Jump to content

SoulMonster

Members
  • Content count

    15,714
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

SoulMonster last won the day on April 4

SoulMonster had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,165 Excellent

About SoulMonster

  • Rank
    FRONTMAN

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Fields

  • Sex
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,677 profile views
  1. No, I am not supporting Fernando's endevors.
  2. I wasn't saying everybody who is opposed to the idea of more than two genders would have been opposed to homosexuality in the 80s. I said that it is largely the same demographic of men who oppose both (allowing for people like you, who simply think they are mentally ill, to not feel victimized….well, at least that was the idea ).
  3. We have uncountable breakfast cereals to choose from (we even have different types of sugar to put on our 14 brands of oatmeal!), we have to navigate between dozens of airliners wherever we want to fly anywhere, we have 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from...yet the concept of more than two genders is the final straw. That is just too much. We can't have that. We have to rebel against the idea. We have to have talking heads on Fox News rage against it. We have to act all upset in social media. We have to taunt and ridicule those who dare to self-identify as something besides "man" or "woman". For some reason it is felt as some threat to manliness (because almost only men get wound up over this issue, women seems to have no problems with it). To appropriate their less-than-elegant terminology, the idea that there isn't just two genders "triggers" these "sensitive snowflakes" to no end. I don't get it. What's it to me? I do see parallels, though, between how a certain demographic of men reacted with hostility and ridicule to the gay movement in the 80s and to how, largely, the same demographic today react similarly to the concept of fluidity of gender. I suppose they both threaten a traditional idea of what it means to be a man. (And to some extent, the #metoo movement did the same, or at least threatened a traditional idea of what acceptable behavior of men could be).
  4. British Politics

    On that tardy topic: One of our most popular authors (Erlend Loe) just released his new novel about a group of people who travel to Africa to bum the "big five" Apparently it is about environmentalism.
  5. British Politics

    Exactly! I am sure there is a positive correlation between being against the EU and zoofili!
  6. British Politics

    Uhm, I actually confirmed the map displays voting results per counties But if we would have divvied up by "kommuner" instead (which is a smaller administrative unit below counties), you would have seen the green color more scattered across the country because, as I said, pro-EU sentiment was mostly found in urban centers whereas anti-EU sentiment was mostly find in rural areas.
  7. British Politics

    Are you thinking that people in the green counties all voted 'yes' and people in the red counties all voted 'no'? So, largely speaking, people in cities would tend to be less opposed to the EU - because, well, they are not ignorant hicks who are afraid of everything foreign - resulting in counties with highest population densities to be slightly more in favor. Oslo is, as you might know, our largest city and not far from the middle of the green area on the map. If the map was more finely divvied up, you would have seen green areas popping up around our other clusters of population, too, like around Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger and Tromsø.
  8. British Politics

    It might be superfluous considering the existence of NATO, but that doesn't mean EU also doesn't help keep the peace. Besides, my post was about trade and multinational agreements in general.
  9. British Politics

    You don't agree that the EU is a pacifying force in Europe, or that trade agreements in general are? And of course military alliances secure peace
  10. British Politics

    I think the EU, or any trade agreements that benefit both parties, have a huge pacifying effect. It is a tangible, fiscal reason to not go to war. And then trade means that people collaborate across borders. And people who collaborate know each other. And when people know each other they are less likely to want to fight each other over misunderstandings and xenophobia, at least. So yeah, EU, and its predecessors, does help to avoid wars.
  11. British Politics

    The irony is that though our agreements with the EU, we are sort of a pseudo-member anyway :D. We don't really get to have a vote in what happens, but we still have to adjust to EU policies to a large extent. So critics even on the no side of the argument, is saying we would have been better off being part of the EU than we ended up with. We really drew the short (or long?) straw. So they want us to terminate the deals we have with the EU, while the pro contingent wants us to build on the framework of agreement we have to make us more into a proper member. In fact I think I remember that Norway and our deal with the EU was used to scare people in the UK as an example of how bad the outcome of Brexit could be. It was like, "We need deals with the EU post-Brexit, but it is not going to be like what Norway got! We will be getting something better, surely" :D.
  12. Your view, right now

    @janrichmondYou will have to wait a bit.
  13. British Politics

    Can't really remember what sort of criticism they got back in 1994 when the last referendum was held. Racism, sure, but more in the vein of being isolationists, nationalists, navel-gazing simpletons and confused and fearful of the world outside our borders. You have to keep in mind that whereas England has been deeply embedded in European culture and society (for lack of a better word), we Norwegians have always been on the outskirts. We haven't travelled that much to the continent. We haven't had as many dealings with Europe. We haven't been to that extent emerged in Europe. So for us it wasn't as much cutting ties and leaving something as it was not opening the door towards something. The idea was that we hade done well so far (oil!) and thus we could survive not taking part in something bigger where we would likely have to give up stuff (fish quotas being one of them). But most who votes no were simply afraid that we would be giving up our sovereignity, that we would be selling Norway to foreigners. It was a highly nationalistic referendum.
  14. British Politics

    We did vote no. A very selfish and short-sighted decision. I voted yes, of course.
×