?

Just to avoid catching ire for adding nuance, I want to preface everything by stating that the nazi regime was obviously a criminal scourge upon humanity, and it’s perpetrators entirely irredeemable. If the nazi regime was ever falsely accused of anything, it will always just be irrelevant little details, in the face of the sheer bulk of provable horrors committed by them, their collaborators, and the weight is on the shoulders of everyone within their borders, who was of legal age and sound mind, and who didn’t do anything to resist.

With that out of the way, the descendants of the Allies should stop swallowing the propaganda of their forefathers raw, and instead try to take an honest, critical look on this part of their past.

The fact of the matter is, the Nürnberg trials were a farce, more a show trial and a kangaroo court, of Victor’s parading around the defeated, conducted on a legal basis that didn’t exist, with many punishments (executions) being violations of the inalienable human rights that were soon after proclaimed by the victors, as an encodification of the core values that they claimed to espouse.

The trials were a mockery. Surely, it would have been possible to prosecute and punish anyone deserving of it, by the laws of the pre-1933 Weimar Republic, which, contrary to popular belief today, was not abolished in a legal manner in the first place, and so would still have jurisdiction.

Anyway, the Nürnberg trials are an awful ideal to shoot for - especially when we today finally (and fairly recently) have managed to establish a proper International Criminal Court, with authority and legal basis to dispense real justice against the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Recognise that court, and insist on it carrying out justice. When you ignore thst court in discourse, and choose to hold up an 80 year old mock trail as the standard of justice, that just makes it all the easier for any future victor to quickly carry out their own kangaroo courts, executing based on what’s politically convenient, while slowing the path towards a legal world order.

The problem here is that those are filters, and the newcomer will usually still be faced with several options, which will still make them scratch their head.

A wizard is a good idea, with simple questions, rather than filter buttons.

But it needs to end up telling you “here you go, this is the one you want!”, giving you just a single instance. Doesn’t matter that multiple will probably match the answers given - then just pick one at random. Chances are, they will be equally happy on either, and if not, well, it isn’t very hard to switch to a new instance later on, when they have become regular Lemmists.

I don’t think there’s anything democratic about publicly singling out some users as pariahs. If a user is disruptive, just get rid of them. If they’re not, leave them be. If the jury’s still out on this one, well, don’t bias the jury against them.

I don’t think so, but I wouldn’t be surprised if, as the old world order continues to change into… this, that we will see an expansion/rework/new layer on top of the current association agreements. Something more like associate member states.

My guess is that it will take a form where associate states will have no explicit political power (no elected politicians, and not likely any appointed political positions either), but will have greater access to less direct influence, that could potentially-eventually even include formal rights of hearing with the Commission, a right to speak in Parliament, and/or guarantees of consultation on certain matters.

I think this could become a more standardised system than the current association agreements. In many ways it would be like having different membership tracks, with different benefits and requirements. I expect that realist school foreign policy is going to overwhelmingly dominate global foreign affairs, with the idealist school being relegated to mainly having influence in regional foreign affairs. As such, I think standards on political and human rights that these associate members will have to live up to are going to be an order og magnitude less strict than what is required of full members. There will probably be other requirements that will be more important, such as certain foreign policy commitments.

As for level of integration, I would imagine that such an associate member would be able to become fully integrated in many areas, but on an opt-in basis, possibly with almost standardised package deals, where certain benefits and obligations (both legal and economic) are bestowed together. Things like Schengen membership, or access to some of the large redistribute programs (agricultural subsidies come to mind) will remain very exclusive, and membership in these will continue to be largely political, rather than something that can be accessible to any associate member that fulfills certain objective criteria.

Do I have any special insights that make me able to predict the future? No. No one can predict the future. But I think these are some pretty solid guesses.

Can you delete it a little harder? It’s still there for me. Maybe you only put it in the thrash bin. You need to either empty the bin, or press shift+delete in order to delete it permanently.

Godspeed. We’re all counting on you, oh ye who has the power to delete all of Reddit!

P.S.: Not trying to make fun of you, btw! Just entertaining myself. “Deleting” something sounds so different when you’re used to using it through your browser. :D

I admittedly didn’t read the article (no time as I speak), but surely they included a control group?

It’s a lot easier and much more productive when you learn to talk to other people in a mature, healthy way, and insulting someone, slurs or not, never is. Try leaving school yard talk, like personal attacks, where it belongs, and see how much less stressful it is when you’re not fighting people all the time, and how much more people will listen to you.

No, that’s not it. It’s a little “trick” that’s becoming popular with European politicians from the right, all the way to the centre-left.

According to international law, those asylum seekers have a right to have their request for asylum processed, by the country they’re in when they make that request. Processing someone’s request for asylum is something that can sometimes take a long time, and if their request is denied, it can still be very difficult to deport them - which is why you also see some countries giving denied asylum seekers a monetary reward for going back.

Hosting asylum seekers, especially a lot of them, can become quite unpopular, both locally, and in the population in general. The reasons for this is usually that it costs money to host and process asylum seekers, which some people feel is an undue burden put on their country, especially if they have a perception of the asylum seekers not seeking asylum in good faith, but are rather just economic migrants.

Additionally, it would be a terrible disregard of human rights to lock up these asylum seekers, as if they were criminals, and the asylum centre a prison. That means that they of course need to be able to go outside, and live as normal lives as possible, while their request is being processed, and their children will have to go to the local schools, etc.

In addition, I believe there are often put restrictions on their ability to work, as a measure against economic immigration - but the side effect of that is that they are much more likely to be seen as an undue drain by the general population. Countries are often loathe to start integrating people, when they expect to reject the vast majority of them. The consequence of that is that these people end up being very poorly integrated.

Besides that, there also tends to be a higher average crime rate among asylum seekers. The local communities that host the asylum centres of course reacts to that, and some people will start to feel unsafe, whether due to prejudice, or due to incidents of crime relating to some of the asylum seekers.

So, the clever “trick” that is becoming popular among politicians is to pay a foreign country to have their asylum centres built there, send all of their asylum seekers off to those centres, and often to staff those centres largely or partly with nationals of this foreign nation. From the point of view of these politicians, it solves a lot of the problems, and it lets them look “tough on immigrants”.

The legality of all of this is still being hashed out, and courts are sometimes foiling those plans entirely. Whether this trick is or can be technically legal or not, and even if this method could be used in a fair and reasonable manner, it seems to always be bereft with very questionable practices or methods, as in this case, or when a European country tries to set up asylum centres in an African country that has a long track record of human rights abuses against - whaddya know - asylum seekers.

Is it related to the browser NetSurf?

I have been really curious about that, actually, but since I don’t speak French, it’s been hard for me to follow the post-election developments. Are you able to give a recap, or point me to a good summary somewhere?

This might be philosophical, but I think a lot of people make a mistake, when they assume that just because something is made up, it somehow makes that thing less real, and less of an obstacle to overcome. The quality of being made up says something about a thing’s origin, not about its level of realness.

As stated, that notion might be philosophical, but following it’s own rules, that doesn’t impact the degree to which it, as with any other idea, exists as a thing that has the quality of realness (distinct from truth value) to it.

Okay, but I wasn’t discussing or quoting you on anything relating to war material. Just your assertion about cargo in general!

Also…

The large cargo ships famously need large amounts of water.

Sounds like you haven’t heard about viking cargo ships on logs!

Railways are actually super important though. They can transport more cargo than any other means.

Cargo ships would like to have a word with you.