why single it out? even the countries that use (mostly) latin alphabet don't necessary have the same name in english - Poland is Polska, Lithuania is Lietuva, Estonia is Eesti, Finland is Suomi, etc. And latinizations/romanizations are often wildly inaccurate - Ukraine is actually Ukraina, Russia is actually Rossia, and the english pronunciations are completely wrong. Japan is Nihon. etc etc.
>Republic of Ireland for Ireland
there are two irelands, fyi
>Türkiye
no one can type that u on a keyboard without googling and copypasting it. you might as well insist on using hieroglyphs for CJK things
>Republic of Ireland refers to the soccer team and nothing else, FYI.
'The Republic of Ireland' is the official descriptive term for the country named 'Ireland' in English, per the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. I have certainly heard 'Republic of Ireland' used in Ireland, or just 'the Republic', but almost always in cases where the descriptive distinction is important. I'd agree that outside of those cases, using 'Republic of Ireland' by default can be a problem.
>Because the country of Czechia has asked the English-speaking world to refer to it that way.
Unlike the political complexities around 'Republic of Ireland', 'The Czech Republic' actually is the official long name of the country in English, with 'Czechia' the official short name; the country's government promotes 'Czechia', but I don't think there is a suggestion that 'Czech Republic' is no longer acceptable. I have also never actually heard anyone in the country refer to it as Czechia in English.
> The Republic of Ireland' is the official descriptive term for the country named 'Ireland' in English, per the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.
The context is important. The Act revoked dominion status and role of the British Crown in the Irish executive branch, thus making Ireland a republic, and so deserving of a new description (the previous having been the Irish Free State).
Czechia is the only way I've heard the country referred to (in the news as it rarely comes up in person).
Accusations of colonialism are preposterous. Every language has its own names for other countries and cities. These range from adaptations to the phonetic patterns of the language (pl: Warszawa -> de: Warschau; fr: Paris -> nl: Parijs) or completely different (pl: Polska -> hu: Lengyelország; cy: Cymru -> en: Wales).
No, you're completely wrong. We - as an international society - generally accept the name that countries would like to be called, even in our own languages.
In English, we say:
Sri Lanka, not Ceylon,
Burkina Faso, not the Republic of Upper Volta,
Botswana, not the Bechuanaland Protectorate,
Bangladesh, not East Pakistan,
The Netherlands, not Holland,
Thailamd, not Siam,
Etc
Colonialism perfectly sums up the arrogant attitude that you can decide for them what another country will be called.
So Americans/Irish/English/Scots/Welsh/Australians are all being "colonialist" when they refer to Wien as 'Vienna', Čechy as 'Bohemia', Abertawe as 'Swansea' and La Manche as 'The English Channel'?
Sadly, this kind of illogical and undiscerning paranoia has invaded school curricula and universities as an overreaction to imperialism. It's part of the "hermeneutic of suspicion"; behind everything lurks an insidious evil intent, whether it is self-serving power and a will to dominate others, racism, colonialism, misogyny, or whatever. Those things exist, absolutely, but minds steeped in the hermeneutic of suspicion have one track minds. They read this threat into nearly everything.
Curiously, they don't seem to notice it in the workings of the very hermeneutic itself.
According to your logic, the Germans should harangue the Azerbaijanis till they change "Almaniya" (the word for Germany in their language, which probably derives from the French "Allemagne") to "Deutschland".
The Finns call Germany "Saksa", those Finno-imperialists!
Exactly. And in the case of "Niemcy" above (which ultimately comes from the proto-Slavic "*němьcь", meaning "mute"), it would be ridiculous to claim that Poles have some kind of colonial relationship with the Germans. If anything, the reverse has been true in history: it was the Germans who engaged in colonial politics toward Poland, including the enactment of cultural policies that were designed to ethnically cleanse and germanize the country.
Yes, Germany could request that all of the above rename Germany in their respective languages and at least the EU nations would.
This has already happened quite recently as the Netherlands requested that countries moved to translations of Netherlands when referring to their country (as opposed to Holland and translations thereof) and all the EU nations did. This was in 2019.
So if Germany so desired, they could make those requests and they would be honoured. In a few decades, the old names would be as antiquated as Rhodesia, Burma, or Zaire are now.
We don't give a damn. But the bureau of tourism does, that's how all the 'Holland' nonsense got started because they though 'the Netherlands' is too hard for the tourists. Ironically, 'Holland' only refers to a small fraction of 'The Netherlands'.
Do you mean it's not popular or people don't use the name?
If the former, you're wrong: soccer is the most played sport in Ireland.
If the latter, you're wrong: football is Gaelic football almost universally outside Dublin and soccer is soccer. In Dublin, it's 50/50 depending on area, but no-one will blink if you say soccer.
when half of us say dumb shit, they're a fringe minority. when fifteen of you say dumb shit, you're all like that.
1. identify (or invent) a universally disliked or ridiculed group, no matter how few they are. 2. invent a link between them and your actual target. 3. knowingly blow them way out of proportion. 4. run an occasional two minutes hate to remind the target audience of their existence (which they can't do on their own, since there's like fifteen of them).
baby, you've got yourself a psyop going. you don't even need any elaborate false flag ops - just use the media you already control :^)
And an extraordinarily cheap psyop at that. If all it costs is 1) a rambling web page full of word vomit, and 2) an actor playing an enraged talking head for a 3 minute segment on cable TV about the word vomit webpage...you've got an almost infinitely scalable propaganda scheme. Pump it up, and you've confused everyone's sense-making right up until collective effort is made to filter the well poisoning. At which point it's easy to identify and suppress competent opposition.
Fifth generation warfare is so staggeringly cheap next to previous generations, it can be fought indefinitely. It requires literally every person, in every country, everywhere on Earth, to be constantly vigilant, wary of everything they read and hear and see. Maybe that forces us to collectively sharpen our mental knives over time. Who knows.
Some measures like that still sort of work. Try loading a scanned picture of a dollar bill into Photoshop. Try printing it on a color printer. Try printing anything on a coor printer without the yellow tracking pixels.
A lock needs not be infinitely strong to be useful, it just needs to take more resources to crack it than the locked thing is worth.
bro, how much did your electricity cost go up because of millions of people playing games on their 500w+ gpus? by a billion of people watching youtube? by hundreds of millions of women and children scrolling instagram and tiktok 8 hours a day?
the deciding metric here is how old are they when they start wanting children. naturally, that factor is ignored, because it's politically incorrect to discuss it for a number of reasons.
a woman in her thirties has very slim chances to find a partner because men in their thirties have unlimited access to an unlimited number of women in their twenties. it's a harsh truth, but burying one's head in the sand doesn't really help.
yes, there certain discrepancies between what men and women consider desirable in a partner, but we aren't really allowed to discuss this on the internet without certain folx coming out of the woods to claim that 2+2=5.
still, your claim does not invalidate my point, does it?
no, no, my point was neither of those things. my point was that "women past a certain age have slim chances of finding a man who would be willing to have children with them," and I don't think it's a particularly outrageous or controversial statement.
Then perhaps we have a real disagreement. I think for the vast majority of women over 30 there is a ready supply of men who would be willing to have children with them - just not men that those women would condescend to have children with.
I don't know where is that you live that men are so desperate and eager to commit to low-value women, but in the world I live in, men in their thirties are unmarried and/or childless by choice.
Cultures differ wildly across the world. Where I live, the median age for a male to get married is 37, and the median age for women is 33 or so, so I would suggest that you not be so dogmatic (as an aside, US people seem to marry absurdly early for my tastes).
> a woman in her thirties has very slim chances to find a partner because men in their thirties have unlimited access to an unlimited number of women in their twenties.
This is utter nonsense. I met my now wife at 31, and can assure you that I had little to no interest in 20 somethings at that point (having made those mistakes in the past).
Clearly you live in a very different world from me, or you're just trolling (more likely given the green account name).
Japan gets singled out all the time (the WEF types really want it to be more vibrant for some reason, so every other day, there's an article about how "Japan will not survive" without open borders), but its TFR is like 10% below most Western countries.
SK though... yeah, something is uniquely broken there.
why single it out? even the countries that use (mostly) latin alphabet don't necessary have the same name in english - Poland is Polska, Lithuania is Lietuva, Estonia is Eesti, Finland is Suomi, etc. And latinizations/romanizations are often wildly inaccurate - Ukraine is actually Ukraina, Russia is actually Rossia, and the english pronunciations are completely wrong. Japan is Nihon. etc etc.
>Republic of Ireland for Ireland
there are two irelands, fyi
>Türkiye
no one can type that u on a keyboard without googling and copypasting it. you might as well insist on using hieroglyphs for CJK things