FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit and culture…
Brexit and culture…
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving" Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European." Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. Remember May saying ‘if you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere’? I took offence at that. | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. Remember May saying ‘if you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere’? I took offence at that. " OK so you can accept then there would be a broader English culture and heritage other than simply being born there? Good | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. Remember May saying ‘if you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere’? I took offence at that. OK so you can accept then there would be a broader English culture and heritage other than simply being born there? Good" Many of the attributes of stereotypically British culture are alien to me. It’s a complex subject. I find nationalism a strange concept. A man born in England will tell you that England is the greatest country in the world. A chap from Peru will tell you that Peru is the greater. What is the metric? And why do we show national pride in stuff that we had no part in, nor control over? People will tell you that ‘we won the war’ - who did? Nobody born since 1930. | |||
| |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. Remember May saying ‘if you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere’? I took offence at that. OK so you can accept then there would be a broader English culture and heritage other than simply being born there? Good Many of the attributes of stereotypically British culture are alien to me. It’s a complex subject. I find nationalism a strange concept. A man born in England will tell you that England is the greatest country in the world. A chap from Peru will tell you that Peru is the greater. What is the metric? And why do we show national pride in stuff that we had no part in, nor control over? People will tell you that ‘we won the war’ - who did? Nobody born since 1930. " Then feel free to delve I to how you beca.e European and why one of the most multicultural countries in the world seems alien. Is it a dislike for other cultures not European? So you don't like nationalism. But that's exactly what e.u represents more of? A stronger European identity? Sorry I am just not comprehending your point. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European." "Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony." I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born?" No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving" The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture." I think if we only talk in broad brush strokes then every country has its stereotypes. Oddly often linked solely to football and holiday makers. I have lived in several countries around the world and found a wonderful mix of people everywhere that generally transcend the stereotypes. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture." I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I think if we only talk in broad brush strokes then every country has its stereotypes. Oddly often linked solely to football and holiday makers. I have lived in several countries around the world and found a wonderful mix of people everywhere that generally transcend the stereotypes." Indeed, this is why it’s such a complex subject - and you’re dealing with intangibles, personal feelings. The average Joe in the U.K has far more in common with a builder from Poland or a Shop assistant from France than they’ll ever have with Jacob Rees-Mogg, or even Yaxley-Lennon, but for whatever reason can’t/won’t see it. | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control." Utter bilge. You need a pastime. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? " I never mentioned the culture of the EU. I said European culture and the European project. | |||
 | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture." what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control. Utter bilge. You need a pastime." Maybe you could article why you disagree with my point instead of insulting me? | |||
"Am I allowed to identify as both British AND European? That’s rhetorical BTW" I think you are "allowed" to identify as whatever you like. Men identify as women, white people identify as black. Why shouldn't an English person identify as Greek if they so wish? | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture." What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I think if we only talk in broad brush strokes then every country has its stereotypes. Oddly often linked solely to football and holiday makers. I have lived in several countries around the world and found a wonderful mix of people everywhere that generally transcend the stereotypes. Indeed, this is why it’s such a complex subject - and you’re dealing with intangibles, personal feelings. The average Joe in the U.K has far more in common with a builder from Poland or a Shop assistant from France than they’ll ever have with Jacob Rees-Mogg, or even Yaxley-Lennon, but for whatever reason can’t/won’t see it. " This seems contradictory to what you said though. You don't identify with out culture but European but out culture is more like them than the elite? | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? I never mentioned the culture of the EU. I said European culture and the European project. " But what European culture. You made this about the e.u and brexit and culture. Those other coutnries aren't in the e.u. So you didn't miss their culture? | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I think if we only talk in broad brush strokes then every country has its stereotypes. Oddly often linked solely to football and holiday makers. I have lived in several countries around the world and found a wonderful mix of people everywhere that generally transcend the stereotypes. Indeed, this is why it’s such a complex subject - and you’re dealing with intangibles, personal feelings. The average Joe in the U.K has far more in common with a builder from Poland or a Shop assistant from France than they’ll ever have with Jacob Rees-Mogg, or even Yaxley-Lennon, but for whatever reason can’t/won’t see it. This seems contradictory to what you said though. You don't identify with out culture but European but out culture is more like them than the elite?" No. I didn’t say our culture is more like them - I said we have more in common with them - wealth levels, family situations etc) We should be more like Europeans (again, generalising) Work less. Rest more. Spend more time with loved ones. Take our foot off the accelerator and enjoy life. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. " But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. | |||
| |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? I never mentioned the culture of the EU. I said European culture and the European project. But what European culture. You made this about the e.u and brexit and culture. Those other coutnries aren't in the e.u. So you didn't miss their culture?" No, again you misunderstood. Brexit removed a sense of belonging to a sizeable number of people. A sense of being a part of Europe - losing FoM was the main driver behind it, I suspect. The EU does not = European Culture, but Brexit = a feeling of separation from that culture. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with." You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? I never mentioned the culture of the EU. I said European culture and the European project. But what European culture. You made this about the e.u and brexit and culture. Those other coutnries aren't in the e.u. So you didn't miss their culture? No, again you misunderstood. Brexit removed a sense of belonging to a sizeable number of people. A sense of being a part of Europe - losing FoM was the main driver behind it, I suspect. The EU does not = European Culture, but Brexit = a feeling of separation from that culture." Why did it move it? Nothing stops people applying for residency there now. Just a charge. Nothing stopped you moving there before. Seems weird you always felt more European than British in culture. But you never went there. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. " No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? I never mentioned the culture of the EU. I said European culture and the European project. But what European culture. You made this about the e.u and brexit and culture. Those other coutnries aren't in the e.u. So you didn't miss their culture? No, again you misunderstood. Brexit removed a sense of belonging to a sizeable number of people. A sense of being a part of Europe - losing FoM was the main driver behind it, I suspect. The EU does not = European Culture, but Brexit = a feeling of separation from that culture. Why did it move it? Nothing stops people applying for residency there now. Just a charge. Nothing stopped you moving there before. Seems weird you always felt more European than British in culture. But you never went there." I’ve spent a decent amount of time in Europe (predominantly Italy) and was planning on retiring there And your first sentence says it all. I can now apply for residency. Which could be refused or revoked at any time. I used to have *the right* to live, work or retire there. That’s a difference which many brexiters fail to understand the importance of. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point." Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? I never mentioned the culture of the EU. I said European culture and the European project. But what European culture. You made this about the e.u and brexit and culture. Those other coutnries aren't in the e.u. So you didn't miss their culture? No, again you misunderstood. Brexit removed a sense of belonging to a sizeable number of people. A sense of being a part of Europe - losing FoM was the main driver behind it, I suspect. The EU does not = European Culture, but Brexit = a feeling of separation from that culture. Why did it move it? Nothing stops people applying for residency there now. Just a charge. Nothing stopped you moving there before. Seems weird you always felt more European than British in culture. But you never went there. I’ve spent a decent amount of time in Europe (predominantly Italy) and was planning on retiring there And your first sentence says it all. I can now apply for residency. Which could be refused or revoked at any time. I used to have *the right* to live, work or retire there. That’s a difference which many brexiters fail to understand the importance of. " It doesn't say it all. What's stopping you applying? | |||
"Am I allowed to identify as both British AND European? That’s rhetorical BTW I think you are "allowed" to identify as whatever you like. Men identify as women, white people identify as black. Why shouldn't an English person identify as Greek if they so wish? "  I know that’s why the question was rhetorical
But just as the argument over gender and sex rages, identifying as a thing is not the same as actually being a thing. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. " But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. " English culture to me is moaning about the weather popping for a pint on a Saturday queuing up this time of year love all the village fetes been from the republic of Yorkshire I love taking my flat cap of walking with my lurcher and saying how much | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? I never mentioned the culture of the EU. I said European culture and the European project. But what European culture. You made this about the e.u and brexit and culture. Those other coutnries aren't in the e.u. So you didn't miss their culture? No, again you misunderstood. Brexit removed a sense of belonging to a sizeable number of people. A sense of being a part of Europe - losing FoM was the main driver behind it, I suspect. The EU does not = European Culture, but Brexit = a feeling of separation from that culture. Why did it move it? Nothing stops people applying for residency there now. Just a charge. Nothing stopped you moving there before. Seems weird you always felt more European than British in culture. But you never went there. I’ve spent a decent amount of time in Europe (predominantly Italy) and was planning on retiring there And your first sentence says it all. I can now apply for residency. Which could be refused or revoked at any time. I used to have *the right* to live, work or retire there. That’s a difference which many brexiters fail to understand the importance of. It doesn't say it all. What's stopping you applying? " Nothing. And I probably will. But that’s the point you continually miss, and you don’t even realise you’re doing it. Which was the point of the OP. You keep backing me up here, Morley. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. " No that wasn’t my argument at all. Once again, you’ll never get it. And it’s ok for you not to get it. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. I'm just not understand ding which values? How you came about to have those values. Would you not identify as more German more French? Is Switzerland and borway more alien to you? Not being in the e.u? I never mentioned the culture of the EU. I said European culture and the European project. But what European culture. You made this about the e.u and brexit and culture. Those other coutnries aren't in the e.u. So you didn't miss their culture? No, again you misunderstood. Brexit removed a sense of belonging to a sizeable number of people. A sense of being a part of Europe - losing FoM was the main driver behind it, I suspect. The EU does not = European Culture, but Brexit = a feeling of separation from that culture. Why did it move it? Nothing stops people applying for residency there now. Just a charge. Nothing stopped you moving there before. Seems weird you always felt more European than British in culture. But you never went there. I’ve spent a decent amount of time in Europe (predominantly Italy) and was planning on retiring there And your first sentence says it all. I can now apply for residency. Which could be refused or revoked at any time. I used to have *the right* to live, work or retire there. That’s a difference which many brexiters fail to understand the importance of. It doesn't say it all. What's stopping you applying? Nothing. And I probably will. But that’s the point you continually miss, and you don’t even realise you’re doing it. Which was the point of the OP. You keep backing me up here, Morley." So then it's had no effect on how you would live your life? I'm curious why having not identified with the uk culture you came back. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. No that wasn’t my argument at all. Once again, you’ll never get it. And it’s ok for you not to get it. " It seems you just can't make a coherent point. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. No that wasn’t my argument at all. Once again, you’ll never get it. And it’s ok for you not to get it. It seems you just can't make a coherent point." Oh I certainly can - but once again, because this is the point you’re struggling with - you’re dealing with intangibles. Feelings. A sense of loss, detachment. It’s easy to argue that Brexit was bad economically (it’s undeniable, frankly). It’s easy to argue that Brexit sacrificed citizens rights. But it’s a more difficult concept to explain and understand the sense of lost identity and detachment that some remainers felt, and still feel. And as I said in the OP - some brexiters will never get it. Like you, Morley. As summed up by your frivolous ‘you can still go, just apply’ | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. No that wasn’t my argument at all. Once again, you’ll never get it. And it’s ok for you not to get it. It seems you just can't make a coherent point. Oh I certainly can - but once again, because this is the point you’re struggling with - you’re dealing with intangibles. Feelings. A sense of loss, detachment. It’s easy to argue that Brexit was bad economically (it’s undeniable, frankly). It’s easy to argue that Brexit sacrificed citizens rights. But it’s a more difficult concept to explain and understand the sense of lost identity and detachment that some remainers felt, and still feel. And as I said in the OP - some brexiters will never get it. Like you, Morley. As summed up by your frivolous ‘you can still go, just apply’ " I've personally never understood this 'sense of loss' and 'detachment issues'. It's a piece of land, not your mum or daughter. But then again, I never 'belonged' to any country or continent. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. No that wasn’t my argument at all. Once again, you’ll never get it. And it’s ok for you not to get it. It seems you just can't make a coherent point. Oh I certainly can - but once again, because this is the point you’re struggling with - you’re dealing with intangibles. Feelings. A sense of loss, detachment. It’s easy to argue that Brexit was bad economically (it’s undeniable, frankly). It’s easy to argue that Brexit sacrificed citizens rights. But it’s a more difficult concept to explain and understand the sense of lost identity and detachment that some remainers felt, and still feel. And as I said in the OP - some brexiters will never get it. Like you, Morley. As summed up by your frivolous ‘you can still go, just apply’ " What sense of loss? You seem to have created your own imagined loss of image. Nothing stopped you feeling culturally more European. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. No that wasn’t my argument at all. Once again, you’ll never get it. And it’s ok for you not to get it. It seems you just can't make a coherent point. Oh I certainly can - but once again, because this is the point you’re struggling with - you’re dealing with intangibles. Feelings. A sense of loss, detachment. It’s easy to argue that Brexit was bad economically (it’s undeniable, frankly). It’s easy to argue that Brexit sacrificed citizens rights. But it’s a more difficult concept to explain and understand the sense of lost identity and detachment that some remainers felt, and still feel. And as I said in the OP - some brexiters will never get it. Like you, Morley. As summed up by your frivolous ‘you can still go, just apply’ What sense of loss? You seem to have created your own imagined loss of image. Nothing stopped you feeling culturally more European. " I suspect you could stare at your own answer there for an hour and never see what you've done. I think we've gone around long enough, Morley. You don't get it, never will get it, and are probably incapable of getting it - As displayed beautifully by that nonsensical post. Go well, mucker. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. No that wasn’t my argument at all. Once again, you’ll never get it. And it’s ok for you not to get it. It seems you just can't make a coherent point. Oh I certainly can - but once again, because this is the point you’re struggling with - you’re dealing with intangibles. Feelings. A sense of loss, detachment. It’s easy to argue that Brexit was bad economically (it’s undeniable, frankly). It’s easy to argue that Brexit sacrificed citizens rights. But it’s a more difficult concept to explain and understand the sense of lost identity and detachment that some remainers felt, and still feel. And as I said in the OP - some brexiters will never get it. Like you, Morley. As summed up by your frivolous ‘you can still go, just apply’ What sense of loss? You seem to have created your own imagined loss of image. Nothing stopped you feeling culturally more European. I suspect you could stare at your own answer there for an hour and never see what you've done. I think we've gone around long enough, Morley. You don't get it, never will get it, and are probably incapable of getting it - As displayed beautifully by that nonsensical post. Go well, mucker." So you stopped feeling European when the uk voted to.leave the e.u. which didn't encapsulate all European countries any way. Where you felt culturally more European by taking 1 part of each culture you liked. Not necessarily a broader spectrum of 1 culture. You feel less European even though you can still go there, even though nothing stopped you living there previously but you chose to live in the uk, and nothing is stopping you from moving there apart from a visa application and fee. But you feel trapped and less European now? Seems like it's a concocted fantasy to feel sorry for yourself. | |||
"Seems a tad ironic saying you don't identify as british/ English because it's just hwere you were born. But identifying as European. Yes, I identify as part of a broader culture/society. I don’t see the irony. I think Morley is asking why you don't feel yourself to be a part of, say, Australian or Canadian society. Why do you feel 'European'? Is it because that's where you were born? No, nothing to do with where I was born - it’s an appreciation and sense of European culture - which is often at odds with British (and specifically English) culture. what is European culture was in France earlier this year pretty much taking about there french culture my auntie and cousin live in Portugal all they talk about is Portuguese culture how different it is so even in Europe they see there own culture not European im English and proud of my English culture so what do you call European culture. What is your English culture? I suspect it’s not tangible - it’s something you feel inside. And European culture is no different. Yes, some Portuguese will talk about Portuguese culture, not European. The same way you talk about English culture and not European. I like the European sense of family - looking after loved ones rather than putting them in a home. Late night cafe culture, rather than pub sessions. European’s tend to value a better work/life balance - this is all generalising of course, not all brits like 10 pints on a Wednesday night and some Spaniards will live in their office - but stereotypes and generalisations happen for a reason. But each one of those cultures is from different nationalities We had our own culture withing that broad spectrum. Sorry but I just dont think I am getting your point. The cultures develop because of climate fo example longer nights, siestas. I think thebpolish would beg to differ on working for example Is there a specific culture you identify with. You’re demonstrating my OP beautifully here. Some brexiters will *never* understand the impassioned remainer, just as some remainers will *never* understand the impassioned leaver. No. I just dont think you're making a sensiible point. Because - you don’t understand the intangibles at play. Just as I don’t understand why to some people the bit of land on which they were spawned is something to take such pride in. Glad we got there in the end. But your argument was feeling European based on tne land mass of Europe. Not not English because of the land mass. No that wasn’t my argument at all. Once again, you’ll never get it. And it’s ok for you not to get it. It seems you just can't make a coherent point. Oh I certainly can - but once again, because this is the point you’re struggling with - you’re dealing with intangibles. Feelings. A sense of loss, detachment. It’s easy to argue that Brexit was bad economically (it’s undeniable, frankly). It’s easy to argue that Brexit sacrificed citizens rights. But it’s a more difficult concept to explain and understand the sense of lost identity and detachment that some remainers felt, and still feel. And as I said in the OP - some brexiters will never get it. Like you, Morley. As summed up by your frivolous ‘you can still go, just apply’ What sense of loss? You seem to have created your own imagined loss of image. Nothing stopped you feeling culturally more European. I suspect you could stare at your own answer there for an hour and never see what you've done. I think we've gone around long enough, Morley. You don't get it, never will get it, and are probably incapable of getting it - As displayed beautifully by that nonsensical post. Go well, mucker. So you stopped feeling European when the uk voted to.leave the e.u. which didn't encapsulate all European countries any way. Where you felt culturally more European by taking 1 part of each culture you liked. Not necessarily a broader spectrum of 1 culture. You feel less European even though you can still go there, even though nothing stopped you living there previously but you chose to live in the uk, and nothing is stopping you from moving there apart from a visa application and fee. But you feel trapped and less European now? Seems like it's a concocted fantasy to feel sorry for yourself." Look, i'm not going to continue here, but I will give you a bit of education that's sorely lacking. Firstly, you've missed or misrepresented just about everything I've said - and secondly, I know you think you're the smartest guy in the room - but you don't know everything. And when you're presented with something that you don't know or understand, you should probably consider the fact that maybe the person has a point that you just don't know or understand. It's ok to not understand something, dude. Especially when that thing is personal and intangible. I don't understand (for example) people who ardently follow their football team across the country/world. They could explain it to me until they're blue in the face - but I won't ever get it. Just like you, here. Now I mean it this time, go well. | |||
| |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving" The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. " Cappuccino at breakfast, dear | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. Cappuccino at breakfast, dear "Excellent | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. " Wonder how my wife’s Italian ancestors would feel about an oat milk latte  | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. Wonder how my wife’s Italian ancestors would feel about an oat milk latte "Least of their worries
| |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. " I'm glad it's not just me that is under the impression that the UK is in Europe. But of course to have a world without borders as mentioned in the OP, means the whole world not just Europe so only embracing European culture is excluding all others | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. I'm glad it's not just me that is under the impression that the UK is in Europe. But of course to have a world without borders as mentioned in the OP, means the whole world not just Europe so only embracing European culture is excluding all others" I happen to believe that the ultimate goal for mankind should be a borderless world. After all, borders are nothing except political structures. The EU is a small step towards that, and should be lauded as such. | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. I'm glad it's not just me that is under the impression that the UK is in Europe. But of course to have a world without borders as mentioned in the OP, means the whole world not just Europe so only embracing European culture is excluding all others I happen to believe that the ultimate goal for mankind should be a borderless world. After all, borders are nothing except political structures. The EU is a small step towards that, and should be lauded as such. " Type 1 civilisation is approx 100 years away | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control. Utter bilge. You need a pastime. Maybe you could article why you disagree with my point instead of insulting me?" I disagree with you because of the way you 'assert' most of what you contribute to be factual, when it is nothing but your own fanciful dreams and half-baked notions. e.g... "The divide created by Brexit WAS one of the aims of the project" (If I wanted to 'insult' you I'd tell ya to go home and get ya shine box........)  | |||
"I happen to believe that the ultimate goal for mankind should be a borderless world. After all, borders are nothing except political structures. " Completely agree. Some might say "Borders protect". But they also Divide. Control. Imprison. I should imagine that the starving people in North Korea wished they could up en masse and leave their native country and find food and work in China, or anywhere else in the world to be fair. But they cannot. Because Borders. Because Control. On the flip side however, some would argue Borders Protect. My response to that, is ask Ukraine how that's working out for them. Borders Protect. Until they don't. | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control. Utter bilge. You need a pastime. Maybe you could article why you disagree with my point instead of insulting me? I disagree with you because of the way you 'assert' most of what you contribute to be factual, when it is nothing but your own fanciful dreams and half-baked notions. e.g... "The divide created by Brexit WAS one of the aims of the project" (If I wanted to 'insult' you I'd tell ya to go home and get ya shine box........) "That's good that you chose to almost avoid the personal insults this time. Are you suggesting that dividing the population wasn't an aim of brexit, that it was just a side effect? | |||
"Brexit divided the nation in half, almost literally - with a quarter of the population voting to leave the EU and a touch under voting to remain. It’s a bitter argument that will rage on and on for a generation or more, but the two will never be resolved because it’s not simply about economics or GDP. It’s a cultural shift as well. A good many Brexit voters will never understand remainers who they feel have no faith in their country to stand ‘alone’. And a sizeable chunk of remainers will always feel that remain wasn’t simply an economic choice - they had an outward looking perspective. They liked being a part of something greater - a European project. Personally I have never been a particularly patriotic person, I fail to see why someone should be proud of the piece of land that by chance they happened to be spawned upon. For me, a world without borders, shared cultural values amongst nations are something to be immensely proud of, not turned away from. You could argue that my identity is more European than British (and certainly English). Just as I will never understand those who seek to vilify our European neighbours and friends, a hardcore brexiter will never understand my passion for the European ‘project’. It’s because of my ardent beliefs that I don’t accept the ‘we left, now let’s make the most of it’ argument. Sorry, not gonna happen. Just as eurosceptics would never embrace the result had we remained, I fail to see why impassioned remainers should feel obliged to embrace leaving The UK is in Europe, which makes you European. Brexit removed our access to the EU, it did not remove your identity as a European. Reading the rest of your posts I think you might look down on the English as less sophisticated than the mainland, and egotistically remove yourself from the group for fear of being identified as a less sophisticated individual than you are by association. I’ve met a few people like this, and all have similar traits, one thing I bet you like is to be mistaken for an Italian by an Italian as you sip that morning latte, only the one because every Italian worth their salt knows milk in coffee is only to be consumed at breakfast… I know you’re going to tell me I’m a country mile off but I couldn’t help notice the comparison in your posts to a few people I know. I'm glad it's not just me that is under the impression that the UK is in Europe. But of course to have a world without borders as mentioned in the OP, means the whole world not just Europe so only embracing European culture is excluding all others I happen to believe that the ultimate goal for mankind should be a borderless world. After all, borders are nothing except political structures. The EU is a small step towards that, and should be lauded as such. " What you need then is a world culture instead. Luckily you already live in Europe | |||
"I happen to believe that the ultimate goal for mankind should be a borderless world. After all, borders are nothing except political structures. Completely agree. Some might say "Borders protect". But they also Divide. Control. Imprison. I should imagine that the starving people in North Korea wished they could up en masse and leave their native country and find food and work in China, or anywhere else in the world to be fair. But they cannot. Because Borders. Because Control. On the flip side however, some would argue Borders Protect. My response to that, is ask Ukraine how that's working out for them. Borders Protect. Until they don't. " If you followed your proposal, there would be continuous mass migration of humanity around the globe. That's clearly impractical and undesirable. | |||
"I happen to believe that the ultimate goal for mankind should be a borderless world. After all, borders are nothing except political structures. Completely agree. Some might say "Borders protect". But they also Divide. Control. Imprison. I should imagine that the starving people in North Korea wished they could up en masse and leave their native country and find food and work in China, or anywhere else in the world to be fair. But they cannot. Because Borders. Because Control. On the flip side however, some would argue Borders Protect. My response to that, is ask Ukraine how that's working out for them. Borders Protect. Until they don't. If you followed your proposal, there would be continuous mass migration of humanity around the globe. That's clearly impractical and undesirable. " If you’d asked people in the early 20th century about a borderless Europe they’d have told you that it was clearly impractical and undesirable. | |||
| |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away." I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM " Careful NotMe you’ll start getting tinfoil hat comments and references to illuminati and New World Order!
Jokes aside sounds interesting will take a look. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM Careful NotMe you’ll start getting tinfoil hat comments and references to illuminati and New World Order!
Jokes aside sounds interesting will take a look."I know it sounds crazy but when you do look into it and consider the potential, it is rather scary. $500 billion behind it, phase one due to complete 2025 and you can fly into NEOM bay return from London for around £600. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM " I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be." I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists" I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale?" If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... | |||
| |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... " With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism." That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia." lol I don't see any mass immigration to socialist countries.  | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia." None of which are or were socialist countries. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. " Union of Soviet Socialist Republics  | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. " Ah yes, "real Socialism hasn't been tried yet". | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Ah yes, "real Socialism hasn't been tried yet". " You know we here that Brexiteers can't decide what Brexit actually means... The same goes for socialists. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics "It was communist. Don't let the name confuse you. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Ah yes, "real Socialism hasn't been tried yet". " Just so we're clear. 1. You said something completely false. Those countries aren't socialist. 2. You made up a quote that I didn't say. Not sure where to go from here. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia." You don’t know what socialism is, do you? | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics "Wait til we tell you about the democratic people’s republic of North Korea, or the German Democratic Republic. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Ah yes, "real Socialism hasn't been tried yet". Just so we're clear. 1. You said something completely false. Those countries aren't socialist. 2. You made up a quote that I didn't say. Not sure where to go from here." What's Jeremy Corbyn doing nowadays? | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Ah yes, "real Socialism hasn't been tried yet". Just so we're clear. 1. You said something completely false. Those countries aren't socialist. 2. You made up a quote that I didn't say. Not sure where to go from here. What's Jeremy Corbyn doing nowadays?" He’s a sitting MP. Unlike some people we could mention. | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Ah yes, "real Socialism hasn't been tried yet". Just so we're clear. 1. You said something completely false. Those countries aren't socialist. 2. You made up a quote that I didn't say. Not sure where to go from here. What's Jeremy Corbyn doing nowadays?" Making jam maybe? How's that related to your confusion about what socialism is or you making up quotes that I didn't say? | |||
| |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Ah yes, "real Socialism hasn't been tried yet". Just so we're clear. 1. You said something completely false. Those countries aren't socialist. 2. You made up a quote that I didn't say. Not sure where to go from here. What's Jeremy Corbyn doing nowadays? He’s a sitting MP. Unlike some people we could mention. " Ah yes, the People's Republic of Islington North. Is he standing for Labour again? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here!" As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism'" Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! | |||
"Slightly tangential but related to the borderless point... Regardless of whether you believe climate change or not, it is undeniable that the Earth is getting hotter (whatever the reason/cause). This WILL cause pressure on economic migration as people in the hotter areas in the World begin to find life almost impossible with droughts and famine. Add to that human nature to go to war over resources and we will see increased conflict focused around these “hotter areas” causing yet more people to flee to safety. There is a reason Europe has been so dominant throughout much of history. Geography giving us a more temperate climate and therefore productive environment leading to economic power. It is therefore inevitable Europe will face ever greater pressure from migration. As human beings what do we do? Do we say “not our problem” or do we look for solutions as this is not going away. I would predict Europe becoming the farmland for the new world. Europe will have a population of mixed origin, working to provide the millions of elites their fine foods and wines. The infrastructure of Europe will be maintained but it will not flourish, these workers can move freely around the globe to work supplying the other elites in the US, Aus, South Africa, and Saudi / Emirates. Eventually those elites will need to form alliances or destroy each other as they harness the full power of the Earth to maintain their existence. Type 1 civilisation will then be complete. Sounds like I have had a huge dose of conspiracy theory and an extra helping of sci-fi... Some of this is a little imagination, some of it not and if you would like to see the beginnings of new world of elite living google NEOM I’m not convinced that the emirates are a long term prospect for prosperity - oil isn’t going to sustain the region indefinitely. Had it not been historically ravaged, Africa should be a seat of modern superpowers - the resources they’re like cobalt, platinum, masses of arable land and fresh water sources - it should be the most powerful continent on the globe. Maybe one day it will be. I think you could be right, and that is why NEOM exists I took a quick read. All sounds lovely. Nirvana! But I am struggling to reconcile the Code of Conduct with middle eastern countries and the locale? If you take the path of only the wealthy will be able to live in this enclosed city of the future, migration could reverse, wealthy Europeans migrating on mass. The wealthy living in purpose built cities that are built to withstand the heat, floods and natural disasters that climate change will bring. They will be the only ones breathing fresh air and living in carbon free environments. The future of borderless countries could become a reality, as normal people are left to roam outside of these mega cities inclosed and protected from the outside. As I said it sounds crazy but it has the potential to actually happen. The OP and other posters saying they want a world with no borders, it might actually happen, but not how their socialist intent would envision... With Socialists in charge there wouldn’t be wealthy people living in posh enclaves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves. That’d be capitalism. That's definitely how things worked out in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China and Cambodia. None of which are or were socialist countries. Ah yes, "real Socialism hasn't been tried yet". Just so we're clear. 1. You said something completely false. Those countries aren't socialist. 2. You made up a quote that I didn't say. Not sure where to go from here. What's Jeremy Corbyn doing nowadays? He’s a sitting MP. Unlike some people we could mention. Ah yes, the People's Republic of Islington North. Is he standing for Labour again?" I don’t believe he is, no. Why is that an issue? What point are you driving at here? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers!" I didn't say that, did I? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism'" Except those nations were literally communist. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? " That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers!" It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide." Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics "I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries. Was Lenin a Socialist? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide." No, it’s just that the right always pretend that communism = socialism, which is lazy and incorrect. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide." Why do you think only "the left" understand the definition of the word "socialism"? Isn't that a bit patronising to everyone else who isn't "the left"? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism?" Do they? I wasn't aware of this. Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. I don't speak German but I'm pretty sure I can see the word "socialist" in there.... | |||
| |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. No, it’s just that the right always pretend that communism = socialism, which is lazy and incorrect. " Communism = a form of socialism | |||
"Venezuela "Or Cuba? | |||
| |||
"I lived under a socialist government and I moved to the filthy capitalist west. Give me capitalism all day long. Even with the Brexit shit show. " May we ask which one? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. No, it’s just that the right always pretend that communism = socialism, which is lazy and incorrect. Communism = a form of socialism" In the same way that Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. (Ridiculous I know, but no more ridiculous than your claim) This is why we have a political compass rather than a political spectrum these days. The authoritarian left and the liberal left are demonstrably not the same. | |||
"I lived under a socialist government and I moved to the filthy capitalist west. Give me capitalism all day long. Even with the Brexit shit show. May we ask which one?" Spain, Egypt I also think Syria was but I was young then. My parents travelled around a lot. I Spain I remember very well. Local and national government swamped by corruption massive youth Unemployment. Nothing ever got done. Fun times. Governments are two sides of the same coin really. But this country is actually brilliant compared to life elsewhere. Despite what the professional miserablelists say. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism? Do they? I wasn't aware of this. Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. I don't speak German but I'm pretty sure I can see the word "socialist" in there...." Is North Korea a democratic republic? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism? Do they? I wasn't aware of this. Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. I don't speak German but I'm pretty sure I can see the word "socialist" in there.... Is North Korea a democratic republic? " So now even if people identify as socialists you are denying that they are. This seems to be getting very tricky. But it's interesting to experience the kind of contortions that occur at the Islington North Labour Party on a Tuesday evening. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. No, it’s just that the right always pretend that communism = socialism, which is lazy and incorrect. Communism = a form of socialism In the same way that Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. (Ridiculous I know, but no more ridiculous than your claim) This is why we have a political compass rather than a political spectrum these days. The authoritarian left and the liberal left are demonstrably not the same." I can't see any search that shows Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. Can you give me a clear definition of Socialism because every single one I find is different. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism?" | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. No, it’s just that the right always pretend that communism = socialism, which is lazy and incorrect. Communism = a form of socialism In the same way that Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. (Ridiculous I know, but no more ridiculous than your claim) This is why we have a political compass rather than a political spectrum these days. The authoritarian left and the liberal left are demonstrably not the same. I can't see any search that shows Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. Can you give me a clear definition of Socialism because every single one I find is different." Socialism: If you have two cows, the Government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. Communism: If you have two cows, Government takes both and then gives you some milk. Fascism: If you have two cows, you keep the cows and give the milk to the Government; then the government sells you some milk. New Dealism: If you have two cows, you shoot one and milk the other; then you pour the milk down the drain. Nazism: If you have two cows, the Government shoots you and keeps the cows. Capitalism: If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. No, it’s just that the right always pretend that communism = socialism, which is lazy and incorrect. Communism = a form of socialism In the same way that Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. (Ridiculous I know, but no more ridiculous than your claim) This is why we have a political compass rather than a political spectrum these days. The authoritarian left and the liberal left are demonstrably not the same. I can't see any search that shows Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. Can you give me a clear definition of Socialism because every single one I find is different.Socialism: If you have two cows, the Government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. Communism: If you have two cows, Government takes both and then gives you some milk. Fascism: If you have two cows, you keep the cows and give the milk to the Government; then the government sells you some milk. New Dealism: If you have two cows, you shoot one and milk the other; then you pour the milk down the drain. Nazism: If you have two cows, the Government shoots you and keeps the cows. Capitalism: If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull." | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. No, it’s just that the right always pretend that communism = socialism, which is lazy and incorrect. Communism = a form of socialism In the same way that Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. (Ridiculous I know, but no more ridiculous than your claim) This is why we have a political compass rather than a political spectrum these days. The authoritarian left and the liberal left are demonstrably not the same. I can't see any search that shows Fascism = a form of Thatcherism. Can you give me a clear definition of Socialism because every single one I find is different.Socialism: If you have two cows, the Government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. Communism: If you have two cows, Government takes both and then gives you some milk. Fascism: If you have two cows, you keep the cows and give the milk to the Government; then the government sells you some milk. New Dealism: If you have two cows, you shoot one and milk the other; then you pour the milk down the drain. Nazism: If you have two cows, the Government shoots you and keeps the cows. Capitalism: If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull."
Perfect | |||
". Capitalism: If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull." You rent a cow out to someone who can’t afford a cow, thus keeping them in lifelong cow sl@very, whilst you kick back and enjoy the spoils of their work. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism? Do they? I wasn't aware of this. Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. I don't speak German but I'm pretty sure I can see the word "socialist" in there.... Is North Korea a democratic republic? So now even if people identify as socialists you are denying that they are. This seems to be getting very tricky. But it's interesting to experience the kind of contortions that occur at the Islington North Labour Party on a Tuesday evening." Well let’s look at the Nazis, for a clue about how people identify - by your logic, they were socialists because that’s in their name. What did the Nazis do to the trade unions? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism? Do they? I wasn't aware of this. Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. I don't speak German but I'm pretty sure I can see the word "socialist" in there.... Is North Korea a democratic republic? So now even if people identify as socialists you are denying that they are. This seems to be getting very tricky. But it's interesting to experience the kind of contortions that occur at the Islington North Labour Party on a Tuesday evening. Well let’s look at the Nazis, for a clue about how people identify - by your logic, they were socialists because that’s in their name. What did the Nazis do to the trade unions? " So if people call themselves socialists we shouldn't believe them, if they act like socialists but it doesn't work out very well we shouldn't believe them. You realise this just sounds insane right? | |||
| |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?"Lenis was a Marxist/Communist | |||
 | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist"Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism. You see how it can get confusing? I've asked for a definition. No one has provided. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism? Do they? I wasn't aware of this. Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. I don't speak German but I'm pretty sure I can see the word "socialist" in there.... Is North Korea a democratic republic? So now even if people identify as socialists you are denying that they are. This seems to be getting very tricky. But it's interesting to experience the kind of contortions that occur at the Islington North Labour Party on a Tuesday evening. Well let’s look at the Nazis, for a clue about how people identify - by your logic, they were socialists because that’s in their name. What did the Nazis do to the trade unions? So if people call themselves socialists we shouldn't believe them, if they act like socialists but it doesn't work out very well we shouldn't believe them. You realise this just sounds insane right?" Did Hitler act like a socialist? Does Kim Jong Un act like a socialist? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided."Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism? Do they? I wasn't aware of this. Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. I don't speak German but I'm pretty sure I can see the word "socialist" in there...." Oh FFS that trope has been debunked a billion times and could be dismissed by a 15 yr old starting out in GCSE history! 1. The Nazis appropriated the word socialist to secure the popular support of the working classes. The genius of the Nazis was marketing/branding and propaganda. 2. Once in power after the Jews the first group the Nazis went after and started persecuting were socialists and communists. Honestly, it is painful how poor our education system is! | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
"You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition."There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! It's odd that the Left feel that "Socialism" needs to be very tightly defined. It's almost like they have something to hide. Why do Conservatives get triggered by comparisons to Fascism? Do they? I wasn't aware of this. Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. I don't speak German but I'm pretty sure I can see the word "socialist" in there.... Oh FFS that trope has been debunked a billion times and could be dismissed by a 15 yr old starting out in GCSE history! 1. The Nazis appropriated the word socialist to secure the popular support of the working classes. The genius of the Nazis was marketing/branding and propaganda. 2. Once in power after the Jews the first group the Nazis went after and started persecuting were socialists and communists. Honestly, it is painful how poor our education system is! " That good old socialist Adolf, banning the trades unions eh?! | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily. "Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'. You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it. They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google."I’m a social Democrat, as it happens. And I recommend the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google."Ah good old Karl Marx. An indolent racist who beat his wife. Also a bit of hypocrite. One of those do as I say not as I do types. Now where have I seen them before? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Ah good old Karl Marx. An indolent racist who beat his wife. Also a bit of hypocrite. One of those do as I say not as I do types.
Now where have I seen them before? "Sounds like Boris Johnson, to be fair. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
I’m a social Democrat, as it happens.
And I recommend the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary.""One who advocates or believes in the theory of socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism." That doesn't really help. It's cool though, I know where you're at with it, I guess you can keep telling me I'm wrong without trying to get me to see your pov. Not sure why I expected more tbh. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Ah good old Karl Marx. An indolent racist who beat his wife. Also a bit of hypocrite. One of those do as I say not as I do types.
Now where have I seen them before?
Sounds like Boris Johnson, to be fair."Two sides of the same coin see above. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
I’m a social Democrat, as it happens.
And I recommend the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary.
"One who advocates or believes in the theory of socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism."
That doesn't really help. It's cool though, I know where you're at with it, I guess you can keep telling me I'm wrong without trying to get me to see your pov. Not sure why I expected more tbh."socialism /'s????l?z  m/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Sorry, I apologise. Apparently you’re not smart enough to use google after all. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google."Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
I’m a social Democrat, as it happens.
And I recommend the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary.
"One who advocates or believes in the theory of socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism."
That doesn't really help. It's cool though, I know where you're at with it, I guess you can keep telling me I'm wrong without trying to get me to see your pov. Not sure why I expected more tbh.
socialism
/'s????l?zm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Sorry, I apologise. Apparently you’re not smart enough to use google after all."That's Oxford languages, not English Oxford Dictionary
And you're telling me I'm not smart? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
I’m a social Democrat, as it happens.
And I recommend the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary.
"One who advocates or believes in the theory of socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism."
That doesn't really help. It's cool though, I know where you're at with it, I guess you can keep telling me I'm wrong without trying to get me to see your pov. Not sure why I expected more tbh.
socialism
/'s????l?zm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Sorry, I apologise. Apparently you’re not smart enough to use google after all.
That's Oxford languages, not English Oxford Dictionary
And you're telling me I'm not smart? "At least I googled socialism and not socialist  | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions. "Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now. We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist' Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
I’m a social Democrat, as it happens.
And I recommend the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary.
"One who advocates or believes in the theory of socialism; an adherent or supporter of socialism."
That doesn't really help. It's cool though, I know where you're at with it, I guess you can keep telling me I'm wrong without trying to get me to see your pov. Not sure why I expected more tbh.
socialism
/'s????l?zm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Sorry, I apologise. Apparently you’re not smart enough to use google after all.
That's Oxford languages, not English Oxford Dictionary
And you're telling me I'm not smart?
At least I googled socialism and not socialist "I got it wrong, as did yourself but I'm not lecturing you on not being smart am I? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
"Forgive me being a cynic, but I don’t believe for one second that you’re interested in being educated, and I’m certainly not the person to do it. Have you read Marx? (I have. Hard going and very drab) | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
"Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Forgive me being a cynic, but I don’t believe for one second that you’re interested in being educated, and I’m certainly not the person to do it.
Have you read Marx? (I have. Hard going and very drab)"Forgive you for being a cynic? I'm more than happy to be educated providing you drop resorting to insults. I'm not sure that's possible though. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Forgive me being a cynic, but I don’t believe for one second that you’re interested in being educated, and I’m certainly not the person to do it.
Have you read Marx? (I have. Hard going and very drab)"Try reading Mein Kampf | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking."You told me Lenin was Marxist? Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism. | |||
"? Should we add Hitler to the veeerrryyy long list of Socialist mass murderers? " Okay, you have no clue what socialism is. Fine. We can all agree with you and move on now? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism."Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there. "Liberals have taken over the extremism for now, very good at it too. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there. "I'm fully aware it's complicated. Hence my view that the 2 are conflated. I just wish people would stop saying Lenin wasn't a socialist. The argument that it was socialism gone too far is a valid one imo. Id be interested to know some real socialist experiments that have both had success and failed in modern times. It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
Liberals have taken over the extremism for now, very good at it too."Have the liberals clamped down on the democratic right to protest? Did they prorogue parliament? | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
I'm fully aware it's complicated. Hence my view that the 2 are conflated.
I just wish people would stop saying Lenin wasn't a socialist. The argument that it was socialism gone too far is a valid one imo.
Id be interested to know some real socialist experiments that have both had success and failed in modern times.
It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism."So….Soc-Dem. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
Liberals have taken over the extremism for now, very good at it too."That's right. Extreme centrism, extremely slightly to the left of the Tories.  | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
I'm fully aware it's complicated. Hence my view that the 2 are conflated.
I just wish people would stop saying Lenin wasn't a socialist. The argument that it was socialism gone too far is a valid one imo.
Id be interested to know some real socialist experiments that have both had success and failed in modern times.
It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism.
So….Soc-Dem. "If that's how you'd like to label me? However, you said you're Soc-Dem. I wouldn't put us in the same category. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
I'm fully aware it's complicated. Hence my view that the 2 are conflated.
I just wish people would stop saying Lenin wasn't a socialist. The argument that it was socialism gone too far is a valid one imo.
Id be interested to know some real socialist experiments that have both had success and failed in modern times.
It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism."That would technically be Social Democracy and a centrists comfort zone (like me). You COULD argue that any western govt that has been (modern definition of) Socialist has been successful in some aspects. The UK and France and Scandinavian countries for example? IMHO full socialism (and certainly communism) doesn’t work. You need to be in more centre ground. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
I'm fully aware it's complicated. Hence my view that the 2 are conflated.
I just wish people would stop saying Lenin wasn't a socialist. The argument that it was socialism gone too far is a valid one imo.
Id be interested to know some real socialist experiments that have both had success and failed in modern times.
It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism.
That would technically be Social Democracy and a centrists comfort zone (like me).
You COULD argue that any western govt that has been (modern definition of) Socialist has been successful in some aspects. The UK and France and Scandinavian countries for example?
IMHO full socialism (and certainly communism) doesn’t work. You need to be in more centre ground."Apparently I'm a soc-dem, I've never defined myself. I'd like the successes and failures of 'full socialism'. I can pick good from both socialist and capitalist myself, but we will never live in a utopian world. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
I'm fully aware it's complicated. Hence my view that the 2 are conflated.
I just wish people would stop saying Lenin wasn't a socialist. The argument that it was socialism gone too far is a valid one imo.
Id be interested to know some real socialist experiments that have both had success and failed in modern times.
It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism.
That would technically be Social Democracy and a centrists comfort zone (like me).
You COULD argue that any western govt that has been (modern definition of) Socialist has been successful in some aspects. The UK and France and Scandinavian countries for example?
IMHO full socialism (and certainly communism) doesn’t work. You need to be in more centre ground.
Apparently I'm a soc-dem, I've never defined myself.
I'd like the successes and failures of 'full socialism'. I can pick good from both socialist and capitalist myself, but we will never live in a utopian world."Human nature defies any attempt at a sustained utopia. Remember Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All pigs are equal but some are more equal than others”. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
Liberals have taken over the extremism for now, very good at it too.
Have the liberals clamped down on the democratic right to protest? Did they prorogue parliament? "You have named but 2 things they do not protest about
My fingers have not the strength, nor have I the will to type out the liberal protests that are underway, ongoing and bloody stupid.
Your post that sparked the response above were in reply to my post ref we could become borderless but not with the socialist intent of the OP.
You misunderstood my post and your reply had no bearing on the point I was making. My post was saying there will be a potentially wider them and us, borders may come down because they are no longer useful as the wealthy move into purpose built mega cities.
Your reply was socialists will be in charge so it wont happen. Wake up, it is happening right now, things are changing, the rich are going to be moving and ruling... But to be fair to you, socialists could be ruling the poorer outer worlds in future, run by the rich and wealthy from their purpose built ivory towers.
Nothing much will change, but borders will come down and new ones raised. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
I'm fully aware it's complicated. Hence my view that the 2 are conflated.
I just wish people would stop saying Lenin wasn't a socialist. The argument that it was socialism gone too far is a valid one imo.
Id be interested to know some real socialist experiments that have both had success and failed in modern times.
It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism.
That would technically be Social Democracy and a centrists comfort zone (like me).
You COULD argue that any western govt that has been (modern definition of) Socialist has been successful in some aspects. The UK and France and Scandinavian countries for example?
IMHO full socialism (and certainly communism) doesn’t work. You need to be in more centre ground.
Apparently I'm a soc-dem, I've never defined myself.
I'd like the successes and failures of 'full socialism'. I can pick good from both socialist and capitalist myself, but we will never live in a utopian world.
Human nature defies any attempt at a sustained utopia. Remember Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All pigs are equal but some are more equal than others”."= socialism gone wrong  | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
Liberals have taken over the extremism for now, very good at it too."What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine. | |||
"Big sigh the lack of knowledge is sometimes heart breaking. I blame our education system! Communism - Socialism - Social Democrats - Conservatism - Fascism It is a bit more complicated but we don’t do nuance around here! As I said earlier. The socialists can't decide what socialism is. Every single time it's a version they don't like, it's 'that's not socialism, that's communism' Hmm so USSR, China, North Korea, and Cambodia were Socialist not Communist? Fuck my History degree was all wrong! Bloody leftie lecturers! I didn't say that, did I? That was the implication across several posts though! It was you who spelled out Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I implied the USSR, I didn't speak of the other countries.
Was Lenin a Socialist?
Lenis was a Marxist/Communist
Marx and Engels developed a body of ideas which they called scientific socialism.
You see how it can get confusing?
I've asked for a definition. No one has provided.
Maybe it’s because you’re smart enough to use google.
You keep telling me I'm wrong yet fail to provide YOUR definition.
There is A definition. Unless you advocate making up your own definitions for things - perhaps that why you conflate socialism and communism so easily.
Did you miss the part where I said 'every definition I find is different'.
You're a socialist, or at least would like to be, so let's here it.
They are conflated. Karl Marx is the daddy of both Socialism and Communism according to Google.
Feisty you understand that things evolve over time and that the political spectrum does not remain static! Marx may have coined the phrase Socialism but it evolved beyond his definitions and split into further sub sets and factions.
Of course I do. I've asked on numerous occasions what socialism means to socialists now.
We can sit here today and say Lenin was a Communist, however, 100 years ago he was a socialist, so it can still be argued that Lenin started as a socialist who took it too far. That very point has been argued but all that comes in return is 'Lenin wasn't a socialist'
Again, I've asked for education but Notsofunfella isn't interested in education
Actually I would argue the direction of travel was the other way. Lenin was a communist. People outside the USSR said, hmm looks interesting but perhaps a step too far and created a more moderate form of thinking that is now dubbed socialism. It doesn’t matter what people labelled themselves a century ago. What matters is now and how it reflects modern political thinking.
You told me Lenin was Marxist?
Karl Marx is credited with inventing a brand of Socialism.
Fair challenge. It’s complicated. But as per my last point, thinking evolves. Socialists today are less extreme than marxists or communists are classed today. Go back over a century and those nuances and permutations were not there.
I'm fully aware it's complicated. Hence my view that the 2 are conflated.
I just wish people would stop saying Lenin wasn't a socialist. The argument that it was socialism gone too far is a valid one imo.
Id be interested to know some real socialist experiments that have both had success and failed in modern times.
It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism.
That would technically be Social Democracy and a centrists comfort zone (like me).
You COULD argue that any western govt that has been (modern definition of) Socialist has been successful in some aspects. The UK and France and Scandinavian countries for example?
IMHO full socialism (and certainly communism) doesn’t work. You need to be in more centre ground.
Apparently I'm a soc-dem, I've never defined myself.
I'd like the successes and failures of 'full socialism'. I can pick good from both socialist and capitalist myself, but we will never live in a utopian world.
Human nature defies any attempt at a sustained utopia. Remember Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All pigs are equal but some are more equal than others”.
= socialism gone wrong "Yes | |||
"It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism." Do I have an interesting mix for you. Anarcho-capitalism From Wikipedia : Anarcho-capitalism (or, colloquially, ancap) is an anti-statist, libertarian, political philosophy and economic theory that seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies, the non-aggression principle, free markets and the right-libertarian interpretation of self-ownership, which extends the concept to include control of private property as part of the self. In the absence of statute, anarcho-capitalists hold that society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through participation in the free market, which they describe as a voluntary society involving the voluntary exchange of services and goods. In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, the system of private property would still exist and be enforced by private defense agencies and/or insurance companies selected by customers, which would operate competitively in a market and fulfill the roles of courts and the police. | |||
"FastandFeisty wrote It may come as a shock to some but I'm not fully against socialism, providing its mixed with some capitalism. Do I have an interesting mix for you. Anarcho-capitalism From Wikipedia : Anarcho-capitalism (or, colloquially, ancap) is an anti-statist, libertarian, political philosophy and economic theory that seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies, the non-aggression principle, free markets and the right-libertarian interpretation of self-ownership, which extends the concept to include control of private property as part of the self. In the absence of statute, anarcho-capitalists hold that society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through participation in the free market, which they describe as a voluntary society involving the voluntary exchange of services and goods. In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, the system of private property would still exist and be enforced by private defense agencies and/or insurance companies selected by customers, which would operate competitively in a market and fulfill the roles of courts and the police." No thanks | |||
" Apparently I'm a soc-dem, I've never defined myself. I'd like the successes and failures of 'full socialism'. I can pick good from both socialist and capitalist myself, but we will never live in a utopian world." You are you, that is what shapes your political views, your beliefs, life experiences, education and values. Don’t label yourself as anything but what you believe in and you won’t go far wrong. When trying to discuss politics with people they will tilt one way with you and many more away from you, it is when they start telling you that you are wrong the alarm bells should ring. We can be factually wrong but not wrong in our personal beliefs. Those that are the label and act that out no matter what, be it a communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, fascist and anything wider or in between are poison. No antidote but to ignore them and let them fizzle out as they will always tell you, you’re wrong | |||
" Apparently I'm a soc-dem, I've never defined myself. I'd like the successes and failures of 'full socialism'. I can pick good from both socialist and capitalist myself, but we will never live in a utopian world. You are you, that is what shapes your political views, your beliefs, life experiences, education and values. Don’t label yourself as anything but what you believe in and you won’t go far wrong. When trying to discuss politics with people they will tilt one way with you and many more away from you, it is when they start telling you that you are wrong the alarm bells should ring. We can be factually wrong but not wrong in our personal beliefs. Those that are the label and act that out no matter what, be it a communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, fascist and anything wider or in between are poison. No antidote but to ignore them and let them fizzle out as they will always tell you, you’re wrong" | |||
" Apparently I'm a soc-dem, I've never defined myself. I'd like the successes and failures of 'full socialism'. I can pick good from both socialist and capitalist myself, but we will never live in a utopian world. You are you, that is what shapes your political views, your beliefs, life experiences, education and values. Don’t label yourself as anything but what you believe in and you won’t go far wrong. When trying to discuss politics with people they will tilt one way with you and many more away from you, it is when they start telling you that you are wrong the alarm bells should ring. We can be factually wrong but not wrong in our personal beliefs. Those that are the label and act that out no matter what, be it a communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, fascist and anything wider or in between are poison. No antidote but to ignore them and let them fizzle out as they will always tell you, you’re wrong" I get that a lot | |||
| |||
"The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control. Utter bilge. You need a pastime. Maybe you could article why you disagree with my point instead of insulting me? I disagree with you because of the way you 'assert' most of what you contribute to be factual, when it is nothing but your own fanciful dreams and half-baked notions. e.g... "The divide created by Brexit WAS one of the aims of the project" (If I wanted to 'insult' you I'd tell ya to go home and get ya shine box........)
That's good that you chose to almost avoid the personal insults this time.
Are you suggesting that dividing the population wasn't an aim of brexit, that it was just a side effect?"********************************************* IF....... genuine evidential proof can be shown of your assertion that "dividing the population" was (one) of the aims of the 2016 vote then I shall unequivocally concede. * Far too many people forming fixed ideas and splattering these fancies, not just here on a five-bob 'say-what-you-will' facility, but seemingly everywhere it is possible to do so. * There are, in my own opinion, a small number of genuine intelligent contributors here, usually set upon by the pooh-pooh crew of hectoring cyber ne'er do well's. Back to my more productive and professional career now..... Good evening to all good folks...! | |||
"The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control. Utter bilge. You need a pastime. Maybe you could article why you disagree with my point instead of insulting me? I disagree with you because of the way you 'assert' most of what you contribute to be factual, when it is nothing but your own fanciful dreams and half-baked notions. e.g... "The divide created by Brexit WAS one of the aims of the project" (If I wanted to 'insult' you I'd tell ya to go home and get ya shine box........)
That's good that you chose to almost avoid the personal insults this time.
Are you suggesting that dividing the population wasn't an aim of brexit, that it was just a side effect?
*********************************************
IF....... genuine evidential proof can be shown of your assertion that "dividing the population" was (one) of the aims of the 2016 vote then I shall unequivocally concede.
*
Far too many people forming fixed ideas and splattering these fancies, not just here on a five-bob 'say-what-you-will' facility, but seemingly everywhere it is possible to do so.
*
There are, in my own opinion, a small number of genuine intelligent contributors here, usually set upon by the pooh-pooh crew of hectoring cyber ne'er do well's.
Back to my more productive and professional career now.....
Good evening to all good folks...!"
This was good. No personal insults. | |||
"The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control. Utter bilge. You need a pastime. Maybe you could article why you disagree with my point instead of insulting me? I disagree with you because of the way you 'assert' most of what you contribute to be factual, when it is nothing but your own fanciful dreams and half-baked notions. e.g... "The divide created by Brexit WAS one of the aims of the project" (If I wanted to 'insult' you I'd tell ya to go home and get ya shine box........)
That's good that you chose to almost avoid the personal insults this time.
Are you suggesting that dividing the population wasn't an aim of brexit, that it was just a side effect?
*********************************************
IF....... genuine evidential proof can be shown of your assertion that "dividing the population" was (one) of the aims of the 2016 vote then I shall unequivocally concede.
*
Far too many people forming fixed ideas and splattering these fancies, not just here on a five-bob 'say-what-you-will' facility, but seemingly everywhere it is possible to do so.
*
There are, in my own opinion, a small number of genuine intelligent contributors here, usually set upon by the pooh-pooh crew of hectoring cyber ne'er do well's.
Back to my more productive and professional career now.....
Good evening to all good folks...!
This was good. No personal insults. "******************************************* Thank you. Now, if you could possibly desist with the offering up of notions and personal fantasies re. your political views then we have ALL made some advance toward a reasonable and factual debating example. | |||
"The divide created by brexit was one of the aims of the project. A divided population is much easier to control. Utter bilge. You need a pastime. Maybe you could article why you disagree with my point instead of insulting me? I disagree with you because of the way you 'assert' most of what you contribute to be factual, when it is nothing but your own fanciful dreams and half-baked notions. e.g... "The divide created by Brexit WAS one of the aims of the project" (If I wanted to 'insult' you I'd tell ya to go home and get ya shine box........)
That's good that you chose to almost avoid the personal insults this time.
Are you suggesting that dividing the population wasn't an aim of brexit, that it was just a side effect?
*********************************************
IF....... genuine evidential proof can be shown of your assertion that "dividing the population" was (one) of the aims of the 2016 vote then I shall unequivocally concede.
*
Far too many people forming fixed ideas and splattering these fancies, not just here on a five-bob 'say-what-you-will' facility, but seemingly everywhere it is possible to do so.
*
There are, in my own opinion, a small number of genuine intelligent contributors here, usually set upon by the pooh-pooh crew of hectoring cyber ne'er do well's.
Back to my more productive and professional career now.....
Good evening to all good folks...!
This was good. No personal insults.
*******************************************
Thank you.
Now, if you could possibly desist with the offering up of notions and personal fantasies re. your political views then we have ALL made some advance toward a reasonable and factual debating example."I mean, in this case. One of the side benefits of brexit, for those who orchestrated it, surely has to be dividing the population? This isn't nothing to do with any "personal fantasy". This is the reality of post brexit Britain, and I don't think it was by accident, it was by design. | |||
"Am I allowed to identify as both British AND European? That’s rhetorical BTW" Why not, kids can Identify as cats, so go on fill yer boots | |||
