Sociopolitical Issue thread

daphenaxa
blobfish
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:32 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by daphenaxa » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:45 pm

thanks
so does that mean you can refuse to serve customers because of race or religion or colour or behaviour (like for example clothing type) because of one's religious beliefs?

That is a very slippery slope. I still am not sure to understand how it is constitutional.
If you’re attracted to somebody, you’ll want them to sniff you eventually - Dan
*Phil is turned on by Dan's brilliance* *they kiss* *they have sex in the microwave* - Oqua (actually Phil)



User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by alittledizzy » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:50 pm

teamug wrote:Conservatives preserving religious freedoms.
Discrimination remains illegal on a federal level, but individual states can make laws that null federal laws. In this case, a business/person can now legally refuse service to a customer on the basis of fundamentally held religious beliefs of that business/person. Basically, being unable to discriminate was seen as discriminatory, apparently it's a dilemma for some very vocal white middle-class southerners.
As for how this is possible? People are ignorant, and some possibly stupid.

On the topic of super-delegates, I personally think the two-party system is at greater fault for hindering a better electoral process.
What really baffles me (and I live in Mississippi, so this is firsthand) is that I don't even know anyone who really gives that much of a fuck. Even the majority of southern homophobia-inclined middle/lower class dedicated Christians would condemn someone who is gay if their opinion was asked for but don't actually care enough to go out of their way to discriminate against them. The problem here is that most people who think like (don't approve, but wouldn't discriminate) just don't care enough to speak up against the discrimination. That kind of passive tolerance of stronger attitudes fucks us over and infuriates me.

And then some people get defensive not because they care about the issue but because Mississippi is shit on regularly by everyone else in the country and they want to have pride in where they live so they pretend they're strongly behind something even if they otherwise might not care.

I'm really fortunate that my neighborhood is a very liberal one. All the local businesses have 'if you're buying, we're selling' anti-discrimination stickers on their doors, and it's heart-warming to see. (But I still want to move as soon as I can afford to.)

Jeweul
sad dimple
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:18 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by Jeweul » Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:44 pm

karma_yeah wrote:I posted in the main thread, but it probably really belonged here.

I heard Prince died today, and that's really sad. He was enormously talented. But then I heard on the news that the UK has issued a travel advisory about the anti-LGBTQ laws that have been passed in several US states (they mentioned North Carolina where will have a show, and Mississippi).

And who can blame them. It's embarrassing to live in a country where a minority of conservatives with power can't find anything productive to do, but instead find ways to make life difficult for people they have no contact with and know nothing about. I live in a state who's previous governor (and former presidential candidate) didn't believe in evolution! Ugg.

As I said in the main thread, I'm hoping it gets a lot of press and that people will pay more attention to the way the "system" is set up in America right now. I think these are dangerous people set on restricting rights for women and minorities. Aren't we supposed to be a beacon of democracy?

Because of the drama around the Republican candidates for president this year, people here are finally being educated about the fact that in some states people's "votes" don't count at all. Candidates can actually be selected by a small group of party-selected "delegates". I don't agree with Donald Trump on most things, but he is right about the fact that the election system is rigged. (maybe not "rigged" but definitely not what most people think of)
I was absolutely devastated learning of this law. I honestly thought that we were putting our differences aside and leaning to be an accepting community and not denying basic rights of using which bathroom makes you comfortable. I live in North Carolina, and I am confronted by anti-LGBTQ+ people all the time. It's everywhere. Parents, grandparents, church, literally anything that I'm seen around.

Of course, the people that are discriminatory of these things are not going to change their views on things because of the law. I believe that the law needs to be going forward in an attempt to be more accepting and not so close minded. This state and pretty much the whole south of the US is ruled by, and I hate to say it, middle aged white men who are still stuck in the 1980's.

I am deeply affected by stuff like this, and I'm not exactly sure why. I really wish I could converse with people about why they're anti-whatever but I just can't. It's such an emotionally devastating thing for me when I see these innocent people being attacked by the country they live in.

teamug
living flop
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:41 am

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by teamug » Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:11 pm

daphenaxa wrote:so does that mean you can refuse to serve customers because of race or religion or colour or behaviour (like for example clothing type) because of one's religious beliefs?
I don't know the specifics of the law. But from what I understand if you have religious conviction, you can deny service. How is it to be enforced?, does a victim report to the police and then the accused only need say they have the right to refuse service because (insert religious reason), I don't know. I believe this law also allows for companies to fire employees for (insert religious reason), but I'm not sure. What stumps me the most is this law cannot remain unchallenged very long, at some point it's going to get overturned even if it takes going to the UN court. The way this law has been talked about is so absurd and flimsy. It's just such nonsense. And those that support it, hearing them talk about how this is not about taking something away from someone (by discrimination) but giving someone their right to practice religion (by way of discriminating against someone), ridiculous. But I don't know or understand the specifics, so I hope someone with more legal knowhow comes along to explain it properly.
alittledizzy wrote: What really baffles me (and I live in Mississippi, so this is firsthand) is that I don't even know anyone who really gives that much of a fuck. Even the majority of southern homophobia-inclined middle/lower class dedicated Christians would condemn someone who is gay if their opinion was asked for but don't actually care enough to go out of their way to discriminate against them. The problem here is that most people who think like (don't approve, but wouldn't discriminate) just don't care enough to speak up against the discrimination. That kind of passive tolerance of stronger attitudes fucks us over and infuriates me.

And then some people get defensive not because they care about the issue but because Mississippi is shit on regularly by everyone else in the country and they want to have pride in where they live so they pretend they're strongly behind something even if they otherwise might not care.
Always the case. Anywhere in the world.
I just want to make clear I did not mean that everyone was for this law, which is why I am surprised this law made it all this way. It's a minority getting their bigoted way, because not enough cared to oppose. And people did, but...the other side won.

Which is why VOTE. If you can vote, always vote, starting from the grassroots - local, county, state, presidential, always vote.
I have a very harsh view, and think that if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch about when the system screws you. I was brought up being told that people sacrificed their lives for me to be able to vote, so I vote. My point is voided by countries where corruption ruins any chance for democracy, yet another world issue that makes me want to bang my head against a steel reinforced brick wall.

greatnessflicker
cheeky #spon
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 9:48 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by greatnessflicker » Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:13 pm

daphenaxa wrote:thanks
so does that mean you can refuse to serve customers because of race or religion or colour or behaviour (like for example clothing type) because of one's religious beliefs?

That is a very slippery slope. I still am not sure to understand how it is constitutional.
what follows is a lot of legal history and some of it might be a little bit inaccurate (i am but a small english undergrad major who only one day dreams of going to law school and i would love if anyone more knowledgable could help me explain).
Here in America we have issues that fall under the jurisdiction of states and issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The national government's powers boil down to the power to tax, regulate commerce among the states, establish a national currency and post office, declare war, and make laws that allow them to do these things. Everything else belongs to states.

So, back in the 1960s, the Federal govt passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that declared it was illegal for individuals or private businesses (the two are treated the same in America, thanks capitalism) to deny services based on race. However, people did not follow this law because they said the federal gov't was overstepping their boundaries and trying to take away personal liberty. If it is a matter of protecting minority rights, they said, then that power belongs to the state. Some states then argued that the federal government, though it could prohibit states from discriminating against black people, could not prohibit people (businesses) from discriminating against black people. What the Civil Rights Act was doing was jumping the clearly defined chain of command in which the Federal Government legislates the States and the States (and only the states) legislates the people (businesses).

SO, in the end, this loophole was closed when the federal government argued that segregation was actually an issue that belonged under the jurisdiction of the federal government because it effected commerce between the states. As in, a hotel owner in Atlanta is not federally allowed to discriminate against black people because that will prevent black families in boston from taking vacation and prevent the flow of $$$$ between states. Basically the Supreme Court was forced to argue that an issue of equality/human dignity was actually an issue of economics in order to turn segregation from a state issue to a federal issue.

Well! Doesn't that mean that the entertainers refusing to visit North Carolina have the right idea? NOPE, because, unfortunately, we don't have any federal laws prohibiting against the discrimination of people based on sexual orientation (except that it is federally illegal to not hire someone based on sexual orientation).

To argue what is going on now is against the American constitution (versus a state constitution) would require federal laws against discrimination against gay people. OR, have the Supreme Court give a broad interpretation of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 that includes sexual orientation, which is why its illegal to not hire someone based on sexual orientation. And even then we might have to argue again that the federal government has the jurisdiction to do this. Until then, it is still technically a state's right, and the individual state's supreme court would have to argue that the law is breaking the state's specific constitution.

It won't turn into a slippery slope where you can refuse to serve someone based on religion, ethnicity, disability, etc, because we already have federal laws against those. As for behavior, yes, businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason except the reason that they belong to a protected group. You can refuse to serve someone who isn't wearing a shirt and you can refuse to serve someone who is screaming, it is all perfectly legal so long as you apply that rule to everyone who comes in bare-chested and yelling.

So yeah, either the federal gov't better start getting its act together to add sexual orientation minorities to the list of groups under federal protection or the change will have to come from within the states. :///
Sorry for all this waffling! it is a tricky topic that intersects gay rights, the balance of federal and state power, and economics.

PLUS I just realized i didn't even get into the specifics of the state laws, which, as you can imagine, use a lot of evasive language. I can do some more research and talk to my law professor and try to condense it if this post was of help to anyone.

edit:
teamug wrote: I don't know the specifics of the law. But from what I understand if you have religious conviction, you can deny service. How is it to be enforced?, does a victim report to the police and then the accused only need say they have the right to refuse service because (insert religious reason), I don't know.
I imagine it is the same as any time you refuse to service someone. The business person tells them that they will not serve them and then the victim of discrimination (in this case, the gay person) can either agree and leave or protest, subjecting themselves to harassment. If that is not enough of a consequence to encourage complying, the business person can call the police and have them escorted off the premise.

daphenaxa
blobfish
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:32 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by daphenaxa » Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:11 pm

greatnessflicker wrote:
daphenaxa wrote:thanks
so does that mean you can refuse to serve customers because of race or religion or colour or behaviour (like for example clothing type) because of one's religious beliefs?

That is a very slippery slope. I still am not sure to understand how it is constitutional.
what follows is a lot of legal history and some of it might be a little bit inaccurate (i am but a small english undergrad major who only one day dreams of going to law school and i would love if anyone more knowledgable could help me explain).
Here in America we have issues that fall under the jurisdiction of states and issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The national government's powers boil down to the power to tax, regulate commerce among the states, establish a national currency and post office, declare war, and make laws that allow them to do these things. Everything else belongs to states.

So, back in the 1960s, the Federal govt passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that declared it was illegal for individuals or private businesses (the two are treated the same in America, thanks capitalism) to deny services based on race. However, people did not follow this law because they said the federal gov't was overstepping their boundaries and trying to take away personal liberty. If it is a matter of protecting minority rights, they said, then that power belongs to the state. Some states then argued that the federal government, though it could prohibit states from discriminating against black people, could not prohibit people (businesses) from discriminating against black people. What the Civil Rights Act was doing was jumping the clearly defined chain of command in which the Federal Government legislates the States and the States (and only the states) legislates the people (businesses).

SO, in the end, this loophole was closed when the federal government argued that segregation was actually an issue that belonged under the jurisdiction of the federal government because it effected commerce between the states. As in, a hotel owner in Atlanta is not federally allowed to discriminate against black people because that will prevent black families in boston from taking vacation and prevent the flow of $$$$ between states. Basically the Supreme Court was forced to argue that an issue of equality/human dignity was actually an issue of economics in order to turn segregation from a state issue to a federal issue.

Well! Doesn't that mean that the entertainers refusing to visit North Carolina have the right idea? NOPE, because, unfortunately, we don't have any federal laws prohibiting against the discrimination of people based on sexual orientation (except that it is federally illegal to not hire someone based on sexual orientation).

To argue what is going on now is against the American constitution (versus a state constitution) would require federal laws against discrimination against gay people. OR, have the Supreme Court give a broad interpretation of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 that includes sexual orientation, which is why its illegal to not hire someone based on sexual orientation. And even then we might have to argue again that the federal government has the jurisdiction to do this. Until then, it is still technically a state's right, and the individual state's supreme court would have to argue that the law is breaking the state's specific constitution.

It won't turn into a slippery slope where you can refuse to serve someone based on religion, ethnicity, disability, etc, because we already have federal laws against those. As for behavior, yes, businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason except the reason that they belong to a protected group. You can refuse to serve someone who isn't wearing a shirt and you can refuse to serve someone who is screaming, it is all perfectly legal so long as you apply that rule to everyone who comes in bare-chested and yelling.

So yeah, either the federal gov't better start getting its act together to add sexual orientation minorities to the list of groups under federal protection or the change will have to come from within the states. :///
Sorry for all this waffling! it is a tricky topic that intersects gay rights, the balance of federal and state power, and economics.

PLUS I just realized i didn't even get into the specifics of the state laws, which, as you can imagine, use a lot of evasive language. I can do some more research and talk to my law professor and try to condense it if this post was of help to anyone.

edit:
teamug wrote: I don't know the specifics of the law. But from what I understand if you have religious conviction, you can deny service. How is it to be enforced?, does a victim report to the police and then the accused only need say they have the right to refuse service because (insert religious reason), I don't know.
I imagine it is the same as any time you refuse to service someone. The business person tells them that they will not serve them and then the victim of discrimination (in this case, the gay person) can either agree and leave or protest, subjecting themselves to harassment. If that is not enough of a consequence to encourage complying, the business person can call the police and have them escorted off the premise.
thank you that was very clear. So if my religion told me Black people or Jews were evil, I still would have to serve them because the "freedom of religion" bullshit would be annulled by federal law. Well they could use the same economic argument about cash flow between states if Gay families now boycott those states.
If you’re attracted to somebody, you’ll want them to sniff you eventually - Dan
*Phil is turned on by Dan's brilliance* *they kiss* *they have sex in the microwave* - Oqua (actually Phil)

User avatar
adequate duck
cheeky #spon
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:49 am
Pronouns: she/they
Location: California

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by adequate duck » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:09 pm

OK, I just kind of want to boast about my kid for a minute and this seemed like the most on-topic place for that. He's 6 and in Kindergarten and they are learning pronouns and his teacher tells me that he insists that often you can't tell who is a boy or a girl just by their clothes so he refuses to do the worksheets. I think I was supposed to talk to him about it, but I just gave him a high five :lol:
"don't respect any ducks" - phil lester

User avatar
Catallena
angel bean
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:56 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by Catallena » Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:46 am

adequack wrote:OK, I just kind of want to boast about my kid for a minute and this seemed like the most on-topic place for that. He's 6 and in Kindergarten and they are learning pronouns and his teacher tells me that he insists that often you can't tell who is a boy or a girl just by their clothes so he refuses to do the worksheets. I think I was supposed to talk to him about it, but I just gave him a high five :lol:
Omg that's adorable What a smart kid!

My friend is an au pair and she told me a story recently where the 7 year old girl was complaining about some popular song that she didn't like because of some lyrics she found sexist. Her younger brother agreed.

The future generation is doing well
Stan is only one letter away from Satan.
Twitter *•.(★).•* Tumblr

User avatar
vortexofphan
drama llama
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:58 pm

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by vortexofphan » Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:47 am

Seeing as I am not UK/EU person, could someone who is explain the brexit to me? I guess I'm not sure what each side is advocating for/claiming position wise/what happens et.c

IckleMissMayhem
full-time internet hobo
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:59 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: UK

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by IckleMissMayhem » Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:53 am

vortexofphan wrote:Seeing as I am not UK/EU person, could someone who is explain the brexit to me? I guess I'm not sure what each side is advocating for/claiming position wise/what happens etc
We're fucked. That's what. :x :facepalm:
I honestly didn't think there were THIS many idiots in the UK.

opendoor
living flop
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:24 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Australia

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by opendoor » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:53 am

IckleMissMayhem wrote:
vortexofphan wrote:Seeing as I am not UK/EU person, could someone who is explain the brexit to me? I guess I'm not sure what each side is advocating for/claiming position wise/what happens etc
We're fucked. That's what. :x :facepalm:
I honestly didn't think there were THIS many idiots in the UK.
I'm living abroad right now (not forever) so I couldn't vote, but all the polls were looking like we were going to remain. Just shows how many people are secret xenophobes that lied in the polls but then secretly voted to leave.

That being said, my understanding is a) it's going to take a long time to put anything into effect b) it's up to the government and the EU what actually ends up happening. There could be massive changes or really minimal ones.

I really really hope they keep free movement.
drowned in moonlight, strangled by her own bra

IckleMissMayhem
full-time internet hobo
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:59 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: UK

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by IckleMissMayhem » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:56 am

opendoor wrote:
IckleMissMayhem wrote:
vortexofphan wrote:Seeing as I am not UK/EU person, could someone who is explain the brexit to me? I guess I'm not sure what each side is advocating for/claiming position wise/what happens etc
We're fucked. That's what. :x :facepalm:
I honestly didn't think there were THIS many idiots in the UK.
I'm living abroad right now (not forever) so I couldn't vote, but all the polls were looking like we were going to remain. Just shows how many people are secret xenophobes that lied in the polls but then secretly voted to leave.

That being said, my understanding is a) it's going to take a long time to put anything into effect b) it's up to the government and the EU what actually ends up happening. There could be massive changes or really minimal ones.

I really really hope they keep free movement.
We will, (we'll have to. Same with keeping up subsidies) they won't. Congratulations idiots, all they've done is taken away the benefits of being in the EU.

Zaz
dank meme
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:25 am
Location: France

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by Zaz » Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:02 am

IckleMissMayhem wrote:
opendoor wrote:
IckleMissMayhem wrote:
vortexofphan wrote:Seeing as I am not UK/EU person, could someone who is explain the brexit to me? I guess I'm not sure what each side is advocating for/claiming position wise/what happens etc
We're fucked. That's what. :x :facepalm:
I honestly didn't think there were THIS many idiots in the UK.
I'm living abroad right now (not forever) so I couldn't vote, but all the polls were looking like we were going to remain. Just shows how many people are secret xenophobes that lied in the polls but then secretly voted to leave.

That being said, my understanding is a) it's going to take a long time to put anything into effect b) it's up to the government and the EU what actually ends up happening. There could be massive changes or really minimal ones.

I really really hope they keep free movement.
We will, (we'll have to. Same with keeping up subsidies) they won't. Congratulations idiots, all they've done is taken away the benefits of being in the EU.
Wow waking up is hard today. I had no idea it would be this tense, and that brexit would win...
I feel so sad. (even the end of the tour didn't cheered me up). I guess we will see what happens next. But this makes me so sad and angry.
English is not my first language, sorry for any mistakes!

Alohomora
tol bean
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 2:17 pm

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by Alohomora » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:54 am

Zaz wrote:
IckleMissMayhem wrote:
opendoor wrote:
IckleMissMayhem wrote:
vortexofphan wrote:Seeing as I am not UK/EU person, could someone who is explain the brexit to me? I guess I'm not sure what each side is advocating for/claiming position wise/what happens etc
We're fucked. That's what. :x :facepalm:
I honestly didn't think there were THIS many idiots in the UK.
I'm living abroad right now (not forever) so I couldn't vote, but all the polls were looking like we were going to remain. Just shows how many people are secret xenophobes that lied in the polls but then secretly voted to leave.

That being said, my understanding is a) it's going to take a long time to put anything into effect b) it's up to the government and the EU what actually ends up happening. There could be massive changes or really minimal ones.

I really really hope they keep free movement.
We will, (we'll have to. Same with keeping up subsidies) they won't. Congratulations idiots, all they've done is taken away the benefits of being in the EU.
Wow waking up is hard today. I had no idea it would be this tense, and that brexit would win...
I feel so sad. (even the end of the tour didn't cheered me up). I guess we will see what happens next. But this makes me so sad and angry.
What annoys me the most about the referendum result is that the majority of people who voted leave (most likely) aren't the ones who will have to deal with the long-term effects of this decision.We don't even know what some of these effects are going to be yet.
All I can say from a personal point of view is I'm relieved I'm eligible for dual nationality, and therefore can easily switch to an EU passport. Most people aren't that lucky.

User avatar
SquishPhan
mark of oxin
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 11:18 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by SquishPhan » Fri Jun 24, 2016 9:16 am

This really wasn't the news I hoped to wake up to this morning. Very disappointing.
And I'm sorry for all the UK people on here.

IckleMissMayhem
full-time internet hobo
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:59 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: UK

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by IckleMissMayhem » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:03 am

Image
Image

aralik
sad dimple
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:43 pm

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by aralik » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:21 am

honestly, the end of the tatinof and vidcon means shit to me because news like this annoy me to no end, i'm amazed at the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of people! :facepalm: :(
i get that working class ppl in the uk felt like the politicians and richer off people are the ones benefiting from being a part of eu. and it's the politician's responsibility (looking at you labour) to make the working class feel a part of the country. but really it's about ignorant ppl thinking immigrants are taking their jobs and believing that all the money given to the eu (which actually flows right back into britain as rights, funds, and grants) will now flow into their pocket (or their health-care system, yeah right ). but of course if they could think about it for a second they'd understand that politicians like farage are really just using these people for their own benefits and lying through their teeth with false promises :sideeye:
i'm super angry at people who vote with fake sentiments to the olden (dare i say colonial) times when uk ruled over others instead of ruling with others who end up ruining things for the young generation.
i don't have any hopes of uk overlooking the referendum. conservatives will evoke article 50 in autumn. and eu wants to make an example of uk, and will make sure uk leaves as soon as possible, with no extra rights, i'm afraid :wtf:
i'm so sorry for the uk and eu that things came here. it's a turning point, backwards. :sobs:
to end on a bit of a higher note, i hope the things to come will highlight how we are stronger together, i still want to hope :itsokay:
ugh.

hunnyftw
hobbit hair
Posts: 277
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:40 am

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by hunnyftw » Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:11 pm

aralik wrote:honestly, the end of the tatinof and vidcon means shit to me because news like this annoy me to no end, i'm amazed at the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of people! :facepalm: :(
same. Nothing can cheer me up today, not even Deppy and the end of the tour :( I'm really afraid that other countries will follow.

I'm from central Europe and didn't pay close attention to the referendum campaign because I was afraid that the leave option would win ( :facepalm: ) and didn't want to scare myself shitless by watching the disaster unfold before my eyes. So if anyone who did pay attention to the campaign could explain one thing to me I would be very grateful: Was the stay campaign just really really shit, or what? I mean, this is the only explanation that I can come up with; otherwise I don't understand how it is possible that 52% of the voters made a seemingly idiotic decision.

User avatar
Catallena
angel bean
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:56 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by Catallena » Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:29 pm

hunnyftw wrote:I'm really afraid that other countries will follow.
I'm afraid of that as well. There are plenty of anti-EU people over here in The Netherlands, and the anti-EU (and racist af) PVV party from Geert Wilders has gained a lot of support this last year or so. I fear we're gonna get a Nexit referendum just like Brexit... we already had a referendum about the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU earlier this year which turned out in favor of the anti-EU side (no thanks to the pro-EU side who called for people to stay at home in hope of the referendum being declared invalid smh :sideeye: ) so I'm just gonna smash my head into a wall or something.
Stan is only one letter away from Satan.
Twitter *•.(★).•* Tumblr

User avatar
SquishPhan
mark of oxin
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 11:18 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by SquishPhan » Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:38 pm

Catallena wrote:
hunnyftw wrote:I'm really afraid that other countries will follow.
I'm afraid of that as well. There are plenty of anti-EU people over here in The Netherlands, and the anti-EU (and racist af) PVV party from Geert Wilders has gained a lot of support this last year or so. I fear we're gonna get a Nexit referendum just like Brexit... we already had a referendum about the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU earlier this year which turned out in favor of the anti-EU side (no thanks to the pro-EU side who called for people to stay at home in hope of the referendum being declared invalid smh :sideeye: ) so I'm just gonna smash my head into a wall or something.
For now I'm not too worried. I voted against the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU, but that wasn't because I'm anti-EU, because I'm not, I just thought that there were good reasons to vote against.
If there will be a Nexit, then I for one will vote to stay in. Different issues imo.

User avatar
Catallena
angel bean
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:56 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by Catallena » Fri Jun 24, 2016 3:15 pm

SquishPhan wrote:
Catallena wrote:
hunnyftw wrote:I'm really afraid that other countries will follow.
I'm afraid of that as well. There are plenty of anti-EU people over here in The Netherlands, and the anti-EU (and racist af) PVV party from Geert Wilders has gained a lot of support this last year or so. I fear we're gonna get a Nexit referendum just like Brexit... we already had a referendum about the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU earlier this year which turned out in favor of the anti-EU side (no thanks to the pro-EU side who called for people to stay at home in hope of the referendum being declared invalid smh :sideeye: ) so I'm just gonna smash my head into a wall or something.
For now I'm not too worried. I voted against the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU, but that wasn't because I'm anti-EU, because I'm not, I just thought that there were good reasons to vote against.
If there will be a Nexit, then I for one will vote to stay in. Different issues imo.
Yeah they're different issues and I know that not everyone who voted against it is anti-EU (my dad is very pro-EU but voted against as well, I voted in favor although I thought both sides had good arguments), but they're still very connected considering the anti campaign leaders for both are all the same people. GeenPeil never actually cared about the Ukraine agreement, one of the leaders said that he never even read it and didn't care, it was really just an excuse to put a bomb under the relationship of The Netherlands and the EU and for right wing media to publish some more lies. GeenPeil even went to the UK to support UKIP and the Leave campaign, and they want the same for The Netherlands. They wanted the Ukraine referendum to test the waters, and with how the Brexit one turned out I'm almost positive they're gonna try for a Nexit one soon... If they get enough support again just like last time for the Ukraine referendum, they'll get one as well. I think there's a lot of reason to be worried, nevermind what the prime minister says.
Stan is only one letter away from Satan.
Twitter *•.(★).•* Tumblr

teamug
living flop
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:41 am

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by teamug » Fri Jun 24, 2016 3:42 pm

I need the EU to start the British exit process asap. Nationalism has been on the rise for a few years in every EU country and this just adds fuel to their fires. The votes are in, and as sorry as I am for everyone in the UK that voted remain, and everyone elsewhere who are affected, the EU needs to nip this situation in the bud and attend to affairs. It can't let months and months go by, because that gives the anti-EU lobbyists and/or xenophobes elsewhere time to wreck their havoc.

Either brexit unites the other EU countries, though the only way Europe ever unites is against a common enemy and in this case it would the UK. (i love europe, but the whole forgive and forget thing, not an actual thing 'round here, it's more along the lines of, world keeps turning, tolerate and silently hate on eachother). Or the EU disintergrates, which would drown the continent for years in economic woes. But perhaps I am just being too pessimistic.

Been a crap year so far. And it just keeps getting worse by the month. Can't wait for July.

IckleMissMayhem
full-time internet hobo
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:59 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: UK

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by IckleMissMayhem » Fri Jun 24, 2016 3:51 pm

teamug wrote:I need the EU to start the British exit process asap.
It's not the EU that starts the process. It's the UK parliament.

teamug
living flop
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:41 am

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by teamug » Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:08 pm

IckleMissMayhem wrote:
teamug wrote:I need the EU to start the British exit process asap.
It's not the EU that starts the process. It's the UK parliament.
Yes. Article 50 and all. But the EU parliament can get off its' butt and prepare alot beforehand. It's going to take years anyway, I just hope the EU starts their part now, not two months from now.

edited many times. sorry.
It's not even just the EU, the member states need to get their rears in gear.

aralik
sad dimple
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:43 pm

Re: Sociopolitical Issue thread

Post by aralik » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:28 pm

as far as i've seen eu officials have made it clear that "leave means leave" and will make sure things are handled speedily (possibly with no or few agreements/deals that will benefit the uk). but other than that i guess they have to wait until uk actually revokes that article. seems nobody really knows how things will actually proceed as this is a first in history...
ugh.

Post Reply