[Bobboau]

Greek coast guard 'deliberately' sunk migrant boat in Turkish waters

[NGTM-1R]

The Greeks and Turks have...very bad history, in the modern era.

[Aesaar]

They've had pretty bad history since, like, the tenth century.

[Bobboau]

So what's this I hear about the Greek military having a bunch of legit Nazis who have a wet dream about setting up a racially pure junta? and is there any threat of that actually happening?

[MP-Ryan]

The Greeks and Turks have...very bad history, in the modern era.

As multiple people of my acquaintance have said after visiting Greece:  the country peaked early.

Their abysmal handling of the refugee crisis emphasizes that, though it hasn't helped that the collective EU as a whole can't get its **** together when it comes to borders, refugees, and a continental immigration policy.

[Dragon]

While I'm not supporting the taking up refugees, the Greeks have gone a bit too far. That sort of thing is the easiest way for everyone to end up tangled in another war. If you're going to sink refugee boats, at least do it in your own waters, dolts...

As multiple people of my acquaintance have said after visiting Greece:  the country peaked early.

Their abysmal handling of the refugee crisis emphasizes that, though it hasn't helped that the collective EU as a whole can't get its **** together when it comes to borders, refugees, and a continental immigration policy.

Well, Greece has been getting the short end of the stick lately and they're not happy about it (first it nearly went bankrupt and not it's getting swarmed with refugees on top of that). Not that I have much sympathy for them after they imprisoned two developers from my favorite game company, but in the current situation, the last thing we need is a bunch of what amounts to actual Nazis claiming to be on our side. They've been coming out of the woodwork since the economic crisis started, not only in the military.

[666maslo666]

I am all for tough measures against these migrants, but sinking boats full of people (even children) is not acceptable.

[GhylTarvoke]

I finally gathered the courage to join this discussion - just in time for it to fizzle out. (Typical.) I was originally against accepting the refugees, but the arguments of Battuta et al. convinced me.

At the same time, I despise the taboo on the word "Muslim" and the knee-jerk PC response to attacks by Islamic radicals people of uncertain origin, whose motives had nothing to do with Islam.

I am all for tough measures against these migrants, but sinking boats full of people (even children) is not acceptable.

Not acceptable is an understatement. Monstrous is nearer the mark.

[Dragon]

That's the sort of stuff you're going to see when people have had enough. This is why governments need to react and enact measures that they can control. Otherwise, people are just going to start enacting their own measures against what they perceive as unacceptable, which can't be controlled. This is true of any pressing issue. So now keep in mind that what you call monstrous has apparently become a fair game for a bunch of Greeks. Immigration needs to be curbed for immigrants' own sake at this point. And if the current government doesn't do anything about it by the next election, well, the next one will, probably not in a pleasant way (see why I'm not fond of democracies? It's easier to force a compromise on a difficult issue if majority can't just kick the whole government out and elect someone who promises to change things to be exactly the way the majority wants).

[Mongoose]

(see why I'm not fond of democracies? It's easier to force a compromise on a difficult issue if majority can't just kick the whole government out and elect someone who promises to change things to be exactly the way the majority wants).

That would be why most functioning democracies have a judicial system that's able to act as an oversight and prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[karajorma]

That's the sort of stuff you're going to see when people have had enough. This is why governments need to react and enact measures that they can control. Otherwise, people are just going to start enacting their own measures against what they perceive as unacceptable, which can't be controlled. This is true of any pressing issue.

Such as? Having black people in the country? Giving women the vote? Allowing homosexuality?

All of those were things that were (and for some people still are) unacceptable in various democracies. Should the governments have caved in to the majority on those issues too?

[Dragon]

Notice that these when these things were thought unacceptable, it was the government that needed to be convinced of them. They did cave in to the majority - by allowing those changes. "Some people" you mentioned simply found themselves in minority when the change happened (although not by a huge margin). Notice that in none of those cases the government just thought "Hey, we're giving women the right to vote!" or such. No, there were lengthy campaigns on each of those issues that were a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If the government persisted in its misogyny/homophobia/racism it'd run a big risk of getting itself voted out. And yes, if they did persist, I'd imagine people would eventually get desperate and violent. In fact, of those three issues you mentioned, only gay marriage went through without notable violence. Both female suffrage in Britain and end of apartheid in South Africa weren't exactly achieved in a non-violent manner.

That would be why most functioning democracies have a judicial system that's able to act as an oversight and prevent the tyranny of the majority.

That's a theory. In practice, I noticed that when things go south, this rarely helps. Democracy only really works when the majority does see minority's point and wants to respect its rights (the case with most Western countries, at least to date). In places where mutual respect is too much to ask for, tyranny of the majority is the common result.

[The E]

Now explain to us why having a single unelected and unaccountable leader is better.

[666maslo666]

That's the sort of stuff you're going to see when people have had enough. This is why governments need to react and enact measures that they can control. Otherwise, people are just going to start enacting their own measures against what they perceive as unacceptable, which can't be controlled. This is true of any pressing issue.

Such as? Having black people in the country? Giving women the vote? Allowing homosexuality?
 

If those things were truly unacceptable to significant majority of people, no amount of judicial/constitutional protections would have helped. People would just vote for a party that changes the constitution to fit their vision. The truth is, only a minority of people disagree with them, and those who disagree simply do not care enough to put such things before other issues more important for them. This may very well not be the case when it comes to current crisis - according to the Eurobarometer poll from july, migration crisis is the top issue facing Europe right now (overtaking such staples as economy/unemployment), and most people view accepting more migrants in a negative way (with the sole exception of Sweden - yeah, the stereotype seems to be true in this case ). I dont expect any government or law which goes against the wishes of the people in this matter to survive for very long. Definitely not in the bright red states in the map below.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5451_en.htm#_ftn1

http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/4932007-map-showing-eu-countries-attitude-towards-foreign-immigration
(just a note: from my discussions with Polish people, the likely reason why Poland isnt bright red like the rest of V4 on that map is because the question asked was in general about immigrants from outside EU, not specifically muslim immigrants, and for Poles such a formulation evokes Ukrainians first, which are pretty accepted in Poland)

[karajorma]

Notice that these when these things were thought unacceptable, it was the government that needed to be convinced of them. They did cave in to the majority - by allowing those changes.

You are already wrong at this point. Gay marriage for instance was brought up and defeated in several referendums. Which basically means that the government had enough backing to put it to a referendum but the general population disagreed.

No, there were lengthy campaigns on each of those issues that were a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If the government persisted in its misogyny/homophobia/racism it'd run a big risk of getting itself voted out.

That's completely illogical. If there needed to be a long campaign (lasting several election cycles) then it's pretty obvious that the general population didn't consider those things to be a big enough thing that the government would lose massive numbers of votes over them. The reason for the long campaigns was because neither the government nor the general population cared very much about the issue at the start. I won't deny that pressure from the electorate had something to do with it, but to act like all of these were such big issues that the government had to cave in to public opinion is rather foolish and intensely disrespectful to the people in the governments of the day who campaigned for those rights.

[Dragon]

At the start yes, nobody cared. That's why you need the long campaign to make things change. You need to convince people to start caring. Which is exactly what was done, by the end they pretty much did care. It's a long and laborious process, but this is the only way to bring about a change on this scale. Of course, it's not like government is completely homogeneous, some politicians will try to capitalize on the minority votes (if it's large enough) and hope they can win over enough of the majority by other means (or even by the fact they're supporting minority rights, this is often worth a few points in the civilized world) that they end up winning.

As far as I've seen, the opinion on gay marriage was mostly "Well, why not?" among most of the populace when it was legalized in the US. I seem to recall an early referendum in which the majority was indeed against it, but do you have any later pools (also note that "against it" doesn't mean "60% against it, the rest for it") in which that would be the case? One should note that opinion on this issue changed very quickly since it was first brought up, gay marriage went from "no legislation, nobody ever thought of it" to "abomination!" to "basic human right" over the course of less than 20 years, IIRC.

Now explain to us why having a single unelected and unaccountable leader is better.

It's easier for a single leader (Not unaccountable! The moment you start acting like you are is the moment your regime starts to fall apart) to force a compromise. With no easy way to kick him out, a smart ruler can placate the populace with measures that do not actually do exactly what they want, but the resulting situation is acceptable enough not to start rioting over it. He is in no danger from extremist rhetoric that might score points with common people (like it currently does all over Europe), but is otherwise disastrous. This does assume the king is smarter than most of his subjects, of course (usually the case with modern absolute monarchies. Yes, even Saudi Arabia the royals are actually the progressive ones. Tells you a lot about Saudi Arabia in general, really). An idiot king can cause regression in exactly the same manner, which is one of many reasons to have the actual king selected from a number of candidates, like Saudis do.

[The E]

It's easier for a single leader (Not unaccountable! The moment you start acting like you are is the moment your regime starts to fall apart) to force a compromise.

It's just as easy for said leader to force a solution that he prefers. And any autocrat worthy of the title is by definition unaccountable (Because power rests solely with him. None of this weak, democratic "All power derives from the people" bull****).
That's something you don't seem to get: You cannot have a supreme leader without also abolishing the concept of popular sovereignty. And once you do that, the ruling elite is no longer accountable to anyone except themselves.

With no easy way to kick him out, a smart ruler can placate the populace with measures that do not actually do exactly what they want, but the resulting situation is acceptable enough not to start rioting over it.

And a stupid ruler can ruin everything, something you also completely ignore. At least in parliamentary democracies, there are set term limits for rulers that will limit the amount of damage any single one can do.

He is in no danger from extremist rhetoric that might score points with common people (like it currently does all over Europe), but is otherwise disastrous.

No, he is in danger from extremist rhetoric that will score points with him. Why would a given ruler be immune to extremism?

This does assume the king is smarter than most of his subjects, of course (usually the case with modern absolute monarchies. Yes, even Saudi Arabia the royals are actually the progressive ones. Tells you a lot about Saudi Arabia in general, really).

Even very smart people are not immune to stupidity, extremism, myopia and a myriad of cognitive biases. By spreading the load of governance over a multitude of bodies, democracy has at least a chance to introduce corrective measures before any real damage is done; any single autocratic leader (no matter how smart) is one bad advisor away from inflicting disaster.

But yeah. Do tell us more about how Europe's past experiences with autocracy (Little things like the 30 Year's War, WW1, WW2, a multitude of succession wars all over the continent in the wake of the roman empire's collapse) are not in any way relevant to this new, better Monarchy you're advocating for. The only successful monarchies in the west right now are the ones in which the Monarch's subjects agree to do as the Monarch asks, as long as the Monarch never asks for anything.

[karajorma]

At the start yes, nobody cared. That's why you need the long campaign to make things change. You need to convince people to start caring. Which is exactly what was done, by the end they pretty much did care. It's a long and laborious process, but this is the only way to bring about a change on this scale.

And how is that different to the issue of refugees? Which at the moment is in the "No one cares or are actively hostile" phase.

If you're going to make the argument that this sort of change is long and laborious, I'm going to agree with you. It does take a long time to argue the people on the wrong side of history into seeing sense. When these movements start, the majority of people are generally against them. It does take a long time to convince people not to be anti-gay marriage, or anti-black equality, or anti-women's suffrage. It does take time for attitudes to change and for the majority to move to actually realising that the earlier views the majority held were bigoted and wrong.

But if the government realise that those views are bigoted and wrong, are you seriously going to argue that they should sit on their hands until they do have a majority and do nothing while allowing people to be victimised, abused or even killed? Your original argument was that the government should do that. That since if you attempt to bring in black rights, some people might get lynched by the uncontrollable mob. So therefore, instead of trying to actually carry out the rule of law, they should just do nothing and let the blacks have no rights for now.

Well I'm going to disagree with that. I might not like the majority of European politicians but I'll stand up and applaud those who had the courage to take an unpopular stance simply because it was the morally right thing to do. And although quite a lot of people argue that they should be doing more (myself included), I'll applaud them for doing more than people like yourself are saying they should have done. I'll applaud them for not taking the far-right view of simply saying "Let's close the borders and send them all back where they came from."

One should note that opinion on this issue changed very quickly since it was first brought up, gay marriage went from "no legislation, nobody ever thought of it" to "abomination!" to "basic human right" over the course of less than 20 years, IIRC

And on what basis do you believe that this won't be the case with the refugees?

[Col.Hornet]

Speaking of sinkin and destroying things.

Turks have just shot down Russian Su-24 bomber over Syrian-Turkish border.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-border-with-syria

Pilots ejected but one of them is probably dead, captured by "moderate rebels" as they are called in some places.

<Warning. graphic content!!!>
https://www.facebook.com/aljazeerachannel/videos/vb.160729029892/10153905139699893/?type=2&theater

BTW. Anybody here knows Arabic? It would like to understand what are these guys talking. Except the standard "snackbar" they yell every time something blows up or gets shot.

[Dragon]

Well, so now we know who is next after Ukraine...

"Russia will reclaim her Russian Sevastopol,
And Crimea will be Russian once again,
We’ll retake the Bosporus, our Constantinople,
And the sacred city of Jerusalem."

This is from a ridiculously nationalist Russian song (for the record, "Kulikovo Pole" by Bichewskaya), but seeing as Putin already managed the first half, the Turks should really think twice before pissing him off and shooting his planes down. At the very least, the last verse suggest we'll see the end of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in a fashion...

The two posts above demand a longer response than this quip and as such, I have no time to respond to them now (check the HLP calendar at the bottom of the homepage for a clue as to why ). I'll try to get back to it when I have more time.