/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

They better stabilise or else French gas will end up killing more people than German.

The sooner we stop using petrol and diesel for cars the better.

I'm fairly sure 150,000 seems a bit much.

Settlement only really took place between 1975 and 1977. So though there are many settlers many of their children have lived there all their lives now and consider themselves full turkish cypriots.

Admittedly it's shakey legally because the geneva convention dissallows settlement and Turkey tried to make it look like it was just Turkish Cypriots "returning home". It's all very legalese stuff but from what I understand from my flatmate the newest generation really don't care much and most support a one country solution.


Also you could say ">how petty" but remember this is erdogan turkey. Do you want to go to jail?

We just need to put a big wall around turkey and close it off until they get rid of erdogoat
He's basically fucking up the entire region and actively persecuting his political opponents, even outside of turkey using turkish migrants to look for them and quite literally terrorize them into silence and a life of fear. Often these are the exact people who fled turkey because of this. And now their fight has spread to everywhere else. That shit's made a few cities here unsafe for turks that are on the 'wrong' side of the violent ones. Or anyone else who doesn't agree with them and is vocal about it
We've even got those shits in politics trying to pressure the Dutch government into giving better deals to Turkey

But then I suppose the 'put a wall around it and wait it out' strategy didn't really work with North Korea either, so whether it will work on turkey is a different question

[youtube]zQ41hqlV0Kk[/youtube]

Turkey is polarising much like the rest of the world.

Western Turkey is highly liberal and anti-erdogan while the central and eastern rural regions are heavily conservative and pro-erdogan.

It's all fucked up everywhere fam.

At that point just split the west and east and make them separate countries

Democracy only works if people have somewhat similar ideals, if they don't it just becomes a headcount of an 'us vs them' movement

ah yes because splitting countries based on politics has always worked in the past.

That's why Catalonia and Scotland want independence, isn't it?

Splitting the country based on the people's values works, and is generally only opposed by people who stand to lose something from the split or those who are strongly in favour of larger governmental structures
This isn't a suggestion to split it north/south korea style, or west/east germany- Those were done by external political entities trying to push their ideology and having to settle for half the country

The suggestion is that the people who clearly can't deal with people thinking differently from them split off and form their own country where they all think that way

Rustledjimm wrote:ah yes because splitting countries based on politics has always worked in the past.

*american revolution intensifies*

XSI wrote:That's why Catalonia and Scotland want independence, isn't it?

Splitting the country based on the people's values works, and is generally only opposed by people who stand to lose something from the split or those who are strongly in favour of larger governmental structures
This isn't a suggestion to split it north/south korea style, or west/east germany- Those were done by external political entities trying to push their ideology and having to settle for half the country

The suggestion is that the people who clearly can't deal with people thinking differently from them split off and form their own country where they all think that way

The difference with Catalonia and Scotland is that they have definite differences other than just politics. Scotland especially as I'm not sure about catalonia but it certainly has a very unique identity within Spain. The West and East of Turkey do not have those real differences other than politics.

Splitting a people purely on politics has rarely ever turned out well.

USA and CSA, the Koreas, Germany, China, Vietnam.

All of those really worked out for the people of both sides didn't they.

You are trying to undo Nationalism that has been with us since the Napoleonic Era.

Admittedly as the world becomes more global nationalism I feel will start to die down.

That depends on how much you define as being politics and how much you define as other differences. Turkey's west and east are essentially different countries. The west and parts of the coastline have been in contact with tourists and western values essentially since WW2, and it shows in entirely different thought processes. The east and mountainous regions meanwhile are essentially similar to Iraq and other middle eastern towns.

Religious extremist views that demand the other side lives under their rule or dies is something I would not consider a political issue, that's straight up one part of the population attempting to subjugate the other. And in a situation like that, democracy doesn't work. The most moral solution then is to split them off and give them their own piece of land to live by their own rules on. Especially because the other solutions are what China is doing, and putting all the muslims and tibetans(Or 'other sides') into reeducation camps to 'cure' them of 'ideological sicknesses'. Or genocide of the other side (No people, no problem), or just declaring the entire other side terrorists and then making their life hell(As Turkey has already done with the kurds and several other minorities)
Or an international coalition can go in and take over, since Turkey doesn't exactly have any great allies these days. USA is pissed at them for shooting the kurds in Syria, Russia has never liked them because they're not happy about their fleet being bottlenecked by the strait, and then who else? Brazil? Brazil has their own shit going on and won't care. China? China is a joke. Israel? They're not exactly fans of Turkey either last I checked. Turkey essentially stands alone, but the international oriented nations are too busy yelling about Syria and trying to influence that to care.

Of course, if the problem is ignored, what will happen is one of the less morally sound solutions. Because they don't want peace. They want the other side to be subjugated or destroyed. They're not going to debate them on even ground and try to make them see the error of their ways or anything reasonable like that. They're going to do it the easy way. Put them in camps or cut off their food supply until they stop being a 'problem'
Which coincidentally is exactly what Turkey has already done in the past to a group of people and we don't hear about them anymore either

Alternatively yeah, just having a coup or new leadership arranged would probably solve the issue. But then you still have a large amount of people who aren't happy with it and also want to fuck with the other large group of people

Europe can't antagonize Turkey because Erdogan is sitting on top of a few millions refugees and he's gonna send them all our way if we don't do as he says

He's also got lots of influence with the turkish immigrants to western Europe
That's a lot of people who may still have strong feelings in support of the guy

For centuries we fought off the ottomans, only to invite them openly

malk this isn't the hut you know

Honestly I hope no legal trouble comes to that woman
That's literally self defense

She's already being charged with manslaughter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 38636.html

The woman was reportedly trying to take her daughter to a doctor and panicked when protesters surrounded her car.

Odd that I can't find any video footage of the woman running someone over, usually there's atleast six camera angles when something like this happens.
I did see one clip of a man setting off with another man on his bonnet, naturally cut to just a second before he set off so we can't see the lead up - but I did see one protest holding a windscreen wiper, I *wonder* where he got that from.

Also, are the French actually capable of holding a demonstration without turning it into a riot?

Rustledjimm wrote:malk this isn't the hut you know

Got an actual point to refute mine or are you going to continue yapping like a little ankle biter?

That's some shit then, if you're gonna protest, fine, but the minute you start blocking normal people from doing their business I find it hard to care for their protests and usually I start siding with the side they're protesting against

If you were trying to make a point by comparing the ottoman invasions to people immigrating here then I dunno what to say to you but you got some problems.

COUNTRY ROADS

TAKE ME HOOOOME

Rustledjimm wrote:If you were trying to make a point by comparing the ottoman invasions to people immigrating here then I dunno what to say to you but you got some problems.

Thousands if not millions of people died defending Europe from a foreign culture, whose deaths are now meaningless because a generation of politicians decided to throw open the gates to allow a people who, as XSI said, are partisan and loyal to their home country over their host nation.

Don't forget that years ago there was talk about letting Turkey join the EU, good thing some realized it was a bad idea

Grazyn wrote:Don't forget that years ago there was talk about letting Turkey join the EU, good thing some realized it was a bad idea

Turkey's current state is in no small part Germany's fault. If we'd been honest about letting them join instead of only pretending we would they might not have ended up frustrated enough to slide into autocracy and end up blackmailing us like this.

German politicians you mean
I find it hard to blame the German citizens for this. I'm fairly sure most of them never wanted any of this bullshit and just wanted to live their lives in relative peace

Loving the fact malk is like some little englander racist it's great.

CosmicScientist wrote:
And for Christ's sake, Grazyn, they've never been eligible to join and are only moving further from the requirements. They haven't even had a chance to be declined.

No, there was a time, and I'm talking 15+ years ago, when "Turkey in the EU" came under serious consideration, I recall it pretty clearly. Back then, Erdogan looked like a wise leader steering the country away from radical Islam and towards a bright secular future. Of course, nothing came from it but it was discussed, it wasn't just a joke.

At that time there were already rumblings that the EU should absolutely not expand in any way and get reduced instead
But even if everything else went fine and turkey became a secular nation, we'd have had to deal with another Greece economically

Rustledjimm wrote:Loving the fact malk is like some little englander racist it's great.

And I love the fact you're little snowflake that assumes they're enlightened because they went to uni

Rustledjimm wrote:ah yes because splitting countries based on politics has always worked in the past.

...Yes? Are you retarded? Differing ideology is like, THE ONLY REASON people fight for independence.

Malkevin wrote:

Rustledjimm wrote:Loving the fact malk is like some little englander racist it's great.

And I love the fact you're little snowflake that assumes they're enlightened because they went to uni

I'm guessing you aren't even going to try and deny that you're racist?

"Racist" is an insult that has lost any weight it ever might have carried thanks to constant overuse. That is, unless you're British. You backwards fuckers will disembowel yourselves to avoid being called racist.

As I said, Britain sucks.

The problem stems from the fact that they'll throw "racist" around if you do anything not completely in line with some agenda

Even something as simple as desiring more restriction on immigration

Takeguru wrote:The problem stems from the fact that they'll throw "racist" around if you do anything not completely in line with some agenda

Even something as simple as desiring more restriction on immigration

There is a difference between desiring more restriction on immigration and comparing the ottoman invasions of Europe in the 16th century to economic migrants in the 21st.

Of course there's cases where there's racists who need to be called out
The problem is that a majority of these cases are the ones calling others racist, so any attempt to call them out on their racism appears as a weak "n..no u"

And then there's the ongoing attempt to redefine racism to be 'prejudice+power'. while redefining power so that certain people can not be in power regardless of circumstance, thus meaning they will never be 'racist' by this new definition

I actually kinda like the definition "prejudice+power" because it stresses the fact that racism is a real problem for you only if the alleged racist has power over you and he enforces his racial prejudice beyond mere words. Thus the definition differentiates between freedom of speech and actual oppression. Of course, the person has to act on his prejudice for it to be classified as racism, simply having power isn't enough, and here's were I think the definition falls short.

The problems with it are numerous, while shifting it onto the power part is one(After all, 'power' is being redefined as well), it also essentially implies that it's not racist to be prejudiced against people of a different race just because you have no power over them
Which in turn means you're going into some really odd ideological hoops to make people either pretend to be powerless so they can get away with it, or assign all blame for the situation to other factors. The result is that people will be racist, but they're going to use semantics to get out of having it be officially racist
Which in turn means it's all up to interpretation, and at that point why even bother defining it?

Racist is just a label, it carries no real weight unless you have thin skin and you are offended by being called racist. That definition is important because the "power" requirement helps identifying abuse done due to prejudice, to identify "real racists". But it doesn't mean it's always simple to identify it

Example 1: white human resource manager doesn't like blacks. He also never hires blacks. Is it racism? Could be, or maybe all the black applicants weren't qualified for the job.

Example 2: black socialist party leader says he wants to kill all whites. He also starts confiscating property from wealthy white land owners. Is it racism? Could be, or maybe it's just wealth redistribution and all wealthy land owners happen to be white.

Rustledjimm wrote:There is a difference between desiring more restriction on immigration and comparing the ottoman invasions of Europe in the 16th century to economic migrants in the 21st.

Yeah you're right, the Brits kept the muslims out in the Ottoman invasion.

Rustledjimm wrote:

Malkevin wrote:

Rustledjimm wrote:Loving the fact malk is like some little englander racist it's great.

And I love the fact you're little snowflake that assumes they're enlightened because they went to uni

I'm guessing you aren't even going to try and deny that you're racist?

I prefer the terms bigot and xenophobe, as the colour of a person's skin means little to me.

If I was to label myself I would probably refer to myself as Classically British Imperialist.

"Ur racist"


Fucking retard everyone is racist. Fucking babies are racist. Racism is a default of the human condition. The thing is being racist doesnt automatically makes u a cunt as long as you recognize your own prejudices and try to not be a cunt about it

The word racist shuts down any form of ideological debate tbh

Kind of want everything to fall apart at this point, maybe something new can be re-built. Cause God knows trying to refurbish a system as rotten as this is beyond any feat of Herculean endurance.

I will always blame the First Past The Post voting system, it's what's caused this incestous, cancer-infested political situation to begin with by preventing any other parties from even being able to get a word in edgeways. Game Theory 101: Nash Equilibriums and FPTP go hand in hand

See, the problem is that the politicians are never going to support a change in how the votes work
Why would they change away from FPTP when that's where they get their power? They might have to actually do work instead of just being 'the lesser evil'

That's exactly my point. FPTP is self-sustaining. No one with the power to change it, will change it as their power comes from FPTP.

Cosmic, you remember the absolute character assassination Labour and Conservative did on the Alternative Vote idea, don't you? It was the one time they ever actually worked together

Look at this fucking shit, they had these ads plastered everywhere

I remember seeing that, and I have no idea how people didn't all call bullshit on it and vote in favour of alternative voting
That's just so incredibly obviously nonarguments and fearmongering that it needs to be included in a textbook as examples on bad propaganda

Nobody wanted Alternative voting.

Lib dems had a manifesto of implementing Proportional Representation. They went into coalition with the conservatives and got the "compromise" of a referendum on AV.

Guess what, people who wanted PR wanted PR. People who didn't care voted for status quo. Nobody wanted AV so it failed. It's the biggest trick the Tories played on the Lib Dems and I can't believe they were so fucking retarded to fall for it.

>Expecting the lib dems to have a backbone

I wonder, if AV had passed would the Cons make a complete and utter pigs ear of it as it would've been an outcome they didn't expect?