Schools in Turkey teaches in geography classes that Turkey is a bridge between Asia and Europe. But this is also true for our social structure: We sometimes turn our face to europe, ass to asia and sometimes we turn our ass to europe and face to middle east. Our last 12 years was a sample for second statement.
(by the way, i'm sorry for my english skills)
> (by the way, i'm sorry for my english skills)
If you feel the need to append this statement, that's a good sign that you don't need to. Your English is fine (should be "schools teach", not "schools teaches", and I wouldn't have used "sample for" there, but who cares -- it's clear and unambiguous). It's the morons who don't care that end up being painful to read.
If you feel the need to append this statement, that's a good sign your comment will detract from the discussion.
I have noticed that people tend to jump on others language skills in an indirect attack on the person when its the idea they disagree with. For some it is easier to dismiss an idea they do not agree with by attacking the person than refuting the argument.
Working with many foreigners I have run into the apology style more than once, they have good standing and do not wish to be dismissed for merely bad language skills. I live here and my use of the language is atrocious.
It's more useful to invite constructive feedback than to apologize preemptively; that's what I'd recommend people do. Add onto this that, culturally, Americans tend to appreciate such invitations more than they appreciate apologies. (I can't speak to other cultures; I'm about 99% certain there are some major world-spanning ones where this is not true.)
The latter is usually needless, and can even imply that not knowing English well enough should be a source of shame, which is why it often draws calls saying not to apologize. It'd be like a 2m tall person apologizing for not being tall enough – you're already taller than most people, there's nothing to apologize for. ;)
Anyhow, can anyone recommend a book or some articles on how to improve writing skills, especially of technical nature ?
Also, I apologize profusely for some of our ridiculous grammatical rules. I'm a native speaker, so I don't think much of it, but I'm amazed at how poor some of the "rules" are.
 - http://englishtips.quora.com/
What could have happened to Athens in the last five years that I haven't been there that makes you say that? You mean in terms of freedom of speech? If so, I seriously doubt that.
For example this man in the video is the Minister of Transport, Maritime and Communication. He is the reponsible minister for internet in Turkey. Today some journalists asked him his opinions about Twitter ban and he responded "i will answer your question with another question. tell me what would you feel if someone opens a news twitter account with your wife's full name and shared photoshopped pics?".
Well, for your question: A lot of people saw that the ship is sinking and leaved it. The only people still supports erdogan are some business men who has some contracts with government, erdogan's inner circle and their base supporters who are mostly not well educated and don't have internet connection.
So, at least 40% of our country is against his censorship.
Why? Single EU countries have widespread censoring infrastructure in place and IP-based bans are common and normal. They are just not at stupid to ban hi-profile sites yet.
Please note the common pattern of the justifications: censorship starts often with "terrorism/children abuse/pornography", then covers "counterfeit goods/media", finally "libel/hate speech".
I don’t have a problem with any of these. I have even less a problem when every country on your list has had recent, vivid debate on extreme speeches, and tolerated everything that wasn’t clearly in categories that unambiguously deteriorate political discourse.
I understand that this might shock some Americans who don’t understand it, but the overwhelming majority of Europeans would not even hesitate a second to refuse US-like free speech were anything goes, and Koch brothers finance everything, from blatant hurtful lies, attacks on science and fuel race-hatred.
I fully expect that this comment, like every similar one on Hacker News I made prior, to be heavily down-voted by people who have no issue with the form of what I say (polite, argued and relevant) but disagree with my opinion. Doing so goes against the principles of this forum, and you should be ashamed to think about it.
Not really, see this example of "law stretching": http://boingboing.net/2011/10/05/italys-insane-internet-law-...
> This proposal, which the Italian Parliament is currently debating, provides, among other things, a requirement to all websites to publish, within 48 hours of the request and without any comment, a correction of any content that the applicant deems detrimental to his/her image.
> Unfortunately, the law does not require an evaluation of the claim by an impartial third judge - the opinion of the person allegedly injured is all that is required, in order to impose such correction to any website.
For a longer list of similar cases, have a look at https://opennet.net/research/regions/europe
> Conclusion: Today, Internet content in Europe is controlled by three groups of factors: region-wide organizations (the EU), individual countries, and companies (e.g., ISPs, search engines). While governments have been extremely active in promoting filtering technologies for child pornography and surveillance technologies for copyright infringement, they are increasingly finding that they can achieve their aims through indirect means. Rather than passing explicit regulations, governments have pressured companies to voluntarily self-regulate content, be it pornography, hate speech, or content that infringes upon copyrights. Such pressures show a creeping tendency toward the second- and third-generation controls found elsewhere.
I know a bunch of Ukraininans (ethnic and Ukrainian-speaking), and they are extremely opposed to being any part of the "Russian sphere". Those 80 years of subjugation are not easily forgotten.
Ukraine was at a once-in-a-hundred years decision point and it was very clear that staying away from Russia was not possible with him in power.
Just because you are democratically elected doesn't mean that you can single-handedly decide to do anything you want. Or do you think Yanukowich was elected on a "screw the EU we-ll go Russia"-ticket?
Erdogan is just a tinpot dictator of the Islamic variety, but he seems to be happy to keep in NATO a country that is absolutely critical for NATO operations in the Middle-East, so we keep pretending he's just a "conservative-minded" democratic leader. Unless Europe is happy to give Putin's supporters more ammunition for "double standard" arguments, it's time to call a spade a spade.
Nobody knew what exactly could/would trigger chaos in Turkey, but there are many candidates: The Kurdish question, the post-Kemalistic resurgence of Islam, the Alevites...
I sincerely hope that these expectations were to pessimistic. If Turkey could somehow "capture" all its societal tensions within the framework of a stable parlamentary system, we (both Turkey and the EU) could greatly benefit from Turkish accession.
If they aren't, many of their voters are, and the question of the demographic weight of Turkey is a real one, considering how awkward the political aspect of the EU already is. Not to mention that I can't imagine many politicians fighting to share a border with Syria at the moment.
But with the way they are acting, they are not really helping out much. All the scandals left and right, the Kurdish and still holding under military occupation half of an EU country ( Cyprus ) then that is not how a democratic country should rule.
It's a good example of how pluralism is a more important aspect of democracy than the actual voting. People like to complain about the US two-party system and condemn obvious one-party states, but the reality of a lot of recent or fragile democracies is that they are one-and-a-bit party states. There's an establishment and an opposition, and the opposition are allowed to exist but have a limited influence on actual control.
AFAIK, opposition parties (and political parties in general) haven't been included in any constitutions at all.
- Occupation of Cyprus (EU member state) populated mostly by Greeks (Greece is EU member as well) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus)
- Armenian Genocide of 1915. 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Turkish government, because of being Christians.
21 Countries and 43 U.S. states have recognized the Armenian Genocide. Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide.
They constantly suppress rights of Kurds.
Seriously, I agree that Turkey needs to do a lot to rise up to the European standards but I don't think it helps the conversation to bring these sensitive issues up every time you see the words EU and Turkey in the same sentence.
edit: Dear down-voters, I understand your sensitivity on the issue but please try to understand what I'm arguing against. I actually accept the Armenian Genocide, and support Kurdish rights, and the rights of any other minorities. What I'm arguing against is this continuous flame-war. See my other comments on those issues if you challenge my honesty. Thanks.
When Erdogan steps down, and hopefully a more civilized, non-military person takes over then nothing will change.
In the mean time, Kurds are still gonna suffer, Cyprus will still be divide in half, and everything else that they keep on doing.
Just to add another perspective to whom read yours comment:
-So called "Armenian Genocide" is not acclaimed by Turkey and the allegations imply the predecessor of Turkey, the Ottoman Empire.
Only then, even if you accept this as a genocide, you should at least consider removal of Germany as a member from EU.
Quote from the link you provided: "and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust"
Holocaust (which is definitely not just an allegation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
The issue itself is not only about the genocide / the crimes against humanity but also how the country handled it after.
In the case of Germany, since you brought it up, they fully recognise their deeds and don't try to deny it among other things.
This is of course only step one and Turkey hasn't event reached it.
If you deny Holocaust publicly in Germany you are in serious legal trouble - but in Turkey it is the opposite - you are in trouble when you publicly claim that a genocide on Turkey's terrain took place.
The Armenian Genocide was not part of the curriculum back then, but I wonder what would have happened...
The reason I'm referring it "so called" is because I'm an engineer who didn't read any material on the subject. I don't have enough knowledge to assume it's fact or not. And I don't think it's right to believe anything without reading varied sources.
And the denial should be taken as a political issue that is decided and said by government.
I pointed it, because it's not right to assume all Turkish people think the "armenian genocide" is fictual, in the same way not all the Turkish people want to block Twitter or Google DNS.
While the Turks stick to the story that all the Armenians woke up one day and said "Hey! How about we abandon all of our land and go march into the desert to die?"
You seem to imply that the Armenian Genocide is not a fact but an allegation. Well just as an example, here is an quote from the wikipedia article that was shared:
'Volkan Vural, retired ambassador of Turkey to Germany and Spain[...]states that, "I think that, the Armenian issue can be solved by politicians and not by historians. I don't believe that historical facts about this issue is not revealed"'
It is an old story and the events of the genocide are known well enough for it not to be an allegation anymore. Right after your own quotation was written: "The word genocide was coined in order to describe these events"
"you should at least consider removal of Germany as a member from EU"
I don't think removal of Germany should be considered based on what was said here since Germany acknowledged their genocide and provided excuses in several instances as well as money.
And I don't imply it as not a fact, I imply mine knowledge doesn't have enough variance on the issue and being a EU member doesn't require clean records.
Turkey is not a follower of Ottoman Empire, it's a modernization and revolution product of it.
This deserves an equal judgement as numerous other countries with violent histories already have.
People who committed the genocide have already been judged by History (And obviously it is wrong). The people living now in Germany and Turkey have not committed a genocide. However the question I want to ask to the people living now is: would you do it again? Germany clearly answered no. While the Republic of Turkey is not providing an adequate answer to this because it denies having done it.
I understand that Turkey and the Ottoman Empire are two different things. The same is true of the Germany of 1940 and contemporary Germany.
"being a EU member doesn't require clean records". Obviously. Otherwise nobody would be a member of the EU. It is not the clean record but the acknowledgement that makes the difference which is all I was pointing out.
But on the other hand, there is a great crowd who understands the need of educated people and logical responses to these matters.
I just find it hypocritical to blame all the people of a country without any detailed knowledge but with only common phrases (which is possibly mined from a biased relative). This is a common phrase for a Turkish people and I find it difficult to believe all the people who told this phrase to have been researched the subject from varied sources.
At least I wish, more educated people who only talks when they know something for sure or open to suggestions to write here(hackernews) at these sensitive topics. Not the overheard people, just to avoid misinformation.
Irrationality is a scary thing, especially at the level of a national entity like Turkey in complete denial of the slaughter of over a million people.
In the light of that, a government that is set on increasing religiosity (particularly of a 'non-european' religion) and is having internal troubles because of that issue, isn't particularly looked on as a valued EU partner. Consider also in the light of the anti-liberalism that's currently rising in Europe, as far right wing politics picks up on a rising fear of immigrants in general and muslims in particular.
The EU's fears are looking forward, not looking back.
Well, that's clearly part of it, but the release of the tapes appears to be a gift from the Gulen movement, who don't appear to be much more appealing than the current crop of corrupt islamists, or the previous crop of corrupt nationalists.
> The EU's fears are looking forward, not looking back.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you're saying that racism and fear of difference play a major role in pushing Turkey away, sure. Though it should also be clear that Turkey is doing itself no favour with the current ban. I hope you're not trying to say that a religious, socially conservative government with a hand in the till should be the future of Europe.
Personally, I'd be in favour of deep political reforms in the European governance mechanisms before further enlargement in any direction. The notion of economic advantages has been pushed forward so much that it has resulted in the weird, undemocratic system we have now, and as a result each new crisis is an opportunity to demonstrate the lack of political unity of the member states.
I mean that the fear of Turkey in the EU is about factors other than ignoring or papering over past misdeeds, and those factors are mostly based around what will happen if Turkey joins the EU. Whether the fears are realistic or not, it's about what will happen, not what has happened.
After all, Belgium killed a great deal many more Congolese than died in the Armenian genocide (and horrifically maimed many more), yet Belgium is the administrative hub of the EU. I don't think that the difference in acceptance between Belgium and Turkey boils down to Belgium recognising that past misdeed (which has seen no reparations, as far as I am aware).
Ah, yes, we're in agreement.
> After all, Belgium killed a great deal many more Congolese than died in the Armenian genocide (and horrifically maimed many more), yet Belgium is the administrative hub of the EU.
My understanding was that most of the abuse occurred when Congo was the personal property of the King of Belgium, as opposed to the Belgian state, so that's not completely comparable (I would imagine that the cost of ensuring that any compensation goes to the family of the victims and not anywhere else would dwarf the amount of compensation to pay...).
There is no non-naive way to look forward without first looking back.
Unlike the disclaimer of most financial investments, past performance is indicative of future results.
- Greek Genocide that took place from 1914–1923 resulted in death of 700-900.000 people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide)
- Assyrian genocide 1890s, 1914–1918, 1922–1925 resulted in death of 275-300.000 people.
- Bulgarians were victims of brutalities as well.
They were mostly Christian minorities.
Probably all the better for Turkey.
They would be better off economically and culturally. Europe is more harmonious than the the other spheres of influence surrounding Turkey namely the Middle East and Russia.
Essentially, the only major benefit EU membership would give Turks is the ability to freely travel around Europe without needing passport visas.
It's not like Turks already don't go to Germany to work.
China is on a completely different level as oblio already said :)
Joining the EU would also give Turkey a seat at the table. Turkey has a large population, and would therefore get a large representation at the European Parliament.
Considering the experience of Spain, Italy, Portugal, Italy, etc. in the EU thus far, I highly doubt that conclusion.
Of course, it is possible that you simply dislike market economy, but that's a very different debate.
tl;dr everyone can't be a net exporter at the same time
If only it was that easy. Dutch ISPs were forced to censor The Pirate Bay, but we're still in the EU!
“There is the interest lobby behind Gezi Park protests.”
“They had alcohol in Dolmabahçe Mosque.”
“They assaulted my sisters covering their hair.”
As physicians we are following with worry the discriminating, stigmatizing and polarizing discourse adopted by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan since Gezi Park protests.
We were actually appalled hearing what he said yesterday in Gaziantep about Berkin Elvan.
Normally, no one would try to bring two families both losing their child in confrontation. Normally, no one would declare as “terrorist” a 15 years old child shot by police while out for buying a loaf of bread and lost his life after 269 days of struggle for survival.
Normally, no one would slant playing marbles as if they were cannonballs to fire.
Normally, no one would provoke a rally crowd to protest a mother who lost her child only two days ago.
We are physicians.
We know about to many psychological and emotional states of human beings.
We are worried about the emotional state of Prime Minister Erdoğan.
We are utterly worried.
Indeed worried about himself, his close circles and our country.
And we share our worries with public.
It is easy enough to use and gets the job done perfectly.
 http://imgur.com/MSXfVyH  https://www.torproject.org/dist/manual/short-user-manual_tr....
A regime with enough support can wipe out thousands or millions of people, and a single well-publicized massacre or act of outright corruption can precipitate a complete loss of legitimacy.
In Egypt, you could say controlling the population through grain subsidies is a double edged sword if there's ever an interruption in the supply. The tribesmen on camel proved to be a pretty weak constituency contrasted with the military as an Egyptian institution with allegiances to the population at large, and a senior leadership that ultimately would resume power without its former figurehead. Nominally, it was mass grass roots protests that overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood, which wasn't owed credit for the overthrow of Mubarak anyway, but "we'll do you the favor of carrying out a coup if you put x many people in Tahrir square," is much more like a behind the scenes coalition between interest groups than an embrace of democratic principles. That the groups still had the institution of the military to carry it all out, then quietly implement more effective controls on dissent, meant that the revolution might as well never have occurred, as long as your name isn't Mubarak and there are no more shortages in food.
In Iran, it was more of a challenge to decouple the regime from a specific scapegoat without undermining its legitimacy. Maybe it is less resilient if any flaws or corruption are openly acknowledged. And yet, there is probably a lot of national solidarity and pride implicit with the revolution (1979) and the war with Iraq. Not only were there more thugs, and they were on motorcycles rather than camels, but the Revolutionary Guard is probably both a patron of the regime and an institution that is respected and gets significant, automatic respect on its own. It may simply have been that the more dynamic classes of society simply didn't have the real power necessary to upset the status quo regardless of restrictions on internet or filming of abuses.
In Turkey, the last decade has seen the very steady dismantling of the military as an institutional check on government. I don't think this is the same as 'proactive' governments dismantling institutions like an independent judiciary, a free press, or erosion of conventions on privacy and freedoms from surveillance that you see in places like Pakistan and the United States. The mechanisms for a military veto are almost always extralegal, and no matter how meritocratic advancement within the officer corps is, it's fundamentally anti-democratic. And yet, what has he done with consolidation of power around a more unitary executive? Instead of fostering the growth of more legitimate institutions that would ultimately strengthen the country and cut down on corruption, he seems to have focused on his own patronage stack, whether that involves cashing in public space, or squashing opponents. There is some irony that the allegations against him many very well be as trumped up as some of those against former military leadership, but possibly, equally in service of the ultimate public good.
All that said, ineffective attempts to shut down communication probably cause much less harm than making a bigger show of firing artillery into Syria or shooting down jets to gin up nationalist fervor.
Anyway, that's my hamfisted attempt at a background for coming up with a 21st century theory on revolutions, probably rife with inaccurate characterizations. So maybe restrictions on the internet can impact general prosperity in ways that rob regimes of their legitimacy, and they're definitely not a sign of strength. However, we can be pretty irascible on issues of liberty, and yet we're pretty slow countering threats to the free flow of information, or the creation of new tools for cronyism.
Turkey is also a massive nation in a very militarily strategic location -- if it were to destabilize then things would get ugly very quickly. With Libya and Syria in such recent memory, toppling a government is no longer appealing at all.
They had blocked twitter... merely by removing it from some DNS servers that they thought were the only ones used by people in Turkey? Or something?
That seems like a particularly ineffectual way to try and block twitter. And I don't understand, if they have the ability to _actually_ block Google DNS... why don't they just do the same thing to actually block twitter?
This makes no sense, I must be missing something. Anyone have the scoop?
Google DNS being just two IP addresses makes it a lot easier to shut down without collateral damage.
We can all speculate, but really I was hoping that someone had some additional information, perhaps because they are in Turkey, on what's going on exactly.
(Is it too much to expect discussion of technical details on HN, instead of political bickering? On anything involving Turkey, anywhere on the internet, yeah, it probably is. The reason why I'm curious about technical details is, of course, because I have an interest in knowing how to circumvent and help people circumvent whatever censors are up to these days).
Edit: Ripe = not just for making it but adopting it as well.
and shut down the government
Easier said than done.