> Young people are still building their lives, trying to establish their career. They're likely going to be denied the opportunity to live and work in 27 countries.
Why? Do you think only EU citizens are allowed to live and work in the EU? Do you think British people are now banned from entry into the EU?
Most people - young or old - do not even want to live and work in another European country.
> I think it's pretty disgraceful that they've torpedoed our future based on their hazy rose-coloured memories of some supposedly-better past.
I think it's pretty disgraceful that people like you demonstrate such incredible arrogance that your minority opinion is somehow innately superior; constructing ridiculous fantasies of why people voted to leave, based on absurd generalisations and a childish, rose-tinted view of the EU.
There's nothing to stop you living in an EU country, if you think by virtue of those two letters it's such a utopia compared to the UK or any other non-EU country (aka almost every country on the planet).
We've banned this account because you've repeatedly violated the HN guidelines both in this thread and elsewhere on the site. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise to follow the rules in the future.
> Of small comfort then, is the fact that the English have abolished slavery in 1833.
I imagine it was a major comfort to slaves at that time. But you probably know better.
> And "the commonwealth", oh my!
Oh my, indeed. Perhaps you can name another country, perhaps your own undoubtedly spotless nation, that has over 50 former colonies, comprising two billion people across six continents, happily and willingly belonging to such a commonwealth.
Pretty strange thing for them to do, considering all the evil the British Empire committed non-stop, 24/7.
> we didn't even touch the mess that the English caused in India
The mess of leaving it as the world's largest democracy? (By population, that is. By size it just so happens to be another former colony of the British monsters.)
In fact if we make a short list of the most advanced/stable/richest/democratic former colonies in the world, we'll probably find it does not include the likes of Vietnam, Algeria, Congo, Mexico or the Philippines, but does include the likes of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, India.
Funny that.
> you think that you are special, well good riddance, and stay out of EU
How is it special to be outside of the EU? Most countries in the world are.
Well that's the jolly old clinch, isn't it? Every imperialist was violent, and the English are an empire, and as I am both want and compelled to agree with your so astutely observed argument, I'm afraid I have no recourse but to concur with you that the English are violent. Yes, yes, very well put, old chap, I say!
> Perhaps you can name another country, perhaps your own
> undoubtedly spotless nation,
My nation was never an empire, and it protected Europe for hundreds of years from marauders, rapists, murderers and especially from religious fanatics, and amazingly enough continues to do so even today. Not only that, but my nation paid the price of Europe not writing in or speaking Arabic or Turkish for that matter, and with a sizeable portion of her own territory, visible in the country's unique border, unlike any in Europe today. Not even the mighty British empire can claim such a feat. Oh, and while we were bleeding our hearts and bodies out for Europe, the English were sitting on their island, but they didn't come to help until 1914, and then they only came because they saw their own interest in it, and then they made a mess of things... everything that we had fought so hard to preserve across almost six centuries, they have destroyed on the altair of their own short-term interest in the span of a few decades. In one fell swoop, it was the British who decided to sell us into slavery as thanks for protecting Europe. In most recent history, while we were being brutally raped and slaughtered, tortured by being beaten with iron bars, or electrodes and high current put through the testicles of our people, while we cried for help, it was the British who had sided with those who did this to us, while they were doing it, and purposely delayed any action of the European Union while this was taking place. Jolly good, that!
And yet, even though we dislike them, and we do not trust them, we bear the English no ill will and will continue to protect Europe as we have always done. That is the ethical and moral high ground which not even the mighty British empire can claim. To subjugate, to murder, to plunder, yes, but not to protect as we will continue to do, even those who have done us wrong. And while my nation isn't spotless, it feels pretty good to be the protector rather than all these other things that the English have wrought upon the world. Yep, life is great.
> that has over 50 former colonies,
The Sun never sets on the British empire, isn't that how the saying goes?
It is not a point to be argued in favor of one's honor, but of one's eternal shame at subjugating, murdering and stealing from others over the span of several centuries.
> The mess of leaving it as the world's largest democracy?
It's grossly impolite, to the point of not minding one's p's and q's, to imply that the English are somehow deserving for establishment of democracy in India, an honor that history has recorded as going to one Mahatma Gandhi. It would be awful, just horrid, don't you agree, to claim someone else's accomplishment as one's own, wouldn't it? I mean that would strike at the core of the good old proper British values, almost bordering on the waffling, wouldn't it now?
The truth is always uncivil; and as for unsubstantive, what I wrote can be easily corroborated by any history book.
The English left the EU, and they caused a mess, as usual. They believe that they are special, that EU norms, standards and regulations and laws do not apply or should not apply to them, and you have the nerve to label me uncivil for pointing out that they did this en masse before in history? By the by, the parent topic is "UK votes to leave EU" and wouldn't you know it, that is a purely political subject.
This is an example of how your posts are uncivil. It's not a factual observation, but a passive-aggressive potshot at an entire population. So is "They believe that they are special".
HN is not a place for heated, partisan political arguments. Not now, not ever, no matter the topic.
True, this is a political topic. As such it would normally be killed, but occasionally exceptions are made in cases like this where an event is of unusual historical or cultural significance.
But commenters aren't suddenly given license to engage in boorish behaviour just because a political topic is given a rare green light.
Indeed the reverse should be the case; extra effort should be made to contribute respectfully and substantively in discussions over topics like this. Lest the mods deem that this community is incapable of discussing any political topic with intelligence, and that all political topics should be banned in future, no matter how significant.
Plenty of other places on the internet welcome heated, partisan political arguing. There's no need to do it here.
Let's not make nonsensical statements like US independence was completely inspired by the Lumières then.
Most notably, US independence was also inspired by the Glorious Revolution in England (the American Bill of Rights is even based on the English Bill of Rights), about a century earlier.
"The Lumières (literally in English: Enlighteners) was a cultural, philosophical, literary and intellectual movement of the second half of the 18th century"
Hopefully the parent of your post was joking - the site he linked to is a "joke" site - but either way, it's misleading and unhelpful (particularly to non-English speakers) to pretend that "begs the question" was used incorrectly there by tehabe. It wasn't.
I understand that language is dynamic, and colloquial misuse turns into accepted use, and so nonplussed means unimpressed and disinterested means uninterested, but with this expression I will stand with the pedants and the original meaning.
Prepare for a long, frustrating stand. Professional writers and journalists misuse it 100% of the times I have seen it used. I have seen a single person in my entire life use it correctly, and it was a random forum post about something stupid like a video game.
Also, you can add "droll" to the long list of misused words.
I think the same way about droll as I do begs the question.[1]
I don't see the point of insisting the original/archaic meaning of a word is 'correct' if, in the English-speaking world we live in today, essentially nobody uses it or understands it in that sense.
[1] I certainly do not think the same about nonplussed, however. I've never heard that word being used for unimpressed before, but it appears to be simply an Americanism; one I hope never catches on elsewhere.
Of professional writers, I find that droll is used correctly maybe half the time. Which is frustrating, because either definition is a polar opposite and has a pretty profound effect on a scene. It's only from context several sentences later do you figure out which definition they meant.
> An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains.
So they dump all their crap, no resale value names that don't bring in more than $100 per year, as opposed to ones that don't make more than $10 per year.
As for non-"domain squatters", it seems like a great way to fuck with someone; just claim you want their domain and force them to cough up $100 or lose it.
This idea - which seems to be based on nothing more than bitterness that everyone in the world didn't sit back and wait for you to have first pick of names - is so transparently nonsensical that I find it hard to believe you are serious.
> Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken.
You should have bought them first then, shouldn't you.
> Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value.
Who are you to define value? Where people own 1000s of domains, they are always parked and bringing in money for the owner. Their profitability is the reason they are registered.
Who are you to decide that's not a valid way to make a living from domains? At least they're not spamming.
> I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other private company or any government extracted such an unfair price
I'm sure you would, because you imagine you'd be a winner in such a situation, unfairly appropriating someone else's property.
> free up so many more useful domains for use.
There are literally millions of possible domain names that are unregistered. If your first preference is taken, do what everyone else does without complaint and think of another name, or pick a different extension, of which there are hundreds now.
