Yeah, which illustrates my point. Racism used to be endemic and now people have to hide behind masks. That's progress.
Things that make you go hmmmm
In Europe you had countries that have been at war for generations now part of one super nation.
In case you hadn't noticed there's a huge mood swing against the EU super state and nationalism is on the rise in Europe these days.
So you would be happy with a global NWO then? I mean if you like the EU then you would be an advocate for a One World Government then I take it?
How about we all get barcodes tattooed on our foreheads while we are at it.
Fudge that!
It's not far out imagining that the expanding reach of the size of our "tribes" or herds could encompass all of humanity without prejudice or discrimination.
Nice dream but its Never gonna happen. For starters followers of several of the worlds religions are never going to submit to being equal with anyone else and that means billions of people not playing along right there.
As for illegal and uncontrolled/unregulated migration forcing the issue, well, yes migration is going to increase but so to will the backlash against it. Interesting times ahead. All I can say is I am glad I am in NZ~!
For me the bottom line is humans are tribal by nature and I don't see it changing any time soon.
There is a temporary conservative backlash to liberalism. That is natural as change is hard, but generations change and progress moves on.
I'd like to see us with something quite different to our current centralised governments. Decentralised democracy and government is our future IMO.
And before you dismiss it out of hand, at one point democracy and universal suffrage was a pretty far out idea. Change occurs, and technology facilitates change.
The erosion of nationalism and focus on globalisation has made Europe and the planet as peaceful and prosperous as it is now.
There is a temporary conservative backlash to liberalism. That is natural as change is hard, but generations change and progress moves on.
I'd like to see us with something quite different to our current centralised governments. Decentralised democracy and government is our future IMO.
And before you dismiss it out of hand, at one point democracy and universal suffrage was a pretty far out idea. Change occurs, and technology facilitates change.
The erosion of nationalism and focus on globalisation has made Europe and the planet as peaceful and prosperous as it is now.
Is your post satire? or just a blatant joke?
I'm not sure what planet you're living on but it seems to differ greatly from the one I currently inhabit.
You say the planet is peaceful and prosperous? Really. Last time I looked there were countless conflicts raging on and the gap between the haves and the have nots is ever increasing. There has never been peace on this planet and there never will be. Humans interacting with one another always leads to some sort of tension, Just look at this message board for starters.
Also I expect more than a temporary backlash when millions economic migrants start trying to illegally enter erstwhile stable countries . Just saying :)
The brand of liberalism we see in 2017 is a toxic as it is hypocritical and only those living in some sort of liberal echo chamber fail to see this.
I prefer the solidity of nation states to the the wishy washy idealism of liberalism, where there are no borders, everyone gets a free unicorn and a gender fluid, non binary hug for passing go.
globalism can kiss my ass
IMO i think the temporary backlash as you are calling it in Europe, is actually just the beginning of what will happen as traditional Western Values are seen to be over run by mass migration allowed by proponents of "no boarders, one world and the new world order" .
Peaceful countries like Sweden are now being over run and simply can not cope. France is also a growing disaster. While Macron won comfortably enough in the election there Le Pen still gained almost34 prcent of the vote with a Hard anti immigration platform. Germany is a growing powder keg. A country can not simply cope with that influx of migrants as much as the Merkels and Macrons of the world think they can. This is not necessarily the fault of the migrants. They arrive in a foreign country have little prospect for finding meaningful work and face the prospect of years in resettlement camps.
Leaders in the EU are terrified that the Brexit vote will trigger an wave of "divorces" from the EU. That is the primary reason why they are trying to Land Britain with huge "divorce settlements"
Yeah, which illustrates my point. Racism used to be endemic and now people have to hide behind masks. That's progress.
Although some idiots still get a kick out of it
It's been proven over and over again that this is the most peaceful period in our history.
The distribution of wealth is broken and getting worse, but that shows that the system needs to be tweaked rather than it being broken.
Anyway, the last two posts prove my point entirely. Blindly dismissive about reason and the clear direction of change without actually contributing anything.
I can see us decentralising governments and companies, moving to a universal basic income and contributing to local, regional, and global democracy.
We're already seeing a movement to borderless and decentralised currencies which are outside of government control. We also have decentralised and autonomous organisations.
You say we are in the most prosperous and peaceful period ever.
Significant that this has coincided with the worldwide decline in Socialism?
It's been proven over and over again that this is the most peaceful period in our history.
The distribution of wealth is broken and getting worse, but that shows that the system needs to be tweaked rather than it being broken.
Where has it been proven? Show me your sources.
Plenty of evidence is out there showing that in fact inequality is only but worsening as you admit so yourself.
Africa, South America, Asia, Middle east, you name it: there are conflicts bubbling away everywhere so I really struggle to see how anyone could think things were peaceful at the moment.
While your idealism is admirable you do seem rather disconnected from the harsh realities of the world
You say we are in the most prosperous and peaceful period ever.
Significant that this has coincided with the worldwide decline in Socialism?
No, these warped perceptions of reality have coincided with people living increasingly within social media echo chambers.
viral hashtags and facebook likes do not equate to a grounded view of reality imo
This is about as boring as my conversation with AP about natural unemployment.
Thank god I won that argument
It's been proven over and over again that this is the most peaceful period in our history.
The distribution of wealth is broken and getting worse, but that shows that the system needs to be tweaked rather than it being broken.
Anyway, the last two posts prove my point entirely. Blindly dismissive about reason and the clear direction of change without actually contributing anything.
I can see us decentralising governments and companies, moving to a universal basic income and contributing to local, regional, and global democracy.
We're already seeing a movement to borderless and decentralised currencies which are outside of government control. We also have decentralised and autonomous organisations.
Your first sentence is probably the most ignorant one you have ever made.
Most of N. Africa and the Middle East is on fire. West Africa and parts of East Africa are not much better.
Throw in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and of course N.Korea and we have a very peaceful period in history.
Your problem is that you are too young to know or remember.
It's been proven over and over again that this is the most peaceful period in our history.
The distribution of wealth is broken and getting worse, but that shows that the system needs to be tweaked rather than it being broken.
Anyway, the last two posts prove my point entirely. Blindly dismissive about reason and the clear direction of change without actually contributing anything.
I can see us decentralising governments and companies, moving to a universal basic income and contributing to local, regional, and global democracy.
We're already seeing a movement to borderless and decentralised currencies which are outside of government control. We also have decentralised and autonomous organisations.
Your first sentence is probably the most ignorant one you have ever made.
Most of N. Africa and the Middle East is on fire. West Africa and parts of East Africa are not much better.
Throw in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and of course N.Korea and we have a very peaceful period in history.
Your problem is that you are too young to know or remember.
Obviously Syria is a shark storm and we should be doing all we can to bring in refugees from that place. Things are bad, that is obvious, but it's worse than it has been historically because we're better informed, in real numbers it's better. It's still horrible and I don't want to dismiss anything with numbers.
https://www.good.is/articles/closer-to-peace-than-...
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myt...
I googled it and found literally dozens of pages about how violence is at an all time low.
This is about as boring as my conversation with AP about natural unemployment.
I don't know, that argument was about semantics, this argument is about quite a lot more.
I think it's pretty obvious that we're in the midst of a social and economic revolution and if we're not careful we'll end up in an Ayn Rand style dystopia. Within our lifetimes we will see huge swathes of unemployment and the crumbling of centralised government, hopefully for something completely foreign but massively democratic. We're already seeing the start of it with decentralised currencies like bitcoin.
The other thing is that while we have huge inequalities we actually have a surplus of food for the first time, so the issue isn't wealth it's distribution.
Personally I think that as we're seeing with money we will end up with government being decentralised. I could see it being completely autonomous and run based on dozens of refferendums being held every year.
It's been proven over and over again that this is the most peaceful period in our history.
The distribution of wealth is broken and getting worse, but that shows that the system needs to be tweaked rather than it being broken.
Anyway, the last two posts prove my point entirely. Blindly dismissive about reason and the clear direction of change without actually contributing anything.
I can see us decentralising governments and companies, moving to a universal basic income and contributing to local, regional, and global democracy.
We're already seeing a movement to borderless and decentralised currencies which are outside of government control. We also have decentralised and autonomous organisations.
Your first sentence is probably the most ignorant one you have ever made.
Most of N. Africa and the Middle East is on fire. West Africa and parts of East Africa are not much better.
Throw in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and of course N.Korea and we have a very peaceful period in history.
Your problem is that you are too young to know or remember.
https://www.good.is/articles/closer-to-peace-than-...
I think I'm probably older than you think I am.
I have seen this before but I don't think it is really accurate. In the 40's it was a world war. Now we have religious zealots that have plagued many countries.
When I was growing up the only war in the Middle East was Israel v the Arabs. Now the whole of that area is under fire, not from Israel, but Arab v Arab. Outside of that the only other conflict was the Biafran war.
ISIS took hold in Iraq because Obama pulled out all the troops which left the Sunni minority nowhere to go and the Shia just took their revenge for years of suppression.There will never be peace until the Muslim countries get their act together.It is a form of tribalism and quite frankly that is something that will take many decades to eradicate. I don't think it will ever happen.
Maybe the difference is you're more informed now.
what happened to the rest of the graph? I thought we were talking about how peaceful things are now?
I didn't make the graph but we're talking era not statistics right at this second, that's like people who are pandering to climate change deniers trotting out statistics which are based on extreme events rather than patterns and norms.
Here is Obama saying the same thing just a year ago https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/ob...
Can you show evidence that the world is becoming more violent?
I'm just wondering what happened to the last quarter of the century that's all.
Are we not discussing how violent the world is now?
It's too wide for the yf forum styling. It goes to roughly 2010
I didn't make the graph but we're talking era not statistics right at this second, that's like people who are pandering to climate change deniers trotting out statistics which are based on extreme events rather than patterns and norms.
Here is Obama saying the same thing just a year ago https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/ob...
Can you show evidence that the world is becoming more violent?
In terms of massive conflicts involving millions on men the last 50 years probably has been quiet but not necessarily as quiet as Barry Obama and that graph would have you believe
"The graphic above has been created using data from the Human Security Report Project, Uppsala Conflict Data Project, Peace Research Institute of Oslo,"
It dosen't ignore anything.
"The graphic above has been created using data from the Human Security Report Project, Uppsala Conflict Data Project, Peace Research Institute of Oslo,"
It dosen't ignore anything.
It ignores quite a bit
"The graphic above has been created using data from the Human Security Report Project, Uppsala Conflict Data Project, Peace Research Institute of Oslo,"
It dosen't ignore anything.
It ignores quite a bit
It Ends around 2010 but the article is from 2016 and the other Obama article is also from 2016.
I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
If the world is more peaceful and prosperous then how come the Doomsday Clock currently keeps ticking closer to midnight, the closest its been since the 1950's?
"The graphic above has been created using data from the Human Security Report Project, Uppsala Conflict Data Project, Peace Research Institute of Oslo,"
It dosen't ignore anything.
Well I have been studying data provided by "Christchurch Rangers we're all going to hell in a handbasket Research Institute" and it tells me, unequivocally, that we're fudgeed
Syria = total mess
Libya = Nato made mess
Afghanistan = nato made mess
Middle east = absolute mess thanks to all players involved
USA = more divided than ever
Germany = the latest caliphate for isis
Australia = still cheat at sport
North Korea = have aspirations to become the next asian country to be nuked by the usa
India and Pakistan = both have nukes
Mexico = run by drug cartels
South America = being destablised by the US
We're doomed I tell yee...doomed!!!
If the world is more peaceful and prosperous then how come the Doomsday Clock currently keeps ticking closer to midnight, the closest its been since the 1950's?
http://dailyutahchronicle.com/2017/11/27/braden-do...
The Doomsday clock is obviously not real, actual statistics around war and murder rates are.
If North Korea perfects ICBM technology then of course the world is at risk, but the Doomsday clock is predicting risk not actualities.
As one of the articles I linked to shows, it's percieved that the world is turning to shark because of all the information and disinformation perpertrated, the reality is completely at odds with perception.
If the world is more peaceful and prosperous then how come the Doomsday Clock currently keeps ticking closer to midnight, the closest its been since the 1950's?
http://dailyutahchronicle.com/2017/11/27/braden-do...
The Doomsday Clock was shifted due to the election of Donald Trump and his bellicose policy towards Nth Korea.
There was significant evidence that Trump would be a less violent President than Clinton but that it was possible he'd get something catastrophically wrong.
If the world is more peaceful and prosperous then how come the Doomsday Clock currently keeps ticking closer to midnight, the closest its been since the 1950's?
http://dailyutahchronicle.com/2017/11/27/braden-do...
The Doomsday clock is obviously not real, actual statistics around war and murder rates are.
If North Korea perfects ICBM technology then of course the world is at risk, but the Doomsday clock is predicting risk not actualities.
As one of the articles I linked to shows, it's percieved that the world is turning to shark because of all the information and disinformation perpertrated, the reality is completely at odds with perception.
There is a lot of Good News for Profits in spreading Bad News
Bad News Brown was violent
That Ghetto-Blaster was a vicious Enzurgi
Two things - pointing out all the conflicts you can name going on today as proof the world is getting more violent is a classic example of selection bias. The list on makes sense if you're comparing it to other times in history and how many conflicts were going on then. Given the extent of global media and telecommunications connectivity, plus the fact that of course you know more about the current time because it's happening right now, its not surprising to think that there's more war today than in previous years. But so many wars in previous years haave just been forgotten or were never in the public consciousness. Between 1998 and 2001 350,000 people died in violent deaths in the Congo War plus an extra 5 million or so preventable deaths caused by conflict related issues such as famine, lack of access to health care, etc. That shark never made the news. In the 50s 60s and 70s there were heaps of deaths from civil wars all over the world, genocide and ethnic cleansing in places like Burundi and Ethiopia which are largely forgotten today plus big ones like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The stats that Ryan has linked to look at all conflicts, not just the ones which make the news.
The second thing is about people trumpeting the end of the nation state. This has been talked about for years but there's no indication that it will happen. The EU experiment is often touted as proof but putting aside that (and it's worth noting that it's hardly a resounding success) most of the world is actually trending in the opposite direction. The break-up of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and now Iraq and Syria shows that ethnic groups in larger states want their own nation states. Plus the entire framework of global politics is state-based, and the big powers outside of the EU all cling to that very hard. The US, Russia, and China are all staunchly in favour of maintaining state soveriegnty as much as they can. Sure, mass migration is challenging nation state ideals in Europe but challenging is very different to threatening, and it's still only a small proportion of the total planet. Growth and development across the rest of the world is in general strengthening states, not weakening them. And the lure of Europe to migrants is that it has wealth, social services, health care, less crime, etc - which have all come about through strong, stable national governments.
That's not to say nation states are the best way or running things but they're an embedded system which will be very hard to move.
Hmmmm what do people make of the whole Golriz Ghahraman saga that is playing out in the media at the moment?
While I have no problem with her being a defence lawyer defending people who were ultimately found guilty for crimes against humanity however I don't think posing with them, all smiling, for a photo is a good look.
Anyhow, why are there no war crime trials for the stuff America gets up to?
dodgy AF
Hmmmmm
Hmmmm what do people make of the whole Golriz Ghahraman saga that is playing out in the media at the moment?
While I have no problem with her being a defence lawyer defending people who were ultimately found guilty for crimes against humanity however I don't think posing with them, all smiling, for a photo is a good look.
Anyhow, why are there no war crime trials for the stuff America gets up to?
dodgy AF
Hmmmmm
"No no, I would rather go work for free defending this guy'
I get there is a massive opportunity in that and she seems very opportunistic/ambitious but there are somethings you say no to. That would be one.
Hmmmm what do people make of the whole Golriz Ghahraman saga that is playing out in the media at the moment?
While I have no problem with her being a defence lawyer defending people who were ultimately found guilty for crimes against humanity however I don't think posing with them, all smiling, for a photo is a good look.
Anyhow, why are there no war crime trials for the stuff America gets up to?
dodgy AF
Hmmmmm
"No no, I would rather go work for free defending this guy'
I get there is a massive opportunity in that and she seems very opportunistic/ambitious but there are somethings you say no to. That would be one.
She has also appeared in NZ for from Riwanda attempting to stop him being extradited on genocide charges
Hmmmm what do people make of the whole Golriz Ghahraman saga that is playing out in the media at the moment?
While I have no problem with her being a defence lawyer defending people who were ultimately found guilty for crimes against humanity however I don't think posing with them, all smiling, for a photo is a good look.
Anyhow, why are there no war crime trials for the stuff America gets up to?
dodgy AF
Hmmmmm
"No no, I would rather go work for free defending this guy'
I get there is a massive opportunity in that and she seems very opportunistic/ambitious but there are somethings you say no to. That would be one.
She has also appeared in NZ for from Riwanda attempting to stop him being extradited on genocide charges
Oh, didn't know that. That's got me going "hmmmmmm" for sure.
Politicians always tell porkies but the greens are the gift that just keeps giving when it comes to embellishing the truth it seems
Anyone else by now would have shown some form and resigned.
Hmmmm what do people make of the whole Golriz Ghahraman saga that is playing out in the media at the moment?
While I have no problem with her being a defence lawyer defending people who were ultimately found guilty for crimes against humanity however I don't think posing with them, all smiling, for a photo is a good look.
Anyhow, why are there no war crime trials for the stuff America gets up to?
dodgy AF
Hmmmmm
"No no, I would rather go work for free defending this guy'
I get there is a massive opportunity in that and she seems very opportunistic/ambitious but there are somethings you say no to. That would be one.
The whole point of the tribunals is to try and establish a judicial system where none has existed before, and believing strongly that defendants (even obviously guilty ones) should receive adequate defence rather than going through a kangaroo court system is a large part of this.
Hmmmm what do people make of the whole Golriz Ghahraman saga that is playing out in the media at the moment?
While I have no problem with her being a defence lawyer defending people who were ultimately found guilty for crimes against humanity however I don't think posing with them, all smiling, for a photo is a good look.
Anyhow, why are there no war crime trials for the stuff America gets up to?
dodgy AF
Hmmmmm
"No no, I would rather go work for free defending this guy'
I get there is a massive opportunity in that and she seems very opportunistic/ambitious but there are somethings you say no to. That would be one.
The whole point of the tribunals is to try and establish a judicial system where none has existed before, and believing strongly that defendants (even obviously guilty ones) should receive adequate defence rather than going through a kangaroo court system is a large part of this.
sure and I have no problem with that
But standing next to your chosen war criminal and taking a picture of you both smiling and looking happy is more than a little disturbing