Messages

Andail, no I'm not saying any of that. To be fair I'm ranting off topic about SJWs in general. The Trump thing has just brought it to the fore.

people shouldn't protest because... because you have friends that also are annoyed with how Disney appropriates Polynesian culture?

No, but people that swap from one cause to another when it comes up in the news are so tedious. I know people who certainly don't hate Trump because he is Trump, but because it's a new fun thing that they can sink their teeth into. The real people who should be legitimately worried are US citizens, who can and should mobilise to do something about his election if they want to. But I cannot ever see how attending a rally outside the embassy in London makes one iota of difference other than the personal satisfaction of feeling that you are meaningful. But you're not. The US isn't going to de-elect Trump because Greg from Milton Keynes isn't happy.

We shouldn't be upset because we have only seen his past and not his future? So you can never judge a man until... you've travelled to the future and back and also know what he will do?

The 'time travelling' thing overcomplicates the question with paradox. Yes, naturally you can't judge someone on their future acts until they've happened. Judgments on past behaviour are a separate thing not contingent on knowing what he will do. Now the difference is important here because Trump strikes me as a man full of bluster and big statements to win votes. Which is why I think it's wrong to necessarily extrapolate his past behaviour and statements into a dystopian future, WW3, homosexuality becoming illegal, whatever. People do do this. Things will be shitter for certain, but I just don't see any of that happening.

We can never criticise someone that others also criticise because then we're just jumping onto a band wagon?

We can never criticise someone if we also criticise something else because then we're probably just social justice warriors?

Again this pertains to the SJW thing. An SJW's criticism of [insert topic] is irrelevant because they parrot opinions on absolutely every topic that doesn't fit into their worldview, and they are deeply hypocritical. The criticism is ephemeral and not directed at the object but towards their own satisfaction. For some prime examples look up Kate Smurthwaite and Laurie Penny.

How dare you expect us to take it lying down.

I'm not I dislike Trump as much as the next person. But rather than flog a dead-horse I also wanted to say that I can't bear knee-jerk doom-mongering reactions to bad situations. A UK citizen protesting at the US embassy about that country's decision to elect someone is beyond futile. A little sense of perspective is needed. Like I say, even if he's a moron, just look at what actually happens before lamenting the approach of WW3 and pogroms.

How dare you say "oh, it's just the sjws scoring outrage points for kicks".

Yeah, for the vast majority of people in my circle it totally is. I see the same people protesting and whining on social media all the time about everything under the sun that they read a buzzfeed article on once. Last month it was Disney appropriating Polynesian culture, last week it was checking in at Standing Rock,  today (and for one day only) it is Trump, tomorrow they'll forget about Trump and start talking about the gender-wage gap again.

Trump may be an idiot, but I think the "WW3" doom-mongers that have appeared are worse.

It's so easy and fashionable to jump on the Trump-hate bandwagon. Social justice warriors have mobilised in force today. Someone I know is joining a demonstration outside the US embassy in London to protest against Trump being elected. Protesting a democratically elected leader in another country? I actually can't understand the stupidity of things like that. The only explanation has to be to gain personal sanctimony points.

The world still turns, and at this stage people should judge him on what he actually does and is politically able to do, rather than what he said to get votes. One thing is for certain though, the cold Russia-US relationship will thaw. Trump rightfully respects Putin.

[equally]

After thinking about it I admit I'm wrong in a political context, but if we begin looking at the EU through the prism of its legislative abilities, I am not so sure.

The bigger the political unit, the less influence each individual has, obviously. So does that mean the UK is undemocratic compared to local council elections?

I feel this is a false analogy for the EU: local councils set policy and bye-laws at a local level; national governments legislate at the national level; and the EU also legislates at a (supra) national level. For all intents and purposes, EU law is one and the same with national law in the sense that both are incorporated with at least equal status in a member state's legal system (and even then, EU law is always supreme in cases of conflict with national law).

So if we accept that laws have the potential to bind a nation even if 100% of the electorate elected MEPs who unanimously opposed it, then yes it is more undemocratic than a national parliament. In a national parliament, 100% of the electorate electing MPs who unanimously opposed a Bill would not result in a law being enacted in the country. Because national law and EU law have the same binding status, this is where the subtle distinction can be drawn between the two parliaments. In this sense, it is fair to talk about the nation as the natural political unit, because we are looking through the frame of national law.

I admit I'm not talking anywhere near practically, hence I only mentioned voting blocs and coalitions briefly. But on an academic and theoretical level I take objection to the idea that the European Parliament is equally democratic to a national parliament, when the former legislates at a level that is ostensibly national law, yet the decision is influenced by 27 other countries. The point being that in theory at least your view always has the potential to be in a minority in the European Parliament, but in the national parliament it is not capped at a statistical minority. Both systems have the same practical effect (legislation at a national level), so in theory the legislative function of the European Parliament is more undemocratic than a national parliament's.

Most democratic countries have multi-party systems where no one party tends to 50% of the vote. The elections determine the proportional representation of parties in parliament, and then they have to form coalitions to secure a majority. By your logic, that's not democratic, because the party you vote for will always be a minority.

Yes, even in proportional representation there is a subtle difference between national and EU parliaments. In national parliaments, the opposition is decided by your fellow countrymen, whereas the opposition in the EU parliament is always decided by others who may very well never have set foot in your country. So:

Nor does it make it more undemocratic if the people who are outvoting you happen to be from another country, as long as they are members of the political unit you're voting for. You and people who think like you might be outvoted on some UK law even though a majority support it in your neighborhood, simply because people in London or in Scotland disagree. Similarly, you might be outvoted on an EU law because people in Germany or France disagree. Why is one thing democratic and the other not?

There is a greater, palpable chance for each citizen in a national government to participate in the government in their country. It is even possible to stand for election yourself if you wanted to. And although values differ between Labour to Conservative most major parties will always be on the ballot box in each constituency, and all parties represent the bounds of feeling in the country. So although I may not agree on a particular issue I will not feel it "unfair" if say, the SNP successfully opposes a Bill. The SNP were elected in my country by fellow citizens.

This is different with the EU because as it is another tier of democracy, the opposition is necessarily elected by a different electorate with different choices on their ballot box, which you have no way to influence, and most of the time do not even know who forms the opposition.

Now obviously I know that this is part-and-parcel of how the EU works, it could not work any other way. But as an academic judgment you must concede that from the point of view of an individual member state, the European Parliament is inherently at least more undemocratic than a national parliament; and not equally democratic, as you say.

Regardless of what party you vote for, the majority of elected officials will be from some other party. Regardless of which district or province or city you're from, the majority of elected officials will be from somewhere else.

No, that's not true at all, at least not in a first-past-the-post system. You may vote for the Conservatives at a general election and the Conservative party may very well form a majority. The Conservatives will then legislate and vote on legislation as a majority. In fact, logically it is true to say that it is more than equally likely that an individual vote in a general election with two options is a vote for a majority government.

In the European Parliament, this scenario is always impossible, your vote will always represent a minority vote because the remaining seats are constituted of different choices.

And to call it undemocratic because other countries and their citizens also get a say is absurd.

But that's the point, of course the European Parliament is holistically democratic, but not from the point of view of an individual country. A country's MEPs will always be in a minority, even if they were unanimously elected, and perhaps even if they form voting blocs. The difference between EU and national elections is that everything on offer in a general election is within the context of that country's range of principles and philosophies. National governments are far more democratic than the European Parliament because every citizen (in theory of course) is able to engage in and influence discourse in their country. This is impossible to do in the other countries that send MEPs.

It is undemocratic that other countries and their citizens in principle alone get a say over the laws in the UK, because I am not a citizen of those other countries, and they are not citizens of the UK!

Most votes in the Parliament are consensual, but when they are not, the UK is usually the loser: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/uk-meps-lose-most-in-the-european-parliament/

The problem with this thinking is that it is simply my gut feeling [...]

The biggest problem modern western society has is this right there: people voting with their gut.
People relying on their gut. People apparently thinking with their gut.

I'm not trying to attack you, but your gut is by far the last thing you should listen to when it comes to informed decision-making.

People need to STOP listening to their guts, and the Trumps and Farages and ErdoÃ,,Ÿans will lose their power.

That's true, I do agree, but I didn't make my decision on polling day and certainly didn't get swept up in the populist Leave campaign. Ever since I learnt what the EU was I have always felt the same. Without sounding arrogant it is not through ignorance either, I've studied EU frameworks and EU law in detail. As a matter of principle I don't believe it is right that an unelected body has the power to legislate in a country at a supreme, binding level, even if such laws are 'good' law. Sure, we elect MEPs to Brussels, but (a) they do not have legislative initiative and (b) naturally the majority of the Parliament is made up of seats that you have no capacity to elect.

So, by 'gut feeling', I perhaps mean that I could see the merits of both sides, but basically on a matter of principle I voted to Leave.

... we can't even escape the country while it turns into Nazis Take Westminster. Brexit is a living hell

Do you really believe the ground will split and fire will spring forth when we leave the EU? That the EU is the only thing keeping us from the end-times? I think you are catastrophising Brexit just a tiny bit.

Nobody is going to starve because we leave the EU. In the short-term things will not be good, which would happen to any country that leaves. But it's pessimistic to believe that the UK cannot survive and shape its own future outside the EU, and slightly bizarre to believe we will suddenly descend into a fascist state.

I cannot imagine a way to implement a world government though...But if it is ever successfully done: It would be the pinacle of human achievement so far...

Ooo, I'm not too sure about that! The biggest human undertaking, perhaps, but complexity does not equal progress. We would need to know what it looks like before we call it an achievement.

Bit late to the party but I have a couple of things to say about Brexit. This post is a bit introspective, because I voted to leave and would do so again, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I can't pin down exactly why that is my decision. I voted with my gut. I'd appreciate if someone could begin some kind of dialectic on this, I'm not explicitly trying to defend myself.

Also well done to Wales who voted to leave but still want all the EU flood relief money they get!

The Wales vote still surprises me. In spite of the amount of EU funding the Valleys have received - entire town centres being transformed with EU money - and all of these areas voted to leave. I can only think it must be ignorance of where the money has come from.

I'm most worried for all the people I know who come from various countries in Europe and live in Britain. This referendum has been a giant "screw you!" to them.

Sadly this is very true. It's strange actually, I arrived in Luxembourg on the evening of the 23rd June, one major seat of the Union, and woke up to my Austrian girlfriend crying about the result on the morning of the 24th. It was a strange feeling.

People may call me selfish or stupid for voting to leave when I had something so personal at stake. I only told her how I voted a few days after the referendum. She lives in the UK with me and obviously we are not certain of her status once we eventually leave. But despite this, for some reason I still voted to leave. It was certainly not through lack of care, or a personal slight against Europeans. Although I completely understand how it seems like a personal attack, and for some leave voters it was, but it certainly wasn't for me.

Over the next few days in Luxembourg I went sightseeing to the ECJ, and went into an EU information centre to talk to the people there, which I will come back to.

The only way I can think of that this makes sense is if you think the EU is doomed anyway, and that it's better to get out now in a halfway orderly fashion than to be caught up in its collapse. Though if that comes true, it will be the very definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I feel that a 'preemptive' strike concerning the EU is at least in part behind my thinking. A long-term economic and monetary union is certainly possible; but I doubt an ever closer political union will ever be able to work in the long term. The problem with this thinking is that it is simply my gut feeling that it won't work, and that the end will be messy - the scale of the EU project has never been attempted before and so we have no yardstick of success or longevity for such a complex union. I could be completely wrong, but in the current state of affairs, I would be surprised if the EU lasts another 50 years, by which time I'll be 71.

As an aside, it has annoyed me that the elderly have been targeted for exercising their democratic rights and 'stealing' the future of the EU from the young voters. Young people tend to be stupid and naive. They don't know what they want and have not yet been disillusioned to how the world really works. Simply by virtue of time old people have more life experience and therefore can exercise greater foresight. Granted, a fair few are stuck-in-the muds!

But my granddad is over 80 and voted to remain with admirable caution for people's futures beyond his own life. I have heard first-hand people saying that old people should not be allowed to vote on such matters, and it upsets me that people would want to deny him his vote. Plainly it is the arrogance of youth.

I voted leave cos the EU made an irreversible decision in 2015 that negatively affected my business. It was a moment where I experienced a British law being surpassed by a European one, and it made me worse off. So fuck em. I consider most other reasons to be mainstream media influenced, borders, migration, gdp, and believe people should vote with respect to their actual lives and issues that personally affect them and "what the world wants" second.

I was always keeping remain in mind because as I say there are many strong reasons for it. But another turning point for me was an on the street interview with a woman giving her opinion on the EU. In the background was this homeless guy asking for change and of course londoners just strolling by ignoring. And it was that contrast between someone giving such a shit about the EU to a tv reporter and homeless people in the background not being given a shit about that made me realize we have so many of our own issues that need sorting first, whatever it takes.

I think these two things get to the heart of my views on the EU and Brexit. When I went to the EU information centre in Luxembourg, I had no idea of the strength of dedication and optimism towards the EU project on the mainland. I had a long conversation with the woman who worked there and she was genuinely sad about the result, she had been crying all morning. And I just couldn't picture myself ever getting emotional about the EU, or believing it was in any way an important feature of my life, in the sense that it was something tangible and visible to look up to as a unifying undertaking. It is a bold claim but I think it is fair to say, that even of the people who voted remain, in general they do not care half as much about the EU as the average Luxembourgian or Austrian. I'm certain that Brexit was always going to happen, because there is a fundamental ideological principle of togetherness that underpins the entire EU, which has not permeated the culture or psyche of the average UK citizen.

I am genuinely hopeful for a new chapter of my country outside of a union that I do not identify with. I think that a vote to leave by the 51.9% of people reveals a sense of optimism: the short term will definitely not be easy, it will be hard, but the optimism is for the future, and that is what we need right now.

It's been 5 days. Not much has changed, except that Mrs. Stupot seems to have started cracking down on my swearing

(The above makes it seem like I'm keeping some kind of marriage dev-log. I'm not, don't worry).

Haha! Congratulations Stupot!!

Sorry (not sorry?) for the necro, but I have an English question!


Is "preconditional" a valid derivative of "precondition"?

As in: "In the vast majority of cases, no bypassing exemption will apply, and an area of land will thus be subjected to a preconditional physico-legal test."


It is in none of the dictionaries I've consulted, but seems like it should be right and I want to use it over everything else!

Thanks selmiak and CaptainD. I found it!

Howard Goodall - Enchanted Voices: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLXAKL7oOvY&list=PLBQTL4iULmWU1ZnBEXtTiPeW69rdJ1Euz

Initially I thought Karl Jenkins was the composer. Well, I strongly recommend it to anybody who wants to listen!

I listened to an album a couple of years ago but can't remember its name or its composer.

It was choral music and each track was titled in Latin, translated to things like "Blessed are the poor" and "Strong are the holy". Things like that. I'm pretty sure there was also ones dedicated to the sick and the hungry.

Anybody have any idea what this could be? The composition itself is quite contemporary I think.

Thank you everybody. It truly means a lot

This morning I passed on MAGS Hostship to Stupot.

I have been very busy lately, and I am getting to the stage where I need to make some important decisions for my future - so it doesn't look like I'll any longer be able to give the competition (and entrants!) the attention it truly deserves.

Dualnames made me MAGS host when I was just 15, and a lot has changed over those 5 years (and 60 competitions). I don't intend to be sentimental, but in some ways I grew up through those confusing years with the competition always as part of my life. If I managed to help people enjoy themselves and flex their creative muscles, it has all been worth it

Finally, but what I wanted to say the most: best wishes to our new host, Stupot!

Guess he's just too busy... hopefully with positive stuff.

Yeah - I've just started my final year at uni and everything's very intense right now. There is also a Miss Atelier dividing my attention

I intend to make an announcement regarding my hostship very soon.

Thank you very much to Stupot for taking the initiative; and most importantly, I am truly sorry for letting all our entrants down these past two months - please know it does not mean I do not appreciate all your hard work and passion, as ever!

Spoiler

This statement will make my nose grow.

[close]

Fingers crossed we'll have a "Finish Your MAGS" theme before the end of the year.

The only way that will be guaranteed is by a Ponch win this year

[20th Sep]

Why is the voting not done on the MAGS-page?

It is - Mandle, the competition only closed last night, give me a chance Please do not post your votes in this thread or PM anybody.

Four entries this month!


For voting please visit the MAGS site or make your choice right here:

The Cold Hand Reef by WHAM
Linn the Protector and The Seven Daughters of Ran by Grok
Bitstream by Chicky
All Gone Soon 2 by vetrigoaddict

Please vote only once and be sure to have played all games before sending your voice!


Overview and download is available here. I'll close voting on 20th Sep. Good luck all!