Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If people vote for it, then while I can dispute its wisdom, I can't dispute the fact that it would be the will of the people
Prop 8 might have been the will of the people, but I think that it is a constitutional error that minority rights can be overrode by the will of the people. Prop 13 might have been the will of the people, but it was definitely a constitutional error to set it up so that taxes could be limited like that, and California has literally run out of money over that,
Also, the people who vote on these things aren't `the people' exactly; they're a subset of the people that tends towards older & better off, and this isn't exactly equitable.
-
Dearie me that's pretty shocking if true --- not exactly high quality is it?
(And really, he's relying on wikipedia? Look, there's eating your own dogfood, and there's drinking the kool-aid.)
-
According to Daring Fireball Anderson says:
I may be a blowhard, but I’m not a hypocrite. “Free” will be free. Ebooks free for first week, web book (Google Books) free for first month, abridged audiobook free to all hardcover purchasers and unabridged audiobook (the whole thing) free to everyone forever.
Which is still utopianism and so-on, but at least he's making a bit of an effort.
(Andersen's certainly not doing anything for the speech/beer distinction though.)
-
Mainly its about how and when compromise is achieved. While consensus democracy (CD) and representative democracy (RD) are both able to accommodate compromise, CD seeks it in the first instance, whereas RD seeks it as a last resort.
Um, I might be wrong, but aren't you confusing the way you choose the decision making body & how the decision making body works?
(And I think the CD love in is misplaced. But.)
-
Maori and pacific island populations a mainstay of our rugby.
Because there's no way that's racist....
-
I don't believe that ethnicity mandates national or political adherence. If your hypothetical person was of Irish ethnicity, the fact that they didn't adhere to republicanism wouldn't change that.
No no no no, because in some cases they would be British (because who's more British than a serviceman?) but in others they'd be Irish, because they'd be from the Irish Isle, right?
So you can have different ethnicities depending. (See Hobsbawm.)
-
If someone is ethnically Uyghur, but nationally Chinese, doesn’t classifying Han people as Chinese deny the use of the term ‘Chinese’ to people with full Chinese citizenship? If you think that “Uyghurs would put Uyghur down, not Chinese (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity” is the answer to the concern I assert you should have (to be consistent) with Chinese Uyghurs, then why isn’t “Māori would put Māori down, not New Zealand (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity” the answer to your concern in relation to New Zealand(er)?
Am becks-style, if anyone gets that joke, and I shall now proceed to be Wolfsonian.
Because Uyghurs that identify as Uyghur are expressing a certain wish not to be Chinese, whereas Maori who identify as Maori are in no way expressing a wish not to be New Zealanders.
Seriously, this is a clear confusion of the concept of nationality and ethnicity (resulting from European nationalism etc etc) and the a refusal of the fact that two sets can have the same name and cover very much the same people but be defined entirely differently. And, to be honest, anybody who asserts that ethnicity is an entirely internal property is somewhat out of date. (Ethnicity of an Northern Irish Catholic who served in HM forces?)
-
Also ethnicity as depending on circumstance, which isn't exactly a radical idea.
-
By using Chinese as synonymous with Han, wouldn't we be denying the use of the term 'Chinese' to Uyghurs and others with full citizenship? Pretty dodgy.
It is possible to be non-Han ethnically Chinese (see Singapore etc). Which also points out the flaw in your argument --- Uyghurs would put Uyghur down, not Chinese (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity. Hong Kong folks didn't change what they should put down on in 1999.
-
Well, no, a clear majority are nationalities that are also ethnicities. (Thank Mazzini et al for that one.)
Being Chinese is an ethnicity and a nationality (or possibly two if you ask the ROC), but you could be ethnically Chinese without having Chinese nationality.
I really don't see the problem with Australian as an ethnicity outside Australia; the problem with `New Zealander' is that denying the use of the term `New Zealander' to people in New Zealand with full citizenship is pretty dodgy.