
MeusnierMay 12, 2021 3:16 PM
| @Meusnier I only step inside when there's some organ playing. I have no spiritual business to do in churches or cathedrals and feel out of place there, but as someone who spent a couple years in music school I make an exception when I hear organ. That's about the only time where I don't feel out of place in a temple. I grew up in the countryside and keep hearing about churches and renovation work, but I'm no legal expert so I just looked into this. Churches built before 1905 are the property of towns and villages where they're built, which can but aren't forced to renovate them. If they're considered historical monuments, the state can particpate. There's nobody in these small churches. They just open for burials. Sometimes there's 1 priest for 15+ churches, and no believers to say mass to. Last burial where I stepped in the church, the priest was polish because they can't find french priests anymore. How could the catholic church affort to keep those things upright? :'^) If you add to the list the Alsace-Lorraine and the religious private schools mostly funded by the state as long as religious teaching is optional... yeeeaaaah I'll keep being grumpy about that. The bit about no emotion in modern construction is a half-truth IMO. (I tried but this is gonna be painful in english) Beauty is in the eye of the viewer, as they say; and you probably noticed that a good portions of the emotions old buildings inspire come not just from the building, but from the perception you have of it. The perception you have of its age, of the generations of humans that passed here, etc... A brand new building is going to lack that, but it doesn't mean that it won't have it in a century. I'm sure you've taken walks in industrial wastelands too and found them just as beautiful and poetic in their own ways than old temples. And they are. They weren't when they were brand new and workers were sweating there to earn a living, but now that the windows are broken, the roofs rusted and the concrete split, overrun by weeds, they're full of emotions. Anyway, I guess what I was trying to say is, organs are cool. I'd gladly take a tax raise if it all goes into organs that aren't in temples. |
|
| Apparently Macron is going to be reminded of something on May 29. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1434557/Emmanuel-macron-conference-on-the-future-of-Europe-generation-frexit-protest-may-29 |
 |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |