• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Gavin said:
I'm really surprised at individuals who believe Ukraine should accept the region's are now Russian, so that a ceasefire can happen
Click to expand...
If Russia was rampaging across the country then they would be in the position to make such demands, they really haven't got a clue what the situation actually is, or they do but are so desperate to not appear weak they will continue this posturing. It's like when ex Communist countries and Zimbabwe I believe continued exporting food to show how successful they are while their populations starved.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
Those are extreme examples but it is not a stretch to say there are people who go to a country and have no interest whatsoever in contributing to that country. Look at all the British who form little Britains in Spain for example. I doubt they could claim to have been forced into it by prejudice. In reality it's more about sticking with what you are familiar with. The issue is that can carry through the generations if people don't mix outside that enclave. Most people do mix and by 2nd and 3rd generation they consider both the enclave and the rest of the country as their home, but for some they live in a country they don't really consider home, other than a smaller area that is more like what they left. It doesn't have to be malicious, it's just human nature. It's definitely a thing. The point is any example that as given could be dismissed. Also you are missing the premise entirely, it's not that we should be wary of people from x or y or who look like z at all, it's about what the individuals can contribute regardless of where they are from.

Also things like religious extremism or people with strong, conflicting loyalties to the nation they left are not unheard of. The argument that there is no immigrant who isn't a good immigrant is quite clearly just as false as all immigrants are bad immigrants.
Click to expand...
No, so my point isn't that there isn't an immigrant who isn't a bad immigrant, my point is the percentage of those immigrants and the capital and influence they have is so small that they have basically no effect on those things at all. These are generally very few people, or very poor people, which means that the dilution effect or the infleucne they can have on a greater society is very small and cancels it out from being a real worry with any foundation.

Most crime and such in this country is committed by natives, yet we dont have the same worries. Giving legitimacy to an argument that has no strong foundation in reality is how you lead to situations where either or both generational oppresion happens and otherising/boogeymanning immigrants occurs. Enclaving is human nature, but it is CERTAINLY enhanced by bigotry faced by the immigrant. If very few english people want to be your friend, you are far more likely to turn to what you know.

Centrist thought of giving time to alll arguments regardless of their factual basis is a very western idealogy, but its dangerous, do you truly believe brexit happens if nigel farage or his ilk arent boyed up by both the press blaming all britian ills on immigrants and the humaninsing of the person making the argument by having them on have I got news for you? Or we would of had a mass anti vaxx movement if the press didnt both sides wakefield even after multiple papaers came out discrediting him?

Both sidesing is certainly a fine practice when making up your own personal mind if you do the research, but in terms of the masses giving legitimacy to fringe theories where the real world likelhood of it happening is minescule? Personaly I think it just leads to more harm than good, because often the people you are giving publicity to make the batshit arguments are extremely charasmatic and use populist rhetoric to great effect. For example, if we all started saying ahh yes, there is a chance immigrants could fundamentally change british culture, do you not think Farage or his ilk would absaloutley JUMP on that and say SEE WE WERE RIGHT.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
If Russia was rampaging across the country then they would be in the position to make such demands, they really haven't got a clue what the situation actually is, or they do but are so desperate to not appear weak they will continue this posturing. It's like when ex Communist countries and Zimbabwe I believe continued exporting food to show how successful they are while their populations starved.
Click to expand...
I do think it is an interesting thought exercise, though. Morally, I believe we can all agree: F**k Russia and give them nothing, but in reality, it feels dangerous to put an authoritarian dictator of a nuclear nation in a corner with no way out to save face, which will no doubt eventually lead to the end of his regime due to the loss of his "strong man" image.

On a moral level, I am fundamentally with you—Russia is in no place to make demands, if we didn't live in a nuclear world, I would be saying screw that and give them Crimea back as well, but that also does make me a bit nervous of what comes next.

Feels like a very delicate balance. But maybe im over thinking it.
 
Booboobang said:
No, so my point isn't that there isn't an immigrant who isn't a bad immigrant, my point is the percentage of those immigrants and the capital and influence they have is so small that they have basically no effect on those things at all. These are generally very few people, or very poor people, which means that the dilution effect or the infleucne they can have on a greater society is very small and cancels it out from being a real worry with any foundation.

Most crime and such in this country is committed by natives, yet we dont have the same worries. Giving legitimacy to an argument that has no strong foundation in reality is how you lead to situations where either or both generational oppresion happens and otherising/boogeymanning immigrants occurs. Enclaving is human nature, but it is CERTAINLY enhanced by bigotry faced by the immigrant. If very few english people want to be your friend, you are far more likely to turn to what you know.

Centrist thought of giving time to alll arguments regardless of their factual basis is a very western idealogy, but its dangerous, do you truly believe brexit happens if nigel farage or his ilk arent boyed up by both the press blaming all britian ills on immigrants and the humaninsing of the person making the argument by having them on have I got news for you? Or we would of had a mass anti vaxx movement if the press didnt both sides wakefield even after multiple papaers came out discrediting him?

Both sidesing is certainly a fine practice when making up your own personal mind if you do the research, but in terms of the masses giving legitimacy to fringe theories where the real world likelhood of it happening is minescule? Personaly I think it just leads to more harm than good, because often the people you are giving publicity to make the batshit arguments are extremely charasmatic and use populist rhetoric to great effect. For example, if we all started saying ahh yes, there is a chance immigrants could fundamentally change british culture, do you not think Farage or his ilk would absaloutley JUMP on that and say SEE WE WERE RIGHT.
Click to expand...
The issue is less whether someone is an immigrant or not and more of segments of society isolating themselves away. The vision of diversity is that you have a fully intermixed society that draws on the cultures from all round the world to enrich the lives of all. Food is a perfect example of where this works as people have next to no prejudice about which culture the food they eat comes from. This doesn't always work so well with other aspects. You can look at the USA as a non-immigrant example of this with areas that are heavily isolated from the general culture of the country, all the way from the deprived ghettos to the exclusive gated communities. It's the difference between being multi-cultural within a larger, single culture and multi-cultural where there are also very distinct lines between the various cultures that are constantly reinforced. I fail to see how a society in which different groups feel isolated from each other and have directly opposing and destructive views of each other is at all healthy for society. Immigration is where these very distinct cultures come in for us because it's a more recent phenomenon in western Europe but the USA is an example of the best and worst sides of it.

In that case there has been a very clear and systematic prejudice that created and reinforces that system, however if highlights that multi-cultural societies can also have these closed off cultures that are either doing so themselves or as a result of pressure from the dominant culture. I cannot think of a single society in which people have identified as fundamentally different culturally with no shared central culture that has really stood the test of time, they all tear themselves apart eventually. Hell the UK is already in the process of potentially tearing itself apart off the back of differing culture and personal identity and could cease to exist as a nation in my lifetime.

I'm just saying that any move for multi-culturalism that does not also have a common culture between all groups to more likely on the pass to confrontation and isolation than prosperity.
 
Booboobang said:
I do think it is an interesting thought exercise, though. Morally, I believe we can all agree: F**k Russia and give them nothing, but in reality, it feels dangerous to put an authoritarian dictator of a nuclear nation in a corner with no way out to save face, which will no doubt eventually lead to the end of his regime due to the loss of his "strong man" image.

On a moral level, I am fundamentally with you—Russia is in no place to make demands, if we didn't live in a nuclear world, I would be saying screw that and give them Crimea back as well, but that also does make me a bit nervous of what comes next.

Feels like a very delicate balance. But maybe im over thinking it.
Click to expand...
The flip side is nuclear armed authoritarians should not think they can do whatever the hell they want and use the threat of nukes to do so. This is exactly the mentality of North Korea. Imagine they see nuclear armed Russia getting what they want and it working, they then decide to start annexing parts of South Korea? Nuclear armed China annexing Taiwan and parts of Japan? If we as a planet accept that you can do whatever you want if you have nukes, then we can guarantee it will end in nuclear war. Everyone will get nukes and start posturing with them. It's a dangerous situation but letting Putin get away with it is even more dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Ragey Erasmus said:
The flip side is nuclear armed authoritarians should not think they can do whatever the hell they want and use the threat of nukes to do so. This is exactly the mentality of North Korea. Imagine they see nuclear armed Russia getting what they want and it working, they then decide to start annexing parts of South Korea? Nuclear armed China annexing Taiwan and parts of Japan? If we as a planet accept that you can do whatever you want if you have nukes, then we can guarantee it will end in nuclear war. Everyone will get nukes and start posturing with them. It's a dangerous situation but letting Putin get away with it is even more dangerous.
Click to expand...
You see, this argument works both ways: if you provoke a nuclear power and they drop the bomb, it's game over, I'd argue that's more likely when you essentially show a strong man to be weak, and thus he has nothing to lose. Whereas I would argue that regardless of how Russia saved face here, it had already served its purpose in preventing nuclear edging, and Russia was an embarrassment to the rest of the world. It demonstrated that you cannot simply attack developed nations and expect the rest of the world to sit back and watch. There is something a tad sinister about how it only seems to be an issue when its on the continent and people dont seem to care about imperialism from other nations elsewhere but thats another topic.

The north korea examples is a tad silly, they dont have the man power or resources to even try it and trying to learn anything from russia i.e. a theoritically bigger nation bullying a smaller one just doesnt fit there since south korea doms them in every metric. Especially since while they are backed by china the south is backed by the USA so it cancels out. I would also say nucleur proliferation is very unlikely, since most of the world is now under the banner of two super powers, i.e. china or the USA. Nations in this sphere dont need nukes since they have a form of protection regardless, and in this case you likely just have a cold war 2.

Basically, both options could lead to an all out nuclear war. Which is why, in an ideal world, there is a diplomatic resolution that the Ukrainians and Russians will accept. Other than that, both options are turd sandwiches, will be interesting to see when the west steps in and forces a diplomatic ceasefire, because unfortunately for the Ukrainians, that seems to be the most likely outcome to me. Who knows though, maybe the crimea situation has made the west far more hawkish on this.
 
Russia won't use nukes. China have stated on more than one occasion their stance on this and even issued a joint declaration with the US at the recent G20 that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. If Russia alienate China they're toast.

There are elections in both the US and Russia in 2024. While the Russian one will no doubt be rigged I suspect this conflict will magically end just before politicians hit your campaign trail.
 
Booboobang said:
I do think it is an interesting thought exercise, though. Morally, I believe we can all agree: F**k Russia and give them nothing, but in reality, it feels dangerous to put an authoritarian dictator of a nuclear nation in a corner with no way out to save face, which will no doubt eventually lead to the end of his regime due to the loss of his "strong man" image.

On a moral level, I am fundamentally with you—Russia is in no place to make demands, if we didn't live in a nuclear world, I would be saying screw that and give them Crimea back as well, but that also does make me a bit nervous of what comes next.

Feels like a very delicate balance. But maybe im over thinking it.
Click to expand...
What's the chances that Russia has a modern nuclear option? Many of their nuclear missiles are from the 80s and are currently being equipped with conventional High explosive war heads because Russia is running out of missiles. The half life of weapon grade plutonium is 5 years, to keep nuclear warheads in tip top condition requires a lot of effort and cost. Given how the Russian military has fallen apart since February what makes you think their nuclear arsenal is any better?

Russia can get ******. It started a pointless war and is losing, it's also United the West and alienated itself from China and India. It's only friends are North Korea, Iran and trump supporters. They want peace now because they are losing. Screw them, let Ukraine decide what it wants to do with them.
 

‘Shoppers to enjoy Brexit price cuts as farming rethink brings cheap food’ | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

www-express-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org www-express-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org
FOOD prices will tumble after Brexit making supermarket shopping more affordable for millions, families were promised last night
Click to expand...
- September 2018

www.theguardian.com

Brexit has fuelled surge in UK food prices, says Bank of England policymaker

Britons need to be kept aware of the cost of leaving the EU, says Swati Dhingra
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Brexit is contributing to a surge in food prices as the country heads into recession, a senior Bank of England policymaker has warned.
Click to expand...
- December 2022
 
2022-12-03_18h11_08.png

The Express is an absolute turd and barely even worth being called news. It's little more than a propaganda piece for brain-dead dribblers who simultaneously complain about immigrants not paying taxes whilst themselves trying to dodge paying taxes.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
View attachment 15618

The Express is an absolute turd and barely even worth being called news. It's little more than a propaganda piece for brain-dead dribblers who simultaneously complain about immigrants not paying taxes whilst themselves trying to dodge paying taxes.
Click to expand...
Brexiteers are obsessed with finding any reason for Brexit not being a roaring success other than the fact it was a stupid ******* decision.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
View attachment 15618

The Express is an absolute turd and barely even worth being called news. It's little more than a propaganda piece for brain-dead dribblers who simultaneously complain about immigrants not paying taxes whilst themselves trying to dodge paying taxes.
Click to expand...
People cannot get their head around the fact that all we are to the EU is just another county outside the EU. If anything we are a potential competitor. We just don't matter that much
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
7 8 9
Replies
163
Views
8K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
5K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
27 28 29
Replies
567
Views
25K
McTallshort
McTallshort
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
907
Try-Hard Tackler
T
M
Had to stare someone down at a red light
Replies
6
Views
1K
The Seeker
The Seeker

Latest posts

Top