Ok
But I can see where Hazir is coming from, and so do others, so I don't think you should judge him either. From my middle-aged white male perspective I would argue that there are racial connotations to the term 'immigrant', whereas there are non with 'expat' - at least that's what the society around me has constructed. If you disagree or can't see that then don't judge others who think otherwise.
I don't think there are racial connotations with the word immigrant. I think some people are racist against immigrants, but those same people are also racist against people born and bred in this country if they're of a certain ethnicity etc - those people are just plain racists and it has little to do with immigration or the language around it.
The words themselves have no such connotations, if you bury yourself in reading racist literature like the Mail or Express then sure it may rub off on you - but I wouldn't think you'd do that Gogo.
PS in my household I used to be an expat and my wife is an immigrant. I don't hold any truck with people using the word immigrant with racial tones - and they'll get even shorter shrift from my wife!
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You are right. I don't read those news outlets. I don't read any, to be honest.
But as you say, those words -can- have connotations if society around you has been conditioned that way, and I believe ours has. Not to extremes of white supremism, but definitely a move to term those coming in as immigrant and those going out as expats. Its not just simply about the dictionary definition of a word. It's more complex than that; therefore Hazir attributing the term expat to racism is something is more nuanced.
As I said at the start of the conversation, in and out are opposites, they're not meant to be the same word.
The alternative to expat is not immigrant, it is emigrant.
I think the reason the word emigrant isn't used much is that those who leave and cut their ties stop being spoken about. Emigrants simply cease to be part of the conversation, while immigrants and expats both are part of it.
Using the word immigrant in place of expat is like using up in place of down, or left in place of right.
I see you have trouble with the mere concept of migration. Emigrants and immigrants are not different people. Intentions also don't come into it, migration does.
Gogo, if you say 'migrant' has racial connotations but 'expat' does not, you actually underline the reality of the term 'expat' being racist. Not as overtly as to use 'you people', but are we really going to believe that 'our sort of people' is not from the same tin of biscuits?
Congratulations America
I see you have trouble with reading.
A person can be an immigrant and an emigrant simultaneously, of course they can, but they are only one from the perspective of one country.
If someone arrives in country A from country B permanently, then they are an immigrant to A and and emigrant from B.
And intentions does come into it. Immigration and emigration are permanent, being an expat is temporary.
I can't say I've given it much thought. I don't know. You might well be right.
Ah, so the vote for Brexit was about an excess of expats.
Congratulations America
The EC opposes accession of the UK to the Lugano Convention. That should make the British legal system a lot less appealing to businesses in the EU.
Congratulations America
The vote for Brexit had nothing to do with expats.
The immigration numbers in this country are always quoted as net migration: If we had more expats then net migration would be down, not up. So a shortage of expats and emigrants relative to immigrants certainly could have been a factor, not an excess of them.
This one's for Tim
Twitter Link
Hehehehehehe
Sure, it can happen to anyone, but you'd think an editor would catch it, and that it wouldn't stay up on both the site and on Twitter.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This one's for Tim
Twitter Link
Hehehehehehe
Sure, it can happen to anyone, but you'd think an editor would catch it, and that it wouldn't stay up on both the site and on Twitter.
It would almost be like someone thinking that adding 50% to a number is the same as taking 50% away from a number. Nobody could ever do that Aimless, could they?
Seems like the EP will vote for ratification today. At first I didn't quite get why the hurry. But in Welt today it was suggested that ratification made a package of sanctions available that could be put in use easier than the present options the Commission uses. Tariffs and quota in retaliation for the messing around with the IP are talked about.
Congratulations America
Interesting to see the sclerotic and slow Europe catch up with us. This was ratified four months ago already here, but I suppose this is a "hurry" by EU standards.
Meanwhile post-Brexit trade talks are not about Europe but the rest of the world. A new trade deal with Australia looks like it will be ready by June, accession talks with the CPTPP are ongoing.
You think the childish name calling is going to get you anything? The delay in ratification was intentional. As the actual ratification will perfectly fit our purposes. The rationale for it at this point in time is that ratification gives us a wider range of sanctions to choose from to punish your misbehaviour than the present set which is kind of cumbersome. And that while your abilities to retaliate at the same time will be reduced.
Congratulations America
LOL the only one obsessing over whether the EU had or had not ratified the deal was you. The rest of us moved on four months ago.
If you want to act however you want so be it and we will do the same.
You must be a joy to do business with. Not bothering about whether or not your opposite party should make you a real easy target.
That wasn't an ad hominem, it was pointing out how idiotic your argument is.
Congratulations America
Would you enjoy doing business with a man who has such a strange relationship with truth and responsibility, an incorrigible bullshitter without integrity whose word isn't worth anything? I dunno man. Sounds like more trouble than it's worth.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
A fair description of the EU, which is why multiple vaccine companies from Valneva to Novavax and others, having seen the way the bullshitters in charge dealt with AZN, have decided that they don't want to make sales to the EU and will do so with reliable partners like the UK, India, USA and others.
You realize that AZ has downgraded its deliveries multiple times while somehow fulfilling 100% for Britain? That's a bit of a problem right there.
Oh well, others like BioNTech have managed to exceed expectations at the same time so there's that. Coupled with your BlowJob who does not give a flying fuck about peasants, have fun.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Nah that's a lie spread by bullshitters trying to hide the fact they cocked up the procurement and others have done better. The UK's deliveries have been downgraded multiple times too.
The prime difference is we ordered much more and much earlier, so when our orders were downgraded people here reacted like grown ups rather than Eric Cartman throwing a temper tantrum because he can't have an iPad.
As for having fun, not yet, ridiculously we're still under partial lockdown which deserves criticism but that's coming to an end in a few weeks - too late but better late than never. Deaths have already been eliminated by having a well organised, well managed and properly funded vaccine program so that's something.
Think the coming year will give us more info on what happened. As I said in the other thread, the UK can't really be faulted for choosing—and successfully implementing—vaccine nationalism, but it seems very clear that AZN knew—or should've known long ago—that it would not even come close to delivering on its contract with the EU, and that the company fell far short not only wrt deliveries (both under the contractual obligations of the main contract as well as the order form) but also wrt best reasonable efforts. Not worth debating the matter with illiterate dullards, but you can see the work done—and shared—by eg. Dave Keating, Jon Worth and a few others for more context. Anyway, the arbitration process has been activated, so that has to play out first.
Last edited by Aimless; 04-27-2021 at 09:44 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If you're treating "Comedy Dave" Keating as "work done" then I think I can see why you're being so deluded on this subject.
Though since you've lost the argument so comprehensively I know you won't engage anymore. I wouldn't either if I was you, it was embarrassing for you how humiliated you got last time so I know why you're keeping quiet now - and the facts are just not on your side anymore.
After your trying for so long with a straight face to defend Dave Keating and von der Leyen's blatant lies about how the EU had "caught up" because they'd done second doses . . . how is that looking now?*facepalm*
Not necessarily, but someone who believes he has a deal just because he signed the contract and - roughly - allows you to keep him to it, while you don't sign anything so can pretty much do whatever you bloody well like. Well, it doesn't sound all that bad. And of course if he starts acting up, you simply walk away from it all.
Congratulations America
It's just a hassle and a waste of time and energy. I mean, imagine having to deal with someone like that, even if you don't really need their services. Sure, you might have an advantage, but is it likely to be a productive relationship? I dunno. I just know I prefer good relationships, with competent people that I can trust—and count on—and I reckon most constructive entrepreneurs do as well. I guess it's possible people who deal in dodgier kinds of business—and esp. the kind of business where they can shift the costs of bullshit and incompetence to a third party—may have different preferencesbut, if we're talking about SMEs or business at the individual level rather than about multinational corporations or governments, I reckon reliability is extremely important in a partner—no matter how great your advantage may be.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In general I would agree. But if you know what you are dealing with and know there's no actual future then fleecing them for all the are worth isn't the worst thing.
Congratulations America
Your thoughts about "fleecing" show precisely why you are the bad faith partner and why we're quite right to ensure that we have full control to ensure that doesn't and can't happen.
Interesting that so far the trade balance has improved by billions per month, alongside reclaiming a billion pounds in net contributions per month. So far so good.
I get where you're coming from, but I reckon so long as resources such as time, energy, patience, money etc are finite, it will always be preferable to not deal with untrustworthy, unreliable and incompetent bullshitters (provided avoiding them is an option). Not talking about countries but about individualsthe opportunity cost alone is reason enough to avoid flaky entrepreneurs. Sure, in a situation where you stand to assume possession or control over their material assets, it might be worthwhile... but, in most cases, you'd just be nurturing a toxic relationship, typically resulting in your time being wasted and them going out of business due to sheer uselessness. Just sadness all 'round
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think Aimless has just discovered the reason behind Brexit.
Cut the ties, move away from the bullshitters. That's what we voted to do.
So despite months of Hazir acting like the European Parliament not voting yet mattered, the rubber stamp Parliament has finally ratified the four months ago implemented deal 660 votes to 5.
Next week the European Parliament debates whether to enter the year 2021 or not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
