Australian Binary Options Trading - BinaryOptionsAustralia.com

Subreddit Demographic Survey 2019 : The Results

Subreddit Demographic Survey 2019

1. Introduction

Once a year, this subreddit hosts a survey in order to get to know the community a little bit and in order to answer questions that are frequently asked here. Earlier this summer, a few thousand of you participated in a massive Subreddit Demographic Survey.
Unfortunately during the process of collating results we lost contact with SailorMercure, who in previous years has completed all of the data analysis from the Google form responses. We were therefore required to collate and analyse the responses from the raw data via Excel. I attach the raw data below for those who would like to review it. For 2020 we will be rebuilding the survey from scratch.
Raw Data
Multiple areas of your life were probed: general a/s/l, education, finances, religious beliefs, marital status, etc. They are separated in 10 sections:
  1. General Demographics
  2. Education Level
  3. Career and Finances
  4. Child Status
  5. Current Location
  6. Religion and Spirituality
  7. Sexual and Romantic Life
  8. Childhood and Family Life
  9. Sterilization
  10. Childfreedom

2. Methodology

Our sample is people from this subreddit who saw that we had a survey going on and were willing to complete the survey. A weekly stickied announcement was used to alert members of the community that a survey was being run.

3. Results

5,976 participants over the course of two months at a subscriber count of 588,488 (total participant ratio of slightly >1%)

3.1 General Demographics

5,976 participants in total

Age group

Age group Participants # Percentage
18 or younger 491 8.22%
19 to 24 1820 30.46%
25 to 29 1660 27.78%
30 to 34 1107 18.52%
35 to 39 509 8.52%
40 to 44 191 3.20%
45 to 49 91 1.52%
50 to 54 54 0.90%
55 to 59 29 0.49%
60 to 64 15 0.25%
65 to 69 4 0.07%
70 to 74 2 0.03%
75 or older 3 0.05%
84.97% of the sub is under the age of 35.

Gender and Gender Identity

4,583 participants out of 5,976 (71.54%) were assigned the gender of female at birth, 1,393 (23.31%) were assigned the gender of male at birth. Today, 4,275 (70.4%) participants identify themselves as female, 1,420 (23.76%) as male, 239 (4.00%) as non binary and 42 (0.7%) as other (from lack of other options).

Sexual Orientation

Sexual Orientation Participants # Percentage
Asexual 373 6.24%
Bisexual 1,421 23.78%
Heterosexual 3,280 54.89%
Homosexual 271 4.53%
It's fluid 196 3.28%
Other 95 1.59%
Pansexual 340 5.69%

Birth Location

Because the list contains over 120 countries, we'll show the top 20 countries:
Country of birth Participants # Percentage
United States 3,547 59.35%
Canada 439 7.35%
United Kingdom 414 6.93%
Australia 198 3.31%
Germany 119 1.99%
Netherlands 72 1.20%
France 68 1.14%
Poland 66 1.10%
India 59 0.99%
Mexico 49 0.82%
New Zealand 47 0.79%
Brazil 44 0.74%
Sweden 43 0.72%
Philippines 39 0.65%
Finland 37 0.62%
Russia 34 0.57%
Ireland 33 0.55%
Denmark 31 0.52%
Norway 30 0.50%
Belgium 28 0.47%
90.31% of the participants were born in these countries.

Ethnicity

That one was difficult for many reasons and didn't encompass all possibilities simply from lack of knowledge.
Ethnicity Participants # Percentage
Caucasian / White 4,583 76.69%
Hispanic / Latinx 332 5.56%
Multiracial 188 3.15%
East Asian 168 2.81%
Biracial 161 2.69%
African Descent / Black 155 2.59%
Indian / South Asian 120 2.01%
Other 83 1.39%
Jewish (the ethnicity, not the religion) 65 1.09%
Arab / Near Eastern / Middle Eastern 40 0.67%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 37 0.62%
Pacific Islander 24 0.40%
Aboriginal / Australian 20 0.33%

3.2 Education Level

5,976 participants in total

Current Level of Education

Highest Current Level of Education Participants # Percentage
Bachelor's degree 2061 34.49%
Some college / university 1309 21.90%
Master's degree 754 12.62%
Graduated high school / GED 721 12.06%
Associate's degree 350 5.86%
Trade / Technical / Vocational training 239 4.00%
Did not complete high school 238 3.98%
Professional degree 136 2.28%
Doctorate degree 130 2.18%
Post Doctorate 30 0.50%
Did not complete elementary school 8 0.13%

Future Education Plans

Educational Aims Participants # Percentage
I'm good where I am right now 1,731 28.97%
Master's degree 1,384 23.16%
Bachelor's degree 1,353 22.64%
Doctorate degree 639 10.69%
Vocational / Trade / Technical training 235 3.93%
Professional degree 214 3.58%
Post Doctorate 165 2.76%
Associate's degree 164 2.74%
Graduate high school / GED 91 1.52%
Of our 5,976 participants, a total of 1,576 (26.37%) returned to higher education after a break of 3+ years, the other 4,400 (73.76%) did not.
Degree (Major) Participants # Percentage
I don't have a degree or a major 1,010 16.90%
Other 580 9.71%
Health Sciences 498 8.33%
Engineering 455 7.61%
Information and Communication Technologies 428 7.16%
Arts and Music 403 6.74%
Social Sciences 361 6.04%
Business 313 5.24%
Life Sciences 311 5.20%
Literature and Languages 255 4.27%
Humanities 230 3.85%
Fundamental and Applied Sciences 174 2.91%
Teaching and Education Sciences 174 2.91%
Communication 142 2.38%
Law 132 2.21%
Economics and Politics 101 1.69%
Finance 94 1.57%
Social Sciences and Social Action 84 1.41%
Environment and Sustainable Development 70 1.17%
Marketing 53 0.89%
Administration and Management Sciences 52 0.87%
Environmental Planning and Design 24 0.40%
Fashion 18 0.30%
Theology and Religious Sciences 14 0.23%
A number of you commented in the free-form field at the end of the survey, that your degree was not present and that it wasn't related to any of the listed ones. We will try to mitigate this in the next survey!

3.3 Career and Finances

Out of the 5,976 participants, 2,199 (36.80%) work in the field they majored in, 953 (15.95%) graduated but do not work in their original field. 1,645 (27.53%) are still studying. The remaining 1,179 (19.73%) are either retired, currently unemployed or out of the workforce for unspecified reasons.
The top 10 industries our participants are working in are:
Industry Participants # Percentage
Health Care and Social Assistance 568 9.50%
Retail 400 6.69%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 330 5.52%
College, University, and Adult Education 292 4.89%
Government and Public Administration 258 4.32%
Finance and Insurance 246 4.12%
Hotel and Food Services 221 3.70%
Scientific or Technical Services 198 3.31%
Software 193 3.23%
Information Services and Data Processing 169 2.83%
*Note that "other", "I'm a student" and "currently unemployed" have been disgregarded for this part of the evaluation.
Out of the 4,477 participants active in the workforce, the majority (1,632 or 36.45%) work between 40-50 hours per week, 34.73% (1,555) are working 30-40 hours weekly. Less than 6% work >50 h per week, and 23.87% (1,024 participants) less than 30 hours.
718 or 16.04% are taking over managerial responsibilities (ranging from Jr. to Sr. Management); 247 (5.52%) are self employed or partners.
On a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest), the overwhelming majority (4,009 or 67.09%) indicated that career plays a very important role in their lives, attributing a score of 7 and higher.
Only 663 (11.09%) gave it a score below 4, indicating a low importance.
The importance of climbing the career ladder is very evenly distributed across all participants and ranges in a harmonized 7-12% range for each of the 10 steps of importance.
23.71% (1,417) of the participants are making extra income with a hobby or side job.
From the 5,907 participants not already retired, the overwhelming majority of 3,608 (61.11%) does not actively seek early retirement. From those who are, most (1,024 / 17.34%) want to do so between 55-64; 7 and 11% respectively in the age brackets before or after. Less than 3.5% are looking for retirement below 45 years of age.
1,127 participants decided not to disclose their income brackets. The remaining 4,849 are distributed as follows:
Income Participants # Percentage
$0 to $14,999 1,271 26.21%
$15,000 to $29,999 800 16.50%
$30,000 to $59,999 1,441 29.72%
$60,000 to $89,999 731 15.08%
$90,000 to $119,999 300 6.19%
$120,000 to $149,999 136 2.80%
$150,000 to $179,999 67 1.38%
$180,000 to $209,999 29 0.60%
$210,000 to $239,999 22 0.45%
$240,000 to $269,999 15 0.31%
$270,000 to $299,999 5 0.10%
$300,000 or more 32 0.66%

3.4 Child Status

5,976 participants in total
94.44% of the participants (5,644) would call themselves "childfree" (as opposed to 5.56% of the participants who would not call themselves childfree. However, only 68.51% of the participants (4,094) do not have children and do not want them in any capacity at any point of the future. The other 31.49% have a varying degree of indecision, child wanting or child having on their own or their (future) spouse's part.
The 4,094 participants were made to participate in the following sections of the survey.

3.5 Current Location

4,094 childfree participants in total

Current Location

There were more than 200 options of country, so we are showing the top 10 CF countries.
Current Location Participants # Percentage
United States 2,495 60.94%
United Kingdom 331 8.09%
Canada 325 7.94%
Australia 146 3.57%
Germany 90 2.20%
Netherlands 66 1.61%
France 43 1.05%
Sweden 40 0.98%
New Zealand 33 0.81%
Poland 33 0.81%
The Top 10 amounts to 87.98% of the childfree participants' current location.

Current Location Qualification

These participants would describe their current city, town or neighborhood as:
Qualification Participants # Percentage
Urban 1,557 38.03%
Suburban 1,994 48.71%
Rural 543 13.26%

Tolerance to "Alternative Lifestyles" in Current Location

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

3.6 Religion and Spirituality

4094 childfree participants in total

Faith Originally Raised In

There were more than 50 options of faith, so we aimed to show the top 10 most chosen beliefs..
Faith Participants # Percentage
Christianity 2,624 64.09%
Atheism 494 12.07%
None (≠ Atheism. Literally, no notion of spirituality or religion in the upbringing) 431 10.53%
Agnosticism 248 6.06%
Judaism 63 1.54%
Other 45 1.10%
Hinduism 42 1.03%
Islam 40 0.98%
Buddhism 24 0.59%
Paganism 14 0.34%
This top 10 amounts to 98.3% of the 4,094 childfree participants.

Current Faith

There were more than 50 options of faith, so we aimed to show the top 10 most chosen beliefs:
Faith Participants # Percentage
Atheism 2,276 55.59%
Agnosticism 829 20.25%
Christianity 343 8.38%
Other 172 4.20%
Paganism 100 2.44%
Satanism 67 1.64%
Spiritualism 55 1.34%
Witchcraft 54 1.32%
Buddhism 43 1.05%
Judaism 30 0.73%
This top 10 amounts to 96.95% of the participants.

Level of Current Religious Practice

Level Participants # Percentage
Wholly secular / Non religious 3045 74.38%
Identify with religion, but don't practice strictly 387 9.45%
Lapsed / Not serious / In name only 314 7.67%
Observant at home only 216 5.28%
Observant at home. Church/Temple/Mosque/Etc. attendance 115 2.81%
Church/Temple/Mosque/Etc. attendance only 17 0.42%

Effect of Faith over Childfreedom

Figure 4

Effect of Childfreedom over Faith

Figure 5

3.7 Romantic and Sexual Life

4,094 childfree participants in total

Current Dating Situation

Status Participants # Percentage
Divorce 37 0.90
Engaged 215 5.25
Long term relationship, living together 758 18.51
Long term relationship, not living with together 502 12.26
Married 935 22.84
Other 69 1.69
Separated 10 0.24
Short term relationship 82 2.00
Single and dating around, but not looking for anything serious 234 5.72
Single and dating around, looking for something serious 271 6.62
Single and not looking 975 23.82
Widowed 6 0.15

Ethical Non-Monogamy

Non-monogamy (or nonmonogamy) is an umbrella term for every practice or philosophy of intimate relationship that does not strictly hew to the standards of monogamy, particularly that of having only one person with whom to exchange sex, love, and affection.
82.3% of the childfree participants do not practice ethical non-monogamy, as opposed to 17.7% who say they do.

Childfree Partner

Regarding to currently having a childfree or non childfree partner, excluding the 36.7% of childfree participants who said they do not have a partner at the moment. For this question only, only 2591 childfree participants are considered.
Partner Participants # Percentage
Childfree partner 2105 81.2%
Non childfree partner 404 9.9%
More than one partner; all childfree 53 1.3%
More than one partner; some childfree 24 0.9%
More than one partner; none childfree 5 0.2%

Dating a Single Parent

Would the childfree participants be willing to date a single parent?
Answer Participants # Percentage
No, I'm not interested in single parents and their ties to parenting life 3693 90.2
Yes, but only if it's a short term arrangement of some sort 139 3.4
Yes, whether for long term or short term, but with some conditions 161 3.9
Yes, whether for long term or short term, with no conditions 101 2.5

3.8 Childhood and Family Life

On a scale from 1 (very unhappy) to 10 (very happy), how would you rate your childhood?
Answer Participants # Percentage
1 154 3.8%
2 212 5.2%
3 433 10.6%
4 514 12.6%
5 412 10.1%
6 426 10.4%
7 629 15.4%
8 704 17.2%
9 357 8.7%
10 253 6.2%

3.9 Sterilization

4,094 childfree participants in total
Sterilization Status Participants # Percentage
No, I am not sterilized and, for medical, practical or other reasons, I do not need to be 687 16.8
No. However, I've been approved for the procedure and I'm waiting for the date to arrive 119 2.9
No. I am not sterilized and don't want to be 585 14.3
No. I want to be sterilized but I have started looking for a doctor (doctor shopping) 328 8.0
No. I want to be sterilized but I haven't started doctor shopping yet 1896 46.3
Yes. I am sterilized 479 11.7

Already Sterilized

479 sterilized childfree participants in total

Age when starting doctor shopping or addressing issue with doctor

Age group Participants # Percentage
18 or younger 37 7.7%
19 to 24 131 27.3%
25 to 29 159 33.2%
30 to 34 92 19.2%
35 to 39 47 9.8%
40 to 44 9 1.9%
45 to 49 1 0.2%
50 to 54 1 0.2%
55 or older 2 0.4%

Age at the time of sterilization

Age group Participants # Percentage
18 or younger 4 0.8%
19 to 24 83 17.3%
25 to 29 181 37.8%
30 to 34 121 25.3%
35 to 39 66 13.8%
40 to 44 17 3.5%
45 to 49 3 0.6%
50 to 54 1 0.2%
55 or older 3 0.6%

Elapsed time between requesting procedure and undergoing procedure

Time Participants # Percentage
Less than 3 months 280 58.5
Between 3 and 6 months 78 16.3
Between 6 and 9 months 20 4.2
Between 9 and 12 months 10 2.1
Between 12 and 18 months 17 3.5
Between 18 and 24 months 9 1.9
Between 24 and 30 months 6 1.3
Between 30 and 36 months 4 0.8
Between 3 and 5 years 19 4.0
Between 5 and 7 years 9 1.9
More than 7 years 27 5.6

How many doctors refused at first, before finding one who would accept?

Doctor # Participants # Percentage
None. The first doctor I asked said yes 340 71.0%
One. The second doctor I asked said yes 56 11.7%
Two. The third doctor I asked said yes 37 7.7%
Three. The fourth doctor I asked said yes 15 3.1%
Four. The fifth doctor I asked said yes 8 1.7%
Five. The sixth doctor I asked said yes 5 1.0%
Six. The seventh doctor I asked said yes 4 0.8%
Seven. The eighth doctor I asked said yes 1 0.2%
Eight. The ninth doctor I asked said yes 1 0.2%
I asked more than 10 doctors before finding one who said yes 12 2.5%

Approved, not Sterilized Yet

119 approved but not yet sterilised childfree participants in total. Owing to the zero participants who were approved but not yet sterilised in the 45+ age group in the 2018 survey, these categories were removed from the 2019 survey.

Age when starting doctor shopping or addressing issue with doctor

Age group Participants # Percentage
18 or younger 11 9.2%
19 to 24 42 35.3%
25 to 29 37 31.1%
30 to 34 23 19.3%
35 to 39 5 4.2%
40 to 45 1 0.8%

How many doctors refused at first, before finding one who would accept?

Doctor # Participants # Percentage
None. The first doctor I asked said yes 77 64.7%
One. The second doctor I asked said yes 12 10.1%
Two. The third doctor I asked said yes 12 10.1%
Three. The fourth doctor I asked said yes 5 4.2%
Four. The fifth doctor I asked said yes 2 1.7%
Five. The sixth doctor I asked said yes 4 3.4%
Six. The seventh doctor I asked said yes 1 0.8%
Seven. The eighth doctor I asked said yes 1 0.8%
Eight. The ninth doctor I asked said yes 0 0.0%
I asked more than ten doctors before finding one who said yes 5 4.2%

How long between starting doctor shopping and finding a doctor who said "Yes"?

Time Participants # Percentage
Less than 3 months 65 54.6%
3 to 6 months 13 10.9%
6 to 9 months 9 7.6%
9 to 12 months 1 0.8%
12 to 18 months 2 1.7%
18 to 24 months 2 1.7%
24 to 30 months 1 0.8%
30 to 36 months 1 0.8%
3 to 5 years 8 6.7%
5 to 7 years 6 5.0%
More than 7 years 11 9.2%

Age when receiving green light for sterilization procedure?

Age group Participants # Percentage
18 or younger 1 0.8%
19 to 24 36 30.3%
25 to 29 45 37.8%
30 to 34 27 22.7%
35 to 39 9 7.6%
40 to 44 1 0.8%

Not Sterilized Yet But Looking

328 searching childfree participants in total

How many doctors did you ask so far?

Doctor # Participants # Percentage
1 204 62.2%
2 61 18.6%
3 29 8.8%
4 12 3.7%
5 7 2.1%
6 6 1.8%
7 1 0.3%
8 1 0.3%
9 1 0.3%
More than 10 6 1.8%

How long have you been searching so far?

Time Participants # Percentage
Less than 3 months 117 35.7%
3 to 6 months 44 13.4%
6 to 9 months 14 4.3%
9 to 12 months 27 8.2%
12 to 18 months 18 5.5%
18 to 24 months 14 4.3%
24 to 30 months 17 5.2%
30 to 36 months 9 2.7%
3 to 5 years 35 10.7%
5 to 7 years 11 3.4%
More than 7 years 22 6.7%

At what age did you start searching?

Age group Participants # Percentage
18 or younger 50 15.2%
19 to 24 151 46.0%
25 to 29 86 26.2%
30 to 34 31 9.5%
35 to 39 7 2.1%
40 to 44 2 0.6%
45 to 54 1 0.3%

3.10 Childfreedom

4,094 childfree participants in total
Only 1.1% of the childfree participants (46 out of 4094) literally owns a jetski, but 46.1% of the childfree participants (1889 out of 4094) figuratively owns a jetski. A figurative jetski is an expensive material possession that purchasing would have been almost impossible had you had children.

Primary Reason to Not Have Children

Reason Participants # Percentage
Aversion towards children ("I don't like children") 1222 29.8
Childhood trauma 121 3.0
Current state of the world 87 2.1
Environmental (it includes overpopulation) 144 3.5
Eugenics ("I have "bad genes" ") 62 1.5
Financial 145 3.5
I already raised somebody else who isn't my child 45 1.1
Lack of interest towards parenthood ("I don't want to raise children") 1718 42.0
Maybe interested for parenthood, but not suited for parenthood 31 0.8
Medical ("I have a condition that makes conceiving/bearing/birthing children difficult, dangerous or lethal") 52 1.3
Other 58 1.4
Philosophical / Moral (e.g.: antinatalism) 136 3.3
Tokophobia (aversion/fear of pregnancy and/or chidlbirth) 273 6.7

4. Discussion

Section 1 : General Demographics

The demographics remain largely consistent with the 2018 survey. 85% of the participants are under 35, compared with 87.5% of the subreddit in the 2018 survey. 71.54% of the subreddit identify as female, compared with 70.4% in the 2018 survey. This is in contrast to the overall membership of Reddit, estimated at 74% male according to Reddit's Wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit#Users_and_moderators]. There was a marked drop in the ratio of members who identify as heterosexual, from 67.7% in the 2018 survey to 54.89% in the 2019 survey. Ethnicity wise, 77% of members identified as primarily Caucasian, a slight drop from the 2018 survey, where 79.6% of members identified as primarily Caucasian.
Further research may be useful to explore the unusually high female membership of /childfree and the potential reasons for this. It is possible that the results are skewed towards those more inclined to complete a survey.
In the 2018 survey the userbase identified the following missing ethicities:
This has been rectified in the current 2019 survey.

Section 2 : Education level

As it did in the 2018 survey, this section highlights the stereotype of childfree people as being well educated. 4% of participants did not complete high school, which is a slight increase from the 2018 survey, where 3.1% of participants did not graduate high school. This could potentially be explained by the slightly higher percentage of participants under 18. 5.6% of participants were under 18 at the time of the 2018 survey, and 8.2% of participants were under 18 at the time of the 2019 survey.
At the 2019 survey, the highest percentage of responses under the: What is your degree/major? question fell under "I don't have a degree or a major" (16.9%) and "other" (9.71%). However, of the participants who were able to select a degree and/or major, the most popular responses were:
Response Participants # Percentage
Health Sciences 498 8.33%
Engineering 455 7.61%
Information and Communication Technologies 428 7.16%
Arts and Music 403 6.74%
Social Sciences 361 6.04%
Compared to the 2018 survey, health sciences have overtaken engineering, however the top 5 majors remain the same. There is significant diversity in the subreddit with regards to chosen degree/major.

Section 3 : Career and Finances

The highest percentage of participants (17.7%) listed themselves as a student. However, of those currently working, significant diversity in chosen field of employment was noted. This is consistent with the 2018 survey. The highest percentage of people working in one of the fields listed remains in Healthcare and Social Services. This is slightly down from the 2018 survey (9.9%) to 9.5%.
One of the stereotypes of the childfree is of wealth. However this is not demonstrated in the survey results. 72.4% of participants earn under $60,000 USD per annum, while 87.5% earn under $90,000 per annum. 26.2% are earning under $15,000 per annum. The results remain largely consistent with the 2018 survey. 1127 participants, or 19% chose not to disclose this information. It is possible that this may have skewed the results if a significant proportion of these people were our high income earners, but impossible to explore.
A majority of our participants work between 30 and 50 hours per week (71.2%) which is markedly increased from the 2018 survey, where 54.6% of participants worked between 30 and 50 hours per week.

Section 4 : Child Status

This section solely existed to sift the childfree from the fencesitters and the non childfree in order to get answers only from the childfree. Childfree, as it is defined in the subreddit, is "I do not have children nor want to have them in any capacity (biological, adopted, fostered, step- or other) at any point in the future." 68.5% of participants actually identify as childfree, slightly up from the 2018 survey, where 66.3% of participants identified as childfree. This is suprising in reflection of the overall reputation of the subreddit across reddit, where the subreddit is often described as an "echo chamber".

Section 5 : Current Location

The location responses are largely similar to the 2018 survey with a majority of participants living in a suburban and urban area. 86.7% of participants in the 2019 survey live in urban and suburban regions, with 87.6% of participants living in urban and suburban regions in the 2018 survey. There is likely a multifactorial reason for this, encompassing the younger, educated skew of participants and the easier access to universities and employment, and the fact that a majority of the population worldwide localises to urban centres. There may be an element of increased progressive social viewpoints and identities in urban regions, however this would need to be explored further from a sociological perspective to draw any definitive conclusions.
A majority of our participants (60.9%) live in the USA. The United Kingdom (8.1%), Canada (7.9%), Australia (3.6%) and Germany (2.2%) encompass the next 4 most popular responses. Compared to the 2018 survey, there has been a slight drop in the USA membership (64%), United Kingdom membership (7.3%) Canadian membership (8.1%), Australian membership (3.8%). There has been a slight increase in German membership, up from 1.7%. This may reflect a growing globalisation of the childfree concept.

Section 6 : Religion and Spirituality

A majority of participants were raised Christian (64.1%) however the majority are currently aetheist (55.6%) or agnostic (20.25%). This is consistent with the 2018 survey results.
A majority of participants (62.8%) rated religion as "not at all influential" to the childfree choice. This is consistent with the 2018 survey where 60.9% rated religion as "not at all influential". Despite the high percentage of participants who identify as aetheist or agnostic, this does not appear to be related to or have an impact on the childfree choice.

Section 7 : Romantic and Sexual Life

60.7% of our participants are in a relationship at the time of the survey. This is an almost identical result to the 2018 survey, where 60.6% of our participants were in a relationship. A notable proportion of our participants are listed as single and not looking (23.8%) which is consistent with the 2018 survey. Considering the frequent posts seeking dating advice as a childfree person, it is surprising that such a high proportion of the participants are not actively seeking out a relationship.
Participants that practice ethical non-monogamy are unusual (17.7%) and this result is consistent with the results of the 2018 survey. Despite the reputuation for childfree people to live an unconventional lifestyle, this finding suggests that a majority of our participants are monogamous.
84.2% of participants with partners of some kind have at least one childfree partner. This is consistent with the often irreconcilable element of one party desiring children and the other wishing to abstain from having children.

Section 8 : Childhood and Family Life

Overall, the participants skew towards a happier childhood.

Section 9 : Sterilization

While just under half of our participants wish to be sterilised, 46.3%, only 11.7% have been successful in achieving sterilisation. This is likely due to overarching resistance from the medical profession however other factors such as the logistical elements of surgery and the cost may also contribute. This is also a decrease from the percentage of participants sterilised in the 2018 survey (14.8%). 31.1% of participants do not wish to be or need to be sterilised suggesting a partial element of satisfaction from temporary birth control methods or non-necessity from no sexual activity.
Of the participants who did achieve sterilisation, a majority began the search between 19 and 29, with the highest proportion being in the 25-29 age group (33.2%) This is a drop from the 2018 survey where 37.9% of people who started the search were between 25-29.
The majority of participants who sought out and were successful at achieving sterilisation, were again in the 25-29 age group (37.8%). This is consistent with the 2018 survey results.
Over half of the participants who were sterilised had the procedure completed in less than 3 months (58.5%). This is a decline from the number of participants who achieved sterilisation in 3 months in the 2018 survey (68%). The proportion of participants who have had one or more doctors refuse to perform the procedure has stayed consistent between the two surveys.

Section 10 : Childfreedom

The main reasons for people chosing the childfree lifestyle are a lack of interest towards parenthood and an aversion towards children. Of the people surveyed 63.8% are pet owners, suggesting that this lack of interest towards parenthood does not necessarily mean a lack of interest in all forms of caretaking. The community skews towards a dislike of children overall which correlates well with the 81.4% of users choosing "no, I do not have, did not use to have and will not have a job that makes me heavily interact with children on a daily basis" in answer to, "do you have a job that heavily makes you interact with children on a daily basis?".
A vast majority of the subreddit identifes as pro-choice (94.5%). This is likely due to a high level of concern about bodily autonomy and forced parenthood. However only 70% support financial abortion for the non-pregnant person in a relationship to sever all financial and parental ties with a child.
45.9% identify as feminist, however many users prefer to identify with egalitarianism or are unsure. Only 8% firmly do not identify as a feminist.
Most of our users realised that did not want children young. 60% of participants knew they did not want children by the age of 18, with 96% of users realising this by age 30. This correlates well with the age distribution of participants. Despite this early realisation of our childfree stance, 80.4% of participants have been "bingoed" at some stage in their lives. Only 13% of participants are opposed to parents making posts on this subreddit.
Bonus section: The Subreddit
In light of the "State of the Subreddit" survey from 2018, some of the questions from this survey were added to the current Subreddit Survey 2019.
By and large our participants were lurkers (66.17%). Our participants were divided on their favourite flairs with 33.34% selecting "I have no favourite". The next most favourite flair was "Rant", at 20.47%. Our participants were similarly divided on their least favourite flair, with 64.46% selecting "I have no least favourite". Potentially concerningly were the 42.01% of participants who selected "I have never participated on this sub", suggesting a disparity between members who contributed to this survey and members who actually participate in the subreddit. To further address this, next year's survey will clarify the "never participated" option by specifying that "never participated" means "never up/downvoting, reading posts or commenting" in addition to never posting.
A small minority of the survey participants (6.18%) selected "yes" to allowing polite, well meaning lectures. An even smaller minority (2.76%) selected "yes" to allowing angry, trolling lectures. In response to this lectures remain not tolerated, and removed on sight or on report.
Almost half of our users (49.95%) support the use of terms such as breeder, mombie/moo, daddict/duh on the subreddit, with a further 22.52% supporting use of these terms in context of bad parents only. In response to this use of the above and similar terms to describe parents remains permitted on ths subreddit.
55.3% of users support the use of terms to describe children such as crotchfruit on the subreddit, with a further 17.42% of users supporting the use of this and similar terms in context of bad children only. In response to this use of the above and similar terms to describe children remains permitted on ths subreddit.
56.03% of participants support allowing parents to post, with a further 28.77% supporting parent posts dependent on context. In response to this, parent posts will continue to be allowed on the subreddit. Furthermore 66.19% of participants support parents and non childfree making "I need your advice" posts, with a further 21.37% supporting these dependent on context. In light of these results we have decided to implement a new "regret" flair to better sort out parents from fencesitters, which will be trialed until the next subreddit survey due to concern from some of our members. 64.92% of participants support parents making "I support you guys" posts. Therefore, these will continue to be allowed.
71.03% of participants support under 18's who are childfree participating in the subreddit. Therefore we will continue to allow under 18's that stay within the overall Reddit age requirement.
We asked participants their opinion on moving Rants and Brants to a stickied weekly thread. Slightly less than half (49.73%) selected leaving them as they are in their own posts. In light of the fact that Rants are one of the participant's favourite flairs, we will leave them as they are.
There was divide among participants as to whether "newbie" questions should be removed. An even spread was noted among participants who selected remove and those who selected to leave them as is. We have therefore decided to leave them as is.

5. Conclusion

Thank you to our participants who contributed to the survey. To whoever commented, "Do I get a donut?", no you do not, but you get our appreciation for pushing through all of the questions!
Overall there have been few significant changes in the community from 2018.

Thank you also for all of your patience!

submitted by CFmoderator to childfree [link] [comments]

‘They are us’ – an urgent, uncomfortable call to action

"By Morgan Godfery | Contributing writer March 13, 2020
A proper reckoning with March 15 2019 demands that we take up a generations-long struggle to destroy all the exclusions that make up our society and produce the conditions we know as racism. An essay by Morgan Godfery.
This work is made possible by Spinoff Members.

1

I was cleaning out the garage the other day and found an old Crusaders jersey. If I remember right it’s their team kit from 2005, the white knight sewn into the chest and the old Ford logo printed in the centre. The jersey itself is still as fresh as new paint, a novelty purchase from when we were passing through Christchurch on our way to Christmas in Oamaru. I was a year 9 in school and a Super 12 jersey was the kind of item you had, just so you could say you had one. This is about the same time it was still acceptable to whisper things like how the white players in the Crusaders were responsible for their team’s championship success, playing their footy with brains, and the problem with mid-table finishers like the Blues were too many brown boys who only knew how to throw their weight around.
I’m not quite white-passing, but my upper middle-class accent, generally preppy affect, and not-quite-pasty-not-quite-brown skin makes me ethnically ambiguous enough that people are happy to share their thoughts about big Polynesian units, Asian immigrants, Muslim terrorists, and the Jews. The first time I remember running into entirely casual racism was in Christchurch, on the way back from that Christmas in Oamaru, when a retail worker caught up with me on the street apologising for short-changing me in store. I didn’t realise or particularly care, but years later I thought about his apology. “Sorry, I just Jew-ed you”.
At the time it was nothing to me. In high school and later in my flat at Victoria that was just what people said. “Jewing” someone was a verb for ripping them off, taking an advantage, or just a way to give someone a bit of stick. In my experience it was especially popular with the Christ’s College boys, which probably has something to do with the city’s private schools inheriting their culture from Britain’s public schools. “A Jewish boy at a public school almost invariably had a bad time,” wrote Orwell in 1945. Things probably aren’t that much better in 2020. The other day I read an old mate – a private schooler too – on Facebook joking about how Jews are useless at sport.
I suspect for good liberals this is probably shocking. This isn’t language that ever sneaks through our circles. But outside of our cosy hermetic world words like coconut, boonga, fob, wog, gook, curry muncher, towelhead, the hundred variations on the N word, and “Jew” as more than a noun are common currency. The stains from that vocabulary seep into every part of the culture and society, and nothing much has ever been done to wash it out. The first time I remember encountering deliberate, menacing racism is on the rugby paddock when a white coach was yelling at my mate on the wing “run you BLACK bastard”. I thought about that moment when spectators in Christchurch were caught vilifying Fijian player Sake Aca in 2015, screaming from the stands “black cunt”.
Fandoms like to imagine their sports, multicultural rugby especially, as pure and independent realms (“a level playing field”) absent race, politics, or any disadvantage other than skill. It’s a seductive argument, I’ll concede that much, but it’s so self-evidently false it still surprises me every time someone insists on it earnestly. Sport? Not racist? In 2012 talkback callers and trolls went after then Blues coach Pat Lam and his family for the great crime of simply being Polynesian. In 2010 former All Black Andy Haden was put through the wringer for telling media the Crusaders only recruit a maximum three “darkies”, presumably to preserve the team’s famous brain-brawn balance.
Even in the laudatory histories New Zealand rugby was, and probably remains, a notorious nexus for down home conservatives, know-nothing administrators, and out and out racists. In 1960 the rugby union sent the All Blacks on tour to Apartheid South Africa, waving the team off without any Māori players or officials in a remarkable sop to the country’s colour bar. In 1976 the national team were sent back, this time defying international calls to cut sporting ties with the racist state. In protest at the tour more than twenty African countries led a boycott at that year’s Olympics, a moral stand that should perpetually shame New Zealand Rugby. Not racist? As if.
In an ideal world the Canterbury Crusaders would study this history, carefully considering whether their decision to retain the team name is another brick in rugby’s wall of shame. The managers might consider how “deus vult”, meaning God wills it, a battle cry from the first Crusade, and “Acre 1189”, a reference to a siege in the third Crusade, are URL shorthands and postscripts for white supremacist users constructing a historiography for their neo-fascist movement. The managers might also reflect on how real-life white supremacists in countries like Brazil, Norway, and Australia are adopting the Knights Templar, the Christian warrior monks who made up the crusading hordes, and the literal white knight that was formerly the Canterbury team’s logo, as their saints.
📷
CRUSADERS MASCOTS AT AMI STADIUM IN CHRISTCHURCH IN 2019. PHOTO: DAVID ROGERS/GETTY IMAGES. FEATURE IMAGE: FRIDAY PRAYERS AT AL NOOR MOSQUE ON MARCH 22, 2019. PHOTO BY SANKA VIDANAGAMA/NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
As it happens the team’s managers, after kicking the issue to a “market research” firm shortly after March 15, made the call to save the name. It’s an unconscionable decision, for obvious reasons, but the team bosses seem cognitively incapable of reasoning through the issue and its implications beyond mere “branding”. In a statement announcing the name-stay the team’s PR people wrote “for us, the Crusaders name is a reflection of the crusading spirit of this community,” as if it’s possible to just reframe the holy war using a press release. It’s a cretinous thing to do when not even a year earlier an alleged shooter undertook a massacre at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques as part of his own “crusade”.
A28-year-old man is before the High Court facing 52 murder charges relating to the events of March 15. What we know about his life is little, save the things he was curating about himself online, which in this essay I treat with caution and scepticism. But it seems clear enough the Australian citizen was an obsessive for the Crusades, scribbling references to the religious war for the Holy Land across the weapon police accuse the man of using to carry out the massacre. Investigative reports note in his pilgrimage to Europe the 28-year-old – who pleaded not guilty to all charges – made particular visits to Christian-Muslim battlegrounds in the former Ottoman Empire, apparently as a tribute to the crusading warmongers he was so keen to match.
To outsiders the obsession with this particular historical episode is probably bizarre, if not creepy. But in the nether world this man and his neo-fascist comrades inhabit they imagine they’re acting out the thesis and title in Samuel P Huntington’s The Clash of Civilisations. In his 1993 essay the American political scientist argues that in the immediate past global conflicts were between warring ideological factions – capitalism and communism – but post-Cold War conflict will centre between clashing civilisations. The West vs the rest. Christianity vs Islam. The Crusades II.
In Huntington’s telling, and in the alleged shooter’s head, the West and the Islamic world are fated to compete. Yet that competition won’t centre over economic issues like stable oil supply lines, or even political issues like the territorial integrity of Western allies in the Middle East, instead the clash is meant to happen over Islam’s apparently regressive values and the West’s progressive tradition. It’s a striking thesis, especially for the generals and politicians who were hunting for cover for their military adventures in the Middle East and East Africa in the late 80s and early 90s. But it was always a notion that was impossible to apply, reducing the Islamic world to a series of stereotypes (it never had its enlightenment) and setting it against an equally reductive West (it did have its enlightenment).
The late Edward Said, the Palestinian scholar, cut right to the heart of Huntington’s argument in identifying it wasn’t an argument at all – rather, he was “a partisan, an advocate of one so-called civilisation over all others” who maps billions of people into “vague” and “manipulable” abstractions and then presents it as a true account of the world. “Thus to build a conceptual framework around the notion of us-versus-them is in effect to pretend that the principal consideration is epistemological and natural – our civilisation is now and accepted, theirs is different and strange – whereas in fact the framework separating us from them is belligerent, constructed, and situational.”
In other words, the thing separating the Christian us from the Islamic them, to the extent a clean separation is possible at all, is history – of colonialism, of Cold War power politics – and not immutable categories like “the West” or “the East”. That the categories exist at all are a function of history and political convenience, not a universal law stipulating conflict as the only end. Yet for the neo-fascists like the alleged shooter every thought they cherish orbits this particular rock: that the entire Islamic world is one dirty blob of terrorism, rape, and invasion, and that all its more than one billion members act with a single purpose and co-ordination unknown in the entire history of humanity.
But why commit to a dichotomy so obviously stupid at all? The 28-year-old grew up in Grafton, a waterway town in northern New South Wales, and in his time on the Eastern seaboard it seems unlikely he ever actually met many Muslim people at all. In his own family’s account they were just ordinary Aussies. It’s impossible to interrogate the claim – every family thinks itself the norm and we can’t penetrate their private lives to investigate how true it is – yet the family were probably ordinary in one sense. They were unremarkable. Just another white family. The alleged shooter’s parents were in traditional jobs. Mum a teacher. Dad a rubbish man.
The people who were closest to him – cousins, old school mates – pinpoint his OE to Europe as “the moment”. As RNZ reports in his manifesto the alleged shooter recounts his trip through North Korea and Pakistan, paying tribute to the locals’ kindness and hospitality (noticing the contradiction he explains he doesn’t hate the yellows and blacks who stay in their own “homelands”). Eventually he lands in Europe, road tripping France. In one passage he despairs that he can’t seem to find an all-white town or city. In another passage his travels take him, quite conveniently, to a cemetery for the European dead of the world wars. “I broke into tears, sobbing alone in the car,” he writes, mourning the apparent Islamification of Europe. “Why were we allowing these soldiers deaths to be in vain?”
He didn’t realise that the dead he mourned died trying to kill people like him.
In 2018 I wrote (presciently, without claiming too much credit for an insight this awful) that “white nationalism is, for the basement dwelling 4chaners, mouth breathing Redditors, and Youtube philosopher kings, nothing more than a desperate search for an alternative fatherland”. That search is what drove the alleged shooter from his Australian home. “The origin of my language is European, my culture is European, my political beliefs are European… most importantly, my blood is European”. To the alleged shooter his actual home was irredeemable. “What is an Australian but a drunk European?”
In each claim is a desperate narcissism, reaching for an imaginary identity when your existing accomplishments don’t match your personal ambitions. It’s tempting to extend that psychoanalysis. The alleged shooter’s fetish for imaginary “whites” is a cover for the trauma of being a nothing, disembodied. Or maybe the urge to order and rank the world into competing civilisations is a neurosis, like stacking your knives and forks in a row. Perhaps the pleasure he takes in trolling is jouissance, a momentary transgression in the service of briefly feeling. Yet those readings are weightless if they stand alone. The alleged shooter’s interior life is relevant, certainly so for a conviction on murder, but studying the actually existing politics that shaped his positions and actions seems more important than base speculation.
In The Invention of Tradition the historians Terence Ranger and Eric Hobsbawm argue that traditions, far from the ancient wisdoms of old, are often nothing more than recent beliefs that help foster a common identity when – to borrow from Said – “organic solidarities” like the family or village break down. The inventions are easy to spot in the courts and parliament where British ritual connects the two institutions to a pedigree and past that their move half away across the world broke. In the neo-fascist movement the inventions are slightly more subtle, taking actual historical happenings like the Crusades and pick-and-mixing the symbols (Knights Templar), battles (Acre 1189), and language (deus vult) that they can contort around the various anti-Muslim bigotries.
The idea that traditions are a kind of stand-in where old connections break down seems especially apt in settler colonies where the relationship to the past and a present community often amounts to nothing more than a shopping list of shared habits and references. Gumboots as culture. I appreciate that description could come across as banal, or even malicious, but it gets close to the impulses apparently guiding the alleged shooter: the search for meaningful political connections and political community. As he saw it Australia had no identity to offer. Instead he found his connection in an “imagined community” – in violent European nationalisms – and online.
“I am a racist”, the man writes in his manifesto. His neo-fascists comrades were too.

2

One of the first inspirations he cites is Luca Traini, a 28-year-old Italian neo-Nazi who, with a 9mm glock, went on a drive-by shooting injuring six African migrants in Macarata in 2018. The racist rampage lit a fuse under that year’s Italian general election. The left went after Matteo Salvini, the League Party leader, the same party in which Traini stood as a mayoral list candidate, for inspiring his violent work. In an ordinary election a political leader would make an immediate climb down, condemning Traini and his crimes. But Salvini, best known in the English-speaking world for closing harbours to refugees crossing the Med, was surprisingly consistent. He said the left had “blood on its hands” for packing the country with “illegal migrants”. The unspoken implication: Traini was doing his patriotic duty.
The alleged shooter, watching on from another hemisphere, found a brother in arms. The two men had built their identities around all the same hatreds and had clothed their boogeymen in all the same threads. One stitch for migrant “invaders”. Two stiches for liberals and Marxists, and a needle for the “race traitors” among them. But where the twin gunmen’s hatred really met, transforming from online big noting to a real-life passion, was in protecting “their” women. Traini undertook his crime as an apparent act of revenge against the three Nigerian refugees in court for killing 18-year-old Pamela Mastropietro.
In his manifesto the alleged shooter offers a similar provocation, taking 11-year-old Ebba Akerlund’s death as his red pill. In his self-mythologising, the Stockholm truck attack, a deadly terrorist attack that took Akerlund’s and four other lives, was his waking moment. “It was another terror attack in the seemingly never-ending attacks that had been occurring on a regular basis throughout my adult life,” he wrote. “But for some reason this was different”. What was that difference? Akerlund. An innocent. It’s a vile misuse – he doesn’t care for anyone or anything beyond himself – but the narrative demands an affect, the shooter turning in his coward’s rags for a knight’s armour.
For neo-fascists it’s essential to tell their origin stories through the opposite sex. For aspiring movement leaders like the alleged shooter it’s the fight to protect the “virtue” of “our women” against “Muslim rapists” that forces their hand. For lurkers, shitposters, and like-avores it’s the feminists and “Staceys” who never recognise the genius and vigour of their own race (plain meaning: “women don’t want me”) who lead them into fascism. Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger, a martyr for beta males, undertook his crimes and suicide as an apparent act of “retribution” against women for denying him the sex and love he thought of as his by right.
This, not the customary declarations of love for the race, or even the thrill of sharing the same enemies, is usually the heart of online fascism – it’s a reaction against women.
In Male Fantasies the German sociologist Klaus Theweleit argues the fascist men who fought against the Weimar Republic from 1918 to 1933, and who went on to prominent positions and a political home in the Nazi regime, were in their heads and hearts afraid of women. For the “Freikorps” there were two womanly classes: White Women, “the nurses” representing order and servitude to men and country; and Red Women, “the communists” representing disorder, whoring, and the end of patriotic men. The latter were the women the paramilitary movement were under an obligation to kill. In one speech a general complains that when “a few old girls get blown up the whole world starts screaming about bloodthirsty soldiers”.
“As if women were always innocent,” he said.
This is why every fascist movement purges women first – metaphorically and actually. In Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s Italian Fascism’s Empire Cinema the American historian describes how films under the Duce’s regime “remove the Italian woman from the colonial space”, portraying the colonies as where men might find purpose through trans-national thuggery, and attacking women’s emancipation at home as a “corrupting” force and a check on the people’s success. The alleged shooter undertook his killings with similar illusions. That he could forge a new identity in gun fire and blood, and that liberated women (and Jews) were responsible for his personal and racial decline. In his manifesto the opening line is “it’s the birth rates”, repeated three times.
📷
THE WELLINGTON 15/3 VIGIL HELD AT THE BASIN RESERVE (PHOTO BY ELIAS RODRIGUEZ/GETTY IMAGES)
It’s easy to diagnose the same pathologies in his comrades. Game developers Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu and media critic Anita Sarkeesian – the victims in 2014’s Gamergate troll – were made targets for harassment for no other reason than they were women crossing the border between a man’s stuff (the spacies) and a woman’s role (sex and housework). In New Zealand the death threats against Golriz Ghahraman, our first MP who arrived in New Zealand as a refugee, are so frequent Parliamentary Services ensures special protection for the Green MP. The critics go after Ghahraman for everything from fakery (her “CV” is a lie, she isn’t a “real refugee”) to acting as part of a globalist conspiracy to wipe out the white race. It’s impressively stupid, of course, but the point isn’t the truth in the charges. It’s that an Iranian-born woman sits in our parliament.
The same trolls go for the prime minister on Twitter’s #TurnArdern hashtag too, condemning Jacinda as a lazy woman (#parttimePM) who coasts along on nothing more than her femininity (“she’s a pretty communist”). That’s hardly out of the ordinary, of course. In the 2000s print commentators were comfortable enough to throw equally chauvinist slurs at Helen Clark, using “Helengrad” for Clark as the controlling woman and “political dominatrix” for ball-breaking the men around her. The difference is today’s trolls serve their sexism with Islamophobia on top. Last year activist Rangi Kemara found a telling correlation between tweeters of Turn Ardern and tweeters of Islamophobia. The Christchurch man selling MAGA hats – “Make Ardern Go Away” – on TradeMe once wrote he would destroy “mosque after mosque till I am taken out”.
Give me the misogynist, to corrupt an old saying, and I’ll show you the Islamophobe.
Simone Weil, the French philosopher, would recognise in the turn to Europe – and the turn against women – a classic “uprooting”. In almost every country material comfort and security often rely on cutting the cord between a person, the past, and a present community: removing Indigenous people from their land; separating citizens from their homes and families in one place for work in another; and reducing people to their supposedly “innate” categories (race, gender, etc). These uprootings, in Weil’s words, are a “sickness of the soul” that leave men especially vulnerable to demagoguery. In their search for past and present connections they turn to “false conceptions” like patriotism and national greatness, and at the core of each in 2020: hatred for and fear of women.

3

What’s notable about this neo-fascist movement isn’t necessarily its reach but its mode. Online, yes, but more importantly: politically free. Other than finance, the alleged shooter had no political or bureaucratic restraints. He could post all the tell-tale things he apparently did, and it seemed neither the police nor the spy agencies would ever flag it. He could acquire the semi-automatic weapon the Crown charge him with using with nothing more than a gun licence – and the seller was under no obligation to log the purchase. And he could move between Australia and New Zealand’s practically open borders with only a passport and a straight face for the eGate.
I hope you register the irony in this. Borders were the very thing the alleged shooter was desperate to enforce against the Muslim hordes. After moving to New Zealand, ostensibly to plan an attack back home, the 28-year-old found instead that “the invaders were in all of our lands”. Even at the bottom of the world in formerly lily-white Christchurch. “Nowhere was safe”, he wrote. The alleged shooter, in a bonfire of pomposity and self-regard, actually did think himself at the centre of a civilisational struggle between the out-bred West and Islam. In the mind of the manifesto writer, massacring Muslims would enforce the borders the supposed sell outs in government wouldn’t.
But in allegedly killing the innocent people he did he wasn’t taking on a powerful soon-to-be majority. Rather, on one side is the 28-year-old with all his political and social freedoms, and on the other are the shooting’s victims who were living their lives under significant political and social restraints. The spy agencies were dedicating their resources to “Islamic terrorism”, not the alleged shooter’s terrorism. Police commit more resources to “street gangs” – that is, Māori – and barely even bother with the alleged shooter’s brothers and sisters in white power. The immigration department, as any anecdote can confirm, focuses disproportionate attention on non-white entries, and the only people who move freely between borders are people like the 28-year-old.
In short: non-white people live their lives under scrutiny and surveillance.
The government’s official response to the Christchurch shooting is to extend that scrutiny and surveillance to, well, white people. Jacinda Ardern is leading reforms to gun laws and the rules governing how online users share violent, racist, and other objectionable material. Last month the country’s top spies told a parliamentary select committee that they’re keeping watch on dozens of suspect characters. Police, even a year on, are still making home visits to destroy illegal weapons and otherwise interview lurkers and posters. The changes, taken together, rightly remove the freedom and options the alleged shooter had, and make it almost impossible for his comrades to organise.
Yet as good and necessary as those changes are some of the structural conditions that produce the racial distinctions the alleged shooter holds so dear are left intact.
In organised debating one of the famous moots is the “balloon debate”. In it each speaker, usually arguing on behalf of someone famous, proposes why the others shouldn’t toss him or her over the side of a hot air balloon in order to save the others. It’s a riveting hypothetical, placing six people in disaster’s mouth and exercising the collective choice to doom one and rescue the others. But for anyone who understands how it feels to have their apparent merits and demerits subject to “debate”, with someone else drawing up a balance sheet in red and black, it’s horrendous. The idea is we’re born equal, but after that all bets are off. This is what women, takatāpui, Māori, Muslims, and other deviations from the “norm” deal with most days.
Are we worthy?
It’s the same principle that organises immigration to New Zealand: who’s worthy? In our system the government literally attaches “points” to the world’s hopeful according to their potential for improving the lives of the hosts. Good English? Points. A tertiary qualification? Add to the tally. Assets? You’re basically in. The system’s political champions admire this approach for its rationality. Unlike the US where immigration sometimes relies on a lottery – eg the American Diversity Immigrant Visa – or just keen racism – i.e. the Muslim travel ban – New Zealand immigration is hassle-free and non-discriminatory.
It’s a self-serving argument, of course, because an immigration system where the purpose and function is defining inclusions and exclusions (who’s in and who’s out) is never neutral. When Winston Peters calls for tighter English language requirements, for example, that’s really an argument for conferring an advantage on applicants from the Anglosphere over people with equivalent skills or greater need from other parts of the world. This isn’t explicitly discriminatory, at least in the sense the exclusionary threshold doesn’t depend on a person’s race, but the impact is racist in that one group of people (mostly white) enjoy an advantage over another group (mostly non-white) thanks to nothing more than the great good fortune of being born an English speaker.
It’s a perversity. Yet this is what border systems, including our points system, do: they force you to think about inners and outers. The threshold between the worthy and the unworthy. This is one reason the refugee-led campaign to end the “family link policy” was so important. In removing the rule barring African and Middle Eastern refugees from settling in New Zealand (unless their family were already here) the campaigners saw to one of the worst racial exclusions our border system made. If you’re an optimist you might hope the other racist exclusions in our border laws – like The Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act, the legislation stripping Samoans of their Privy Council-confirmed New Zealand citizenship – are but a campaign away from abolition.
I’m a pessimist.
I suspect most people imagine borders as objects, a line in the ground demarcating our country from theirs. Yet the American southern border, as one example, is notable more for “the Wall’s” absence than its presence. The northern border is even less dramatic, a largely wide-open space with fences here and there to pen in the farm animals. In New Zealand airlines usually enforce the country’s borders thousands of kilometres from our actual line on the map. Under the Advance Passenger Screening programme carriers only board passengers with the appropriate documentation.
📷
A POLICE OFFICER DEMONSTRATES ILLEGAL GUN MODIFICATIONS. (PHOTO: RNZ / ANA TOVEY)
It’s another marvellous technocratic achievement, appointing airline staff as de facto border patrol agents. But like the points system the screening programme’s impacts can end up perverse and racial making it almost impossible for refugees and asylum seekers from “non-visa waiver countries” (i.e. the developing world) from ever making it far enough to lodge a claim for protection in New Zealand. The programme, more than anything else, exposes borders for what they really are – a list of biased inclusions and exclusions – and the structural violence borders perform are in whom they include (the English-speaking, the educated, the wealthy) and who they exclude (the desperate, the poor, the mostly brown and black).
The alleged shooter and the neo-fascist movement understand a struggle is happening over the nature and function of borders. This man recognised new borders – the “balkanisation of the US” – as the only way to guarantee “the future of the White race on the North American continent”. His comrades, like the neo-Nazi who went on a stabbing riot on a train in Oregon, claim their end goal is smashing the US into competing ethno-states. For them – and their king in President Trump – reconfiguring the borders, whether as policy changes to the inclusions and exclusions or new border lines entirely, is the best way to guarantee their political supremacy this century.
Are borders by their very nature racist?

4

I took my last trip to Christchurch a month and a half after March 15. I had a speaking engagement with Network Waitangi Otautahi, the local tauiwi Treaty group. I thought about putting it off. Post-March 15 the only conversations that seem urgent and necessary are about March 15. Taking up space felt wrong, and even stepping off the plane felt intrusive. The city was grieving. Even the affect was off. People were unusually quiet in public spaces. In private one person I spoke to was literally in tears. We weren’t talking about March 15 at all but she was thinking about it every day. Even that felt like I was taking up space. Am I here to grieve too? I thought about Sam Neill breaking down in a taxi when the news broke, openly weeping, and how he took comfort from his Muslim driver.
Hmmm.
I spoke, in the end. Not entirely comfortably, but an intervention of one kind or another felt right after the racism debate went from “individual hate” to “firearms access” to “the internet”. Each is its own valid connection, sure, but it felt as if all the most important connections were missing. In the English-speaking world it’s fashionable to name private, individual acts as “racist”. The intolerant, unfair, or simply racial things that fall out of people’s mouths. Like “cheeky darkies” on the 7pm telly. But it’s unfashionable, of course, to name racist systems. Instead bureaucrats and opinion-makers opt for euphemisms like “unconscious bias”, reducing racism to a state of mind and not a systemic design.
This is why I thought it important to issue a reminder, in the very small way that I could: racism is a social relation. It’s the principle governing the relationship between coloniser – the people who took this land and built the institutions to control and profit from it – and colonised, the people from whom the land was taken and the institutions built to protect and exploit the founding theft. The same principle shapes the relationship between citizens – people who enjoy all the rights the state confers – and non-citizens, outsiders who must prove their worth through their contribution to citizens.
📷
These are the systemic conditions that produce racism – unequal power relations – and it’s what makes it so easy to condemn the Māoris or the immigrants or whoever else. When one people are up and the other are down, and the scales are apparently resistant to any remedial attempts to balance them with Treaty settlements or an increase in the refugee and asylum seeker quota, it makes it seem as if their disadvantage is a state of nature and not a centuries-long project to exclude certain people from prosperity. To the alleged shooter his victims were by their very nature irredeemable, abusing the West’s generosity, and he understood himself as enacting the same permanent exclusions his ancestors made, from the Crusades to the war on terror.
In this sense, the alleged shooter was an individual racist. Of course he was. But in another sense he was taking our exclusionary systems to their logical end.
Is there any response to savagery like this? The government’s reforms are one. I entirely support them. And yet they fall so short. People will still define their identity in different nationalisms, just like the alleged shooter did, so long as there are racist border system to enforce them. Neo-fascists will still define their identities against women as long as there is an unequal “domestic sphere”, an unequal workplace, and a society where one group – men – accumulate and exercise disproportionate power over another – women, trans people, non-binary people. That makes the struggle against the alleged shooter’s politics longer than his trial, his probable conviction, and his probable imprisonment. It’s a generations-long struggle to destroy all the exclusions that make up our society and produce the conditions we know as racism.
On my read Simone Weil’s original, vital insight is that as people and communities we find our identities in the obligations we owe – and in the obligations owed to us. In those reciprocal relationships we find meaning and purpose. In the give and take, in its delights and frustrations, and in the everyday work of making a home in these islands. This is where we find our roots, connecting to each other in different ways – whether as Māori or women or Muslims – but never excluding. “They are us” is an inclusion. They are us is an affirmation. They are us is also an urgent and uncomfortable call to action. As New Zealanders, it’s our responsibility to take on every exclusionary system, whether it’s racist borders or enduring gender roles. The memory of those who lost their lives on March 15 demands no less."
submitted by lolpolice88 to Maori [link] [comments]

Overwatch Survey 2017 Results!

Hi guys, first off I just wanna say a huge thank you to you all for taking part in the survey! I was aiming for 5,000 within a week and we got 10,000 in less than 48 hours! I closed the survey off at 10,013 responders – sorry to all who didn’t get to take part, there will be more!
Here is the information in a very simplified format. If you would like any more specifics please just ask below and I will try my best to help!
Thank you all for taking part – hope you enjoyed it and hope you find some interest in the results!
Please note – This information is not a representation of the entire Overwatch community/player base, but is a somewhat good indication of the users who frequent this Sub. Even so, there 10,000 responses while there are over a million subscribers so take the information with a grain of salt. Make of the following information what you will!
Results are posted in order of most votes, second most, third most and least due to time constraints. I will post more later along with the actual raw data.
UPDATE: Sorry it took so long, but here is a spreadsheet of all 10,013 responses for whoever is interested. Again guys, thanks for taking part! Link: https://goo.gl/JQgR54
Gender
Age
Region
Purchased Overwatch:
Platforms:
Statements on Sexism/Racism/Homophobia
Current Level
Most Played Hero
Favourite Hero
Class which needs a hero the most (even when Moira is considered)
Class least fun to play
Most played Game Mode
Most popular Skill Rating
Favourite Arcade Mode
Would you consider playing Arcade even after you get all your loot boxes?
Favourite Assault Map
Favourite Hybrid Map
Favourite Escort Map
Favourite Control Map
Favourite Arcade Map
Favourite Event
Loot Boxes Purchase Frequency
Loot Boxes average spend per transaction
Overwatch Improved in Year 2?
Overwatch community improved in Year 2?
Season Length - too long?
Would you like a Clan System?
More options to spend Competitive Points on?
Is content released at a reasonable pace?
Would you consider paying for an expansion including an array of maps, characters, cosmetics, game modes or Story?
Would you like to see an Overwatch animated mini-series/movie?
Would you like an Overwatch story mode?
Have you lost interest since purchasing?
Do you follow Overwatch ESports
Console players, do you want a PTR?
Top 3 most recommended features – excluding Clans & Story Mode
Feature Most Needed right now?
submitted by apagandolasluces to Overwatch [link] [comments]

The road to Brexit - a personal journey

Brexit. How did it come to this? As someone who was conflicted about the vote and who attempted to weigh up the arguments rationally, I would like to offer to the readers of reddit, a personal story of how my thinking evolved in the lead up to the vote, how I voted, and how my thoughts have developed since then.
Rather than post a one-sided polemic, justifying a particular view, I want here to present my thoughts as accurately as I can describe them, including nuances and doubts along the way. That probably means I'll end up getting criticism from both sides - but perhaps some people might be interested and appreciate it. So, here goes...
About Me
Demographic information: white male, 40s. Rural working class by family background; middle class by education and profession.
Voting affiliation: usually Conservative; formerly Liberal Democrat.
Background
I was never enthusiastic about the idea of the European Union, but rather saw it as a means to ensure trade and co-operation on a practical level. Certainly if you'd asked me 10 years ago, I would have argued that it's better to stay in to try to influence it for the better. But over the years, I had become less certain of this view, due to seemingly one-way ever-increasing centralization in the EU, towards something more akin to the United States. Actually worse, as I can foresee the EU taking more power from member states than does the US federal government, in some areas this is already the case in fact. At least the US has the 10th Amendment. But despite this strong skepticism of the EU institutions, I've always seen the other European countries as friendly, important allies, and want to see good trading, personal and cultural relationships across the continent of Europe. Therein lies my conflict.
Influencing factors
  1. The Euro. A single currency for the whole of Europe! What could possibly go wrong? As we know, plenty did go wrong. Perhaps this was the first indicator that something was seriously wrong at the heart of the EU project. It seemed to confirm a suspicion: that the philosophy of centralization and political integration was more important than practical economics. A generation of EU politicians, who so believed in the project, seemed to have allowed their utopian vision to override practical, pragmatic considerations. Furthermore, as the EU gets ever increasing powers, it will inevitably be run more in the interests of Euro members. As a non-Euro member, the UK would be particularly exposed to being forced into things against its national interest.
  2. Government by continent. I am in favour of international trade and co-operation. But I really don't see why this has to be done to such a large extent at continent level. The idea of the EU seems to be predicated on having strong border on the outside and you're either in it or out of it. Sure, on a practical level, there may be some need for some Europe-wide institutions, and there are plenty of EU agencies that I'd be happy to part of. But for me the EU goes way beyond what is necessary or desirable. My preferred model would be less tied to continental masses. Especially when it comes to western democracies: I see no reason why links with Canada or Australia must necessarily be lesser than those with European countries. I am also skeptical of the need or benefit of a "European identity" that is distinct from people in other continents. Like how UKIP supporters are sometimes branded "little Englanders", I think that fanatical EU supporters can equally be branded "little Europeaners".
  3. Localism. I am in favour of the decisions in general being taken and the most local level that makes practical sense. Indeed, the UK itself is too centralized too, and I would welcome more powers for cities and counties. Despite any claims to the contrary, the EU can and does make laws on things that could easily be left with member sates. The mantra is harmonisation, but that might be just another way of saying centralized control. Some things will necessarily require international bodies to decide upon, but where this is necessary, in many cases it might make more sense to have global bodies rather than continental ones.
  4. The votes for prisoners judgement by the ECHR. It might seem esoteric - and before people jump in to say it: yes I know the ECHR is not an EU institution. But there was a lesson to be learned here, so let me explain. This was an outrageous decision and an affront to democracy. I was disgusted. Not just at the decision, which was offensive enough, but at the fact that there was apparently nothing that could be done about it. A court had ruled it, so that was that. In my view, the UK should have immediately left the ECHR in protest at this decision. Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of human rights law, and would happily subscribe to the basic text of European Convention on Human Rights. But what we had here was unaccountable judges overstepping their remit into areas of political policy, without being subject to democratic accountability: If it had been a UK judge, at least the Parliament could subsequently change the law. What this case showed to me, more than anything, was the absolute and critical importance of sovereignty and democratic accountability in a political system. While the ECHR might be relatively easily ignored for now, clearly this represents a danger: future outrageous judgements, perhaps next time by the ECJ, would be binding. So while not directly an EU issue, this case for me was critical in developing my thinking about questions of sovereignty.
  5. The awkward UK. It always seems to be that we are the ones that are holding things in the EU back. Personally, I can't really understand why other countries seem happy to subordinate themselves. But if that's what they want, maybe we should just get out of the way and let them get on with it. On the other hand, by staying in, perhaps we could find common cause with others to offer a different vision for Europe - one that is more strictly limited to the practical needs of co-operation over trade.
The lead up to the vote
When the referendum was announced, I wasn't clear how I would vote. I decided I would wait and see what David Cameron came back with after negotiating a so-called "reformed EU" package. Sadly, the answer was not much. Even in the face of one if its biggest members and contributors having serious doubts about even remaining a member, the inflexibility and zeal from the EU was undiminished. They were willing to call our bluff.
I listened to the debates. Both campaigns in truth were awful. Whether it was the £350 million we send to the EU, or the £4300 a year worse off, there were stupid statistics being thrown around on both sides. The one thing that cut through was the "take back control" message. The reason this resonated, in my view, was that is crystallised in a neat phrase the pre-existing concerns over the sovereignty question.
Apart from the fears that the economy would be worsened if we left, I don't remember a single convincing pro-EU argument being made from the Remain side. It might be have been put: "Vote Remain - the EU is a necessary evil"!
If we were to Leave, I could see, there would be short term uncertainty and turmoil, and it would give the politicians on both sides of the channel a big headache. On the other hand, if we were to Remain, the forces in favour of centralizing the EU would see it as tacit approval for their plans. Still, leaving outright felt too extreme to me, too drastic. I was also put off by some of the more strident anti-immigration messages that were coming from certain Leave extremists, but there were plenty of mainstream politicians arguing what seemed to be a reasonable case for Leave (and I'm not counting Boris in that list). I found myself wishing there were another other alternative, a middle ground. But, it was a binary choice, so I had to pick a side.
What should I do? In the end, I couldn't see how I could vote for doing nothing, which is what a Remain vote would be. A message had to be sent. Even if, as the polls were saying, Remain would win, a very close result might at least act as a warning.
The day of the vote
With some mixed feelings, I voted Leave.
The immediate aftermath
Watched the results coming in with some surprise, to say the least! Did I feel happy or joyful that my "side" had won? No, not really. I felt trepidation. Had I done the right thing? In truth, I wasn't sure. But, had I voted Remain and that side had won, I'm sure I would have felt a different set of anxieties - the consequence of having a vote where neither option is entirely satisfactory. The trouble with being on the winning side, is you are then partly responsible for what follows. There is a certain joyful freedom about being on the losing side - you can take the moral high ground at anything that goes wrong subsequently. Still, I did have a sense of optimism that despite the initial upheaval, a new beginning where the country reconnects more directly to the wider world was possible.
Events since the vote
There have been two events since the referendum that have caused me to question my vote:
  1. Calling the 2017 general election. I am completely with Brenda from Bristol here. Having triggered Article 50, you would think the government would have been fully concentrating on the exit process and preparing a sensible new arrangement. But no, instead Mrs May decides to put selfish party advantage before that of the country. Although I was angry about that, I still voted Conservative, as the best hope for a decent Brexit deal.
  2. The election of Donald Trump. What a disaster: America first, protectionism, and anti-free trade. My Leave vote had been in large part to have more global links and co-operation, but now this vision seemed a lot less likely. Leave and Trump voters are often mentioned in the same sentence, but my definition of Leave is virtually the complete opposite of Trump's policies.
Current state of play
So how do I feel now? I still hope that a decent deal can be found that maximises trade and co-operation, but at a level that the UK as a whole feels comfortable with, both Leave and Remain voters. However I have my doubts, the referendum has opened up a cultural division that I don't see disappearing even after Brexit is complete. The whole country is still polarized as ever, and the issue has now become a matter of political identity - something I regret.
Unsurprisingly, the EU institutions are intransigent and inflexible as ever, so getting a decent deal is not going to be easy. Does that mean Brexit should be cancelled and revert to the status quo? I don't see how that can happen either, the mistrust and negative feeling toward the EU institutions has only grown, and I wouldn't feel optimistic about that option either - the issues outlined above with the EU would still be there if we remained in on the same terms.
In summary, I still have some hope that Leave will turn out to be the best long-term option, given the unfortunate binary nature of the vote, but wish a different solution could have been found - a genuinely reformed EU - that would have avoided having the vote in the first place, and potentially have been a more satisfactory outcome all round.
Phew, that about sums it all up. Thanks for reading this long post.
Edit: Some have asked me about the future arrangement and what kind of deal I think there should be, so I'm going to add a new section:
Future
I support the ongoing negotiations, and subscribe neither to the "relax, everything will be great" blind optimism of some Brexiteers, nor the "everything will be disaster, cancel it at once" cries of some Remainers. I think in the end, if a sensible compromise is found, it'll probably be less of a big deal than people are expecting. People will adapt to the new system and carry on as normal.
As a mere layperson I can't say exactly what I think the deal should be, but my desire for us to be more interconnected directly with the wider world necessitates leaving the customs union - otherwise, there isn't really any point in Brexit at all! I am open to exploring EFTA-style arrangements though if they can be made fair to both sides.
The atmosphere is tense at the moment but I think we all need to take a breath, remain calm, and hold our nerve, and then assess the final deal (both economic and sovereignty-wise) once negotiations are complete.
submitted by shieldofsteel to ukpolitics [link] [comments]

FULL Patch Notes Live transcript from PDXCon, featuring CK2, EU4, HoI4, and Stellaris!

TIDINGS FROM CRUSADER KINGS II, PATCHES 2.8.1 AND 2.8.2

TIDINGS FROM EUROPA UNIVERSALIS IV, PATCH 1.25.1

TIDINGS FROM HEARTS OF IRON IV, PATCH 1.5.1 and 1.5.2

TIDINGS FROM STELLARIS PATCH 2.0.1 and 2.0.2

AND NOW, SOME NEVER BEFORE RELEASED PATCH NOTES FROM DISTANT STARS AND THE 2.1 “NIVEN” PATCH!
THANK YOU!
submitted by AsaTJ to paradoxplaza [link] [comments]

[CiV VI] I've compiled my Ideas, and many of those I found throughout the sub, to create the ultimate Civ VI wishlist!

I appologize in advance as this post is offensively long. I mean, it's 5000 words with no TL:DR, so abandon all hope all ye who enter. I believe it covers all of the most common suggestions, and I've tried to make it all a little bit more out-there for the sake of flavour, but alas, please roast me merrily and have a lively discussion in the comments! Without further ado...
Musings; Ultimate edition
Tile Improvements
Transport
-4 Transport Improvements; Road, Railway, Highway and Maglev. These all have some difference in kind.
-Roads are the cheapest and the lowest tech, working much as they do in Civ V, but boosting yield on some adjacent improvements such as trading posts/towns.
-Railways have a limit on their distance from cities; about 5 tiles in the industrial era, increasing to 7 in the modern. This forces players to build cities closer together, and build the correct improvements, but railway benefits scale with population and aren't usable by enemy combatants.
-Highways work like a straight upgrade of roads, except they allow cities within 5 tiles along a highway to pool food and production yields, but produces 'pollution', which reduces "health".
-Maglev is a funky one for tech focused Civilizations. A maglev network connecting cities, irrespective of length, pools population(citizens available to work buildings), pools production and boosts science yield in both cities by ~30%, but otherwise functions like an expensive railway. Costs "energy" as well as about 4 gold per turn per tile.
-Rivers work like roads, but with no maintenance and provide gold. Great rivers allow ships to sail through. Workers can eventually dig canals which act as artificial great rivers, and tunnels can be bored through mountains through which Railways, Highways and Maglev can travel.
-Le Mountain Tunnels and pontoon bridges/undersea tunnels.
Yield Improvements
-Farms, Wells, Mines, Lumber mills, Plantations, Pastures, Camps and Quarries all work much the same as before, however Mines, Wells and Quarries produce 'pollution' as well as production.
-Windmills and Watermills(by rivers), which can be built on top of Farms and Plantations, provide a small yield of production at no 'pollution' cost. Upon research of "Electricity", they produce an "energy" yield.
-Once "Mechanization" technology is researched, the citizen assigned to a farm or plantation can be replaced with "energy" from appropriate buildings and improvements. The same is true for Mines, Wells and Quarries upon researching "Automation".
-Wells can be built to provide adjacent tiles with fresh water.
-Cottages double gold yield from surrounding tiles, provide 1 gold themselves. +1 gold with "Economics". Grow into Villages and then Towns which provide 3 gold base, 1 science, 1 production and 1 "energy", reduce crime and increase health.
Strategic/Military Improvements
-Forts can't be entered by enemy units without attacking. Area around forts are considered area of control, and give a land claim for a casus belli. Can upgrade to a military base, giving it an aircraft capacity and healing adjacent friendly units.
-Add sentry turrets, which are effectively stationary units which can attack enemy units. Available on Ballistics, can upgrade on Robotics to attack autonomously, Rocketry to be able to fire rockets to destroy tanks.
-Can build walls which provide a combat bonus to units inside, and drain movement points, as well as "outposts" which heal units in adjacent tiles.
-Some units can build trenches and lay mines(requires "Gunpowder") which provide a defensive bonus/act as traps.
Cities and Colonies
-Global happiness replaced with city level "health" and "stability", which affect growth, "bandit" spawn rates and likelihood of rebellions. A city with very low/negative health has a chance of spawning a plague, which behaves almost like a Civ V religion, spreading to other cities via pressure from proximity and trade routes, however plagues can also infect units adjacent to an infected city, which can then infect other cities and units and so on and so forth. Stability is reduced the greater the minimum travel time from the capital to that city.
-Workers can build districts adjacent to the original cities, which act as an extension of the city, reducing "crime", increasing "health", as well as allowing that city to build contextual buildings and units of the suburb's tile. If the population of a city grows too large without extra districts then 'health' and 'stability' decreases, spawning "slums" which in turn spawn bandits. The district can be specialized to be a stability boosting suburbs, health boosting parks, production boosting fabrics/shipyards, money boosting financial districts, culture boosting theatre districts, science boosting science parks and (upon researching hydroponics) food boosting vertical farms. If you play it smart, you can build 10 tile, 100+ pop megapoli by the end of the game.
-From the renaissance era, 'colonists' (super-fast, cheap settlers) can found "colonies" as well. Colonies increase cost of techs and policies by ~75% less than normal cities and grow twice as fast, but have much less defence. They can't (initially) build any buildings, nor build units with production, but can spawn militiamen and mercenaries. All of their production goes into "levelling-up" the colony, from 0 up to 20~25, having at around level 15 the option to turn it into a proper city. At each level you are presented with a "random" dynamic event and options on how to handle it; the options you choose affect the direction your colony takes and the characteristics it has. For example; "Catholic refugees fleeing the Malian inquisition are huddled outside the gates, what is our course of action? Do we; let them in (+1 population, -1 health, +2 diplomacy FP), turn them away (-1 diplomacy FP, +2 food), or offer them refuge in exchange for military service (+1 military FP, a maintenance free unit appears, -1 food). By level 25, 25 of these decisions could have been made, and the colony would have an array of special attributes. But high level colonies would carry a large risk of spawning rebel units, so it's worth converting them to cities (which start with an array of buildings) anyway.
Diplomacy
-Casus Belli system; common complaint, common answer. Appropriate and adapt from paradox games. Potential cases include land claim (using forts and spies), espionage offence, liberation (low approval), holy war, ideological conflicts, imperial conquest, resource acquisition, diplomatic offence et cetera. All of these will reduce warmonger penalties with certain Civs for certain actions but aren't a get away with murder card.
-Ultimata; Currently, there is no facility to threaten other civilizations. Ultimata remedy this and work thus; I demand something from another Civ in exchange for NOT declaring war. If they refuse the I automatically declare war on the next turn.
-A focus points system. Civ actions, such as War, Threats, Wonders, Technologies, Trades, Quests and Civics earn focus points in Science, Economy, Religion, Culture, Military or Diplomacy; These give diplomacy bonuses, allow access to special quests, and allow special actions.
-Taunt leaders back. This can give focus points.
-7 types of non Civ actors; City-States, Nations, Tribes, Corporations(get to that later), Rebels(Specific-Hostile) and "Barbarians/Bandits"(Hostile).
-City-States work much like they do in 5, except gold gifts are worth much less, and special quests and focus points are worth much more, and influence is instead 'spent' in order to gain things like world congress votes. Any allied city state can eventually be incorporated fully as a city. Eg. Florence, Milan, Singapore, Monaco, Malta, Honkers, Samarqand, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Ife, Great Zimbabwe, Mombasa, Zanzibar etc. Limited to ~9 tiles.
-Nations are like stripped down Civilizations; a halfway house between city states and full blown Civs. Limited to 4 cities, which must be contiguous, they offer a medium for proxy wars, advanced diplomacy, breakaway states and buffer states. They also conveniently add filler to the map, and can represent small or "failed" nations. eg. Scotland, Texas, California, Belgium, Wallachia, Aragon, Manchuria, New Zealand etc.
-Tribes are an overhaul of Barbarians; Instead of automatically hostile units spawning from encampments, tribes act sort of like city states with no cities. They have territory, in which they have villages which occasionally spawn primitive military units and only primitive military units. There are no penalties for entering tribal territory as long as you aren't seen by any units, and you can even settle on top of their land. However, within these lies a moral choice; do you overpower tribes and take their land or try and bargain with and incorporate them peacefully?
-Rebels are units which spawn in cities with a low 'stability' stat, and are always hostile to the Civ in which they are spawned. The 'strife' can be increased by enemy spies, ideology, large numbers of unemployed citizens and lack of gold/science buildings. If rebels capture a city, then they make a new 'Nation' or city state which can be bargained with like any other.
-"Bandits" are the new Barbs, but as well as spawning in encampments they spawn in slums in civilized territory in response to overcrowding. They are more money focused in that any tile with a bandit unit on it yields negative gold per turn, and will set up their own improvements such as traps and dens. Can perhaps change name based on era and context (eg. Barbarian, Bandit, Pirate, Terrorist, Savage, Gangster, Mobster, Highwaymen etc).Their spawn rate inside Civs is reduced by presence of police buildings.
-InfoAddict style information screens. Graphs for days! Also displayed are opinion modifiers, and the factors determining whether a Civ will accept any particular deal. Less hidden mechanics.
-Ideology has more impact on diplomacy, with significantly different mechanics associated with each (get to that later), and being an extremely significant maker and breaker of relationships.
-Add Chemical, Biological and Radiological weapons which carry a very significant diplomacy penalty, along with nukes.
-One can choose to disobey resolutions or leave the world congress, incurring a large diplomatic penalty.
-Establish pacts with nations and city states.
-Can buy tiles from other actors.
Tech
-A less linear tech tree, starting off with a "core" set of techs arranged as they are but with cul-de-sac "branches" coming out of later eras, offering interesting technologies; broadly on spectrum from futuristic to retro-futuristic. The techs that all players need would all be in the core so they didn't have to specialize too much, but there would necessarily be a lot more techs. The ones further out on branches would only really useful for players either aiming for a Science victory or aiming for a specific bonus.
-Civs are able to divide research, researching multiple techs at the same time, utilizing special specialists (heh) called scientists. Much like trade routes in BNW, each era would allow a certain base number of scientists, and then things such as wonders, city states, research agreements, social policies and such would add on to that. Scientists would each be able to research one tech at a time, but multiple scientists (up to -3~4) could be set to research the same tech at an accelerated rate. The rate at which scientists could research stuff will depend on several factors. Each could utilize the entire Civ's global science output, in addition to their home cities' science output and more beakers proportional to extra allocated gold. Scientists would be based in a specific city, and would use up ~3 food, ~3 base gold, and require certain buildings to be able to research techs at certain levels; Libraries for anything beyond the Ancient Era, A University for anything beyond Medieval, A Laboratory for anything beyond Industrial and so on. It would be most efficient to put lots in your capital, but you wouldn't necessarily have the food to do this. Having lots of extra scientists would not be worth the effort if you don't want to have a science victory, and having lots impairs your Civ in other ways. This is an effective nerf to tech, which otherwise is inherently OP.
-New science buildings, such as Particle Accelerators, University Hospitals, Pharmacy-labs, Space-centres and the such in the late game. These would allow new lines of the tech tree, as well as providing bucket-loads of science, for a high price.
-'Rationalism' perhaps split into two different policy branches, Rationalism and Ingenuity. Rationalism is best for tall/tech defence, augmenting the ability of cities to make and use science. Ingenuity best for wide, improving use of strategic resources and reverse engineering other Civs tech i.e. tech offense.
-Research agreements allow one Civ greatly accelerated research into techs already researched by the other Civ, and a boost in global science output equal to that of the smaller Civ, and a two-for-one (maintenance wise) on two of their own scientist. When the agreement ends both players get a one-time tech boost.
-High level spies can be used to take enemy scientists during a time of war.
-Being allied with city states and minor nations allows you to initiate research agreements with them free of gold charge.
-11/12 eras: Ancient, Archaic?? , Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial, Modern, Atomic, Information, Genetic/Space and Synthetic eras. Science and Diplomacy win in Synthetic. Cultural in Genetic at earliest. Domination is Domination.
-Revamped Science Victory. Perhaps, Instead of building a spaceship using Information era tech, you have to do special quests. Maybe upon researching a tech in the core of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment , you are alerted to the presence of a special quest for you to follow, and that other such quests are available upon researching specific technologies, which are located far out in the branches of subsequent eras, where non-science Civs daren't tread. The quests could range from "complete this national wonder", to "City state X has this item, acquire by any means necessary", to "Conduct a special research mission at X location". These quests would give special rewards, but would also give you items (all of which) you need to complete the science victory, possibly with an interstellar mission, maybe first contact, possibly artificial intelligence, I don't know. Stick with tradition; an interstellar mission.
-More rubber banding in tech. "Core" technologies that have already been discovered by a met civilization will take ~40% less time to research, and units have a chance of "discovering" a technology when killing advanced enemy units or taking the city of a technologically superior foe.
Late Game Horrors
-Endgame apocalypse scenarios. In the late atomic era players would be notified of the possibility of a coming endgame scenario. There would be a set number of scenarios that would be presented, each with a different probability of advancing. The scenarios would begin at the start of the Information era and progress through different levels of increasingly severe effects. There would be runaway global warming with rising sea levels, desertification, flooding and such the like. A new ice age with falling sea levels, glaciations, deforestation, ecological collapse and so on. Then there could be Atmospheric Toxicity with algae blooms, poison winds, ozone holes and other ghastly stuff. Players can then either concentrate efforts to reverse the cataclysm, to the joy of weaker Civs and nations; or simply withstand it, much to the dismay of those you could help, using dome cities and similar. Perhaps persuading other Civilizations, Nations and City States to unite in efforts to prevent the cataclysm could become the new diplomatic victory. Beats buying city states.
-Nukes become far more terrifying. Each nuke deployed would advance the endgame scenario significantly. To add to this, one nuke hit would turn any city district into a "Nuclear ruins" which spawns special Barbarian units called "Antmen", which drain health of all adjacent units and city districts. Fallout would prevent any food yield and pillage all tiles affected. Some splotches of fallout may end up all over the world in random places.
-Nukes could be set to Dead Man's switch, meaning any nuclear attack on that Civilization would cause any nukes set to dead man's switch to fire at the belligerent's cities
Civics and Social Policies
-Add the quest system from IV and BE, as well as the quest decisions and such from the above two games and a splash of random event decisions from paradox.
-In addition to Social Policies like in Civ V, have Civics which are a set of Binary choices taken ~2 times per era. These would be things like: Collectivism versus Individualism and Citizen Army (low maintenance) versus Mercenary (low production) in the early game, and Religious School versus Secular School in the late era, for example. These are the things ingrained into your Civ's culture.
-Civs are given a "home turf" bonus depending on the terrain they spawn in. A Civ that spawns with more than 12 hills or desert tiles etc. within 3 tiles of the capital will gain a combat bonus and yield boosts relevant to that terrain type.
-Ideologies, like those in BNW, stay, along with their "tenets". However, a new layer is added; "Internal Diplomacy" including an 'Election/Party' system for freedom, a 'Soviet' system for order and a 'Faction' system for autocracy.
-In Civs following freedom, every few turns there would be an "Election" which would give 3 different parties, loosely modeled around Traditionalists/Conservatives, Liberals and Populists/Socialists, a certain amount of weighting/representation. Any particular action would have a certain approval with each party, and total approval (from all parties) gives bonuses or penalties. If total approval is at +80 then you are effectively in a mini Golden age. Less than -50 then you face civil disobedience and mass protest. For example, if you want to raise taxes, a large number of "traditionalists/conservatives" will make you pay, while a large number of "populists/socialists" will cheer you along. The representation of each party is dependent on several factors; large numbers of faith buildings and religious followers will help "traditionalism", culture buildings and high GPT would boost "liberalism", lots of factories or poor GPT helps "populism/socialism", gold buildings reduce "populism/socialism", and a Random Number Generator throws a boon to anyone going every few turns when there's an "election". The weighting of the RNG also throws back to the civics/social policies one takes in the early game; tradition helps traditionalists, liberty helps liberals and so on. Other social policies may change the Parties' opinions on certain actions; honour, for example, reduces opposition to war.
-Order Civs have three 'soviets' in place of parties; Industrial workers (hammer), Agrarian Peasants (sickle) and Intellectuals (pen). Any action you take will reduce or increase "contentment" of each 'soviet'. Contentment of peasants affects food/growth, Industrial affects production/gold, and Intellectual affects science/culture. There are no 'elections' as with freedom, but weighting of the three soviets will depend on the amount of farms, factories and universities; if you don't have any farmers on the land you don't have to pander so much. Every ~10 turns, each soviet will set a quest (5-year-plan) such as: build a university in every city of population >6, secure a source of 6 unique luxuries, gain 10 population in X city and so on. Fulfilling these objectives will gain a boost to yields relevant to the soviet, as well as a quest decision, whilst their contentment will decrease if you fail the objective. Whilst at war these objectives are suspended. If you consistently succeed, gaining contentment and Great person points, then you get special great people called "Stakhanovites". Peasant Stakhanovites can found "ration" districts which expand the closest cities workable radius by one tile around them and boost growth by ~35%. Worker Stakhanovites can found "studio" districts which produce 10 hammers and increase build rate off units or buildings by 30%, and Intellectual Stakhanovites can produce a "Institute" district which boosts city science by 50% and culture by 40%, and gives a free scientist. They can also be expended to found a city with a full suite of growth, production or science buildings, or can found 'Order' corporations. Using Stakhanovites gives massive boosts to tourism, stability and "contentment" of the soviets.
-Autocracy Civs instead must accommodate three 'factions'; the Generals, the Oligarchs and the Ministry. This, necessarily, is quite different to the others. The Generals become restless after long periods of peace, potentially sparking rebellions and mutiny, and so Autocratic states must be at war regularly or else the generals will reduce production, stability and culture. If one fails to acquire new resources and expand gold yields then gold, science and health are massively reduced. The Ministry is responsible for counter intelligence success and food yields, and failing to chastise offending civilizations and build new units causes growth to stunt, stability to decrease and spies to begin leveling down. Autocracy Civs can however by default work a greater radius around their cities, have no penalty for annexing territory, and get replacement workers called Labour Fronts which are quicker, pay no unit maintenance and can fight as a melee unit if enemy soldiers are within the Civ's territory. These are earned through keeping the ministry happy, along with bonuses to great people generation and shorter periods of resistance in captured cities. Keeping the generals happy provides combat bonuses, as well as increased stability and spawning of "Troopers" which are up to date military units free of maintenance with a combat bonus against rebels, enemy units in friendly territory, and units belonging to Nations and City States. Keeping the oligarchy happy will result in the spawn of Autocratic Corporations, and will give conquered cities free gold buildings.
Corporations
-Corporations behave like little city states (with no territory or cities), and can undertake many different projects with you. Depending on the corporation, they may be able to research technologies which you can then use, build buildings in your cities (some of which are unobtainable any other way), build and maintain improvements (some of which, again, are unique to corporations), spawn unique great people, field a private military/security force to use against barbarians, man culture buildings, establish trade routes and practically anything else. There are several types; tech-based corporations which help with science and give scientists, entertainment/travel corporations which help with culture and tourism, manufacturers which boost production etc. The catch is that you must attract corporations to set up in your cities by following policies which are friendly to them (low taxes) and having buildings and improvements which help them, such as banks and stock exchanges. Tech corporations want universities and labs, Pharmaceutical corporations want lots of unimproved tiles (especially jungle). Trade agreements and diplomacy also attract corporations and allow corporations to operate in multiple Civs to share luxuries, gold, science and culture; however the majority of the benefits go to the Civ with the corporate headquarters. Of course, different ideologies and tenets will be able to reap the benefits of corporations more efficiently. Freedom Civs are the natural choice for taking advantage of corporations, whilst Order Civs have a much harder time; they can only gain their own corporations using special great people. The rough order is; Freedom (Optimal), Freedom, Order (Optimal), Autocracy (Optimal), Autocracy, Order. With the right tenets, Order is decent for Corporations (China), whereas Autocracy locks you in to a kind of Autarky, whereby corporations are nigh impossible to attract if not created by Oligarchs.
Gameplay Tweaks
-Maps are largetiles are smaller; allow Civs to build extremely dense populations without feeling cramped. Countries such as the Netherlands, or England, if put directly into Civ V would effectively be 10 tiles of nothing but cities.
-The vast number of notifications you get when it comes to the late game would be condensed into a "newspaper" which can be opened up and browsed for updates, rather than crowding your screen. Stories could be things like: "Owing to brilliant contributions to the research of Theology, Gottfried Leibniz has emerged as one of Medieval America's greatest Scientists!" and "King Alexander of Greece has completed the construction of his great Porcelain Tower!".
-Ranged Units, Civilian Units, Infantry Units and Cavalry/Siege Units can fit on different "layers" in each tile. Each unit more than the 1st uses 1 food. If they consume more food than the tile can provide, and they are outside the workable radius of a non-starving friendly city, then they suffer attrition damage.
-Addition of more Biomes. Gameplay-wise, there would only be the usual terrain types. However, some forests may appear as bamboo forests, some marshes as swamps or fens, some deserts have red sand and cacti etc.
-Upgrade route for Scouts, going to Explorers and Recon units, as well as Snipers. Along with this: more customizability, and take out the "Great War" units, or put them earlier. Replace them with cold war era units, like Vulcan bombers, MIGs, "Choppers" etc.
-Allow helicopter units to land between turns, allowing them to "refuel". Also allow air unit's like bombers to conduct a "Hail Mary", doubling range and damage but destroying the unit, with a chance of recovering the "pilots" for quicker replacement.
-Incorporate the quest system/binary choices into religion: poly vs monotheistic etc. Just more customization in general. Allow cults to be founded with leftover beliefs once at the enlightenment era.
Espionage (Shout-out to litriod)
-If you put a "spy" into one of your own cities, they become an Agent, which work much like Civ V spies who are set to Counter-Intelligence. They will hunt foreign Spies in the city you send them to, but they won't necessarily kill them when they find them. Instead you are given several actions to choose from; Kill the Spy and send them back to their homeland as a warning, resulting in their leader disliking you, but other nations will then dislike them for spying on people. You can also send them home unharmed, and chastise their government for spying on you making the other Civ like you more for sparing their spy, but they'll send more your way in the future. Or you could allow the Spy to continue their job, with a catch; The Spy's government must pay you gold, you gain some of their intelligence, but the Spy will continue Spying on your people, and your Agent will not level up from the incident.
-When you place a spy to a Friendly Civ's city, they become a Diplomat. Diplomats aren't hidden like Spies, and the foreign government always knows their location. Diplomats give you the ability to see all of the territory owned by the city they're in, not just the two rings around the city. Diplomats will also receive information from officials about events in their empire, working like the Spy's surveillance ability. However, the foreign officials won't give you unlimited Intel, and will inform you if they're plotting against you. Diplomats can allow you to trade World Congress votes with the nation in which they're operating, and each Diplomat you field will give you 1 bonus vote in the World Congress. When war is declared on the civilization housing the diplomat, they may be killed in the crossfire, and your Diplomats are at constant risk of assassination.
-Spies placed in a Neutral Civilization's city become, well, Spies. Spies work much as they currently do: they do shady things under cover, and they risk getting caught and treated by the other player much as you could've treated theirs, but you can of course sacrifice your spy and not pay the tribute if they offer you such. Spies retain their previous abilities: stealing tech and surveillance, but also gain three new abilities; Assassination Sabotage and encouraging rebellion. Spies sent on assassination missions can kill Diplomats from other Civs. If you pull this off their home Civ will blame the civilization in which they had a diplomat, and if there are already tensions building this could start a war. Assassination is a dangerous business though, and you could fail in one of two ways. Either your spy could get caught, making both Civs distrust you, or your spy could fail to properly frame the host Civ, alerting both Civs to a plot but not telling them who by. After a successful or botched assassination, your Spy will flee the city to the Hideout for a turn or two. The second new ability is sabotage, which, if successful, delays that Civs current construction project for 2 turns. The third special ability of the Spy allows you to decease stability and increase the chance of a rebellion, requiring a decent amount of gold to send to the rebels, with greater amounts increasing rebellion chance. If they actually spawn, or are there already, you can still spend money to better equip the rebel units. All this can be a tad awkward if you are caught.
-"Spies" in cities of Guarded or Hostile Civilizations, even if you're currently at war with them, will retain the title of Spy. Spies placed in these cities have a larger risk of capture, but they also have more potential for chaos. They retain their previous abilities: surveillance, stealing tech, spreading discontent, sabotage, assassination etc. but they also gain abilities for their assassinations and sabotage. Spies in this situation can also kill Great People and VIPs; If a Great Person is present you can choose to attempt a strike, killing them if you succeed. Choosing to target a VIP will, if they succeed, result in loss of 1 population and reduce production and stability by about 10% for 5 turns. Spies can also start an insurgency, suppressing production and health, or steal scientists.
-When deploying "Spies" to a City state or Nation, you can set them either as Diplomats or Spies. They can do everything they could when in a proper Civ, but diplomats can trade technology, and "Shill" to increase influence/relations. Spies can Rig elections, increasing influence significantly, and also perform Coups d'état to either annex, puppet, change the ally (swap influence with the State's ally) or Change the ideology of the host State. Spies can also siphon off gold from said states.
-Of course, "spies" can all be leveled up in their different roles.
CIVS(must-haves marked with *)
Europe
*Great Britain- Victoria
*France- Napoleon/Louis XIV
*Rome- Augustus CaesaMarcus Aurelius
*Germany- Otto von Bismarck
*Russia- Catherine/Peter I
*Greece- Alexander
Picts- Nechtan
Spain- Isabella
Portugal- Maria I
Yugoslavia- Josip Broz Tito
Poland/Commonwealth- Sigismund II
Austria- Maria Theresa
Hungary- Coloman
Kievan Rus'- Yaroslav' I
Sweden- Gustav Adolf
Denmark/Vikings- Harald Blatand
Ottomans- Suleiman Kanuni
Armenia- Tigranes
Americas
*USA- Abraham Lincoln
Lakota- Crazy Horse
Iroquois- Hiawatha
Mississippians- Birdman?
Inuit- Mikak
Navajo- Chee Dodge
Ute- Chipeta
Mexico- Benito Juarez
Canada- John Macdonald
Shoshone- Pocatello
*Aztecs- Montezuma
Pacal-Maya
Haiti- Toussaint L'Ouverture
Gran Colombia- Simon Bolivar
Brazil- Pedro II
*Inca- Pachacuti
Argentina- Juan Manuel de Rosas
Africa
*Mali- Mansa Musa
*Egypt- Hatshepsut
*Zulu- Shaka
Ethiopia- Menelik II
South Africa- Nelson Mandela
Carthage- Dido/Hannibal
Morocco- Abdul Ghalib
Ashante- Osei Kofi Tutu
Bornu- Idris Alooma
Fulani- Bello
Kongo- Lukemi lua Nimi
Kitara- Ndahura
Asia
*Arabia- Muawiya I
Babylon- Nebuchadnezzar II
Hittites- Suppiluliuma
Israel- Solomon
*Persia- Cyrus
Mughals- Akbar
*India- Gandhi
Gurkani- Timur
*Mongolia- Genghis Khan
*China- Yong-le/Wu Xetian
*Japan- Meiji
Vietnam- Trung(s)
*Khmer- Jayavarman II
Indonesia- Hayam Wuruk/ Gajah Mada
Chola- Parantaka I
Tibet- Songtsen Gampo
Korea- Sejong
Siam- Taksin
Pacific
Australia- John Curtin
Maori- Te Rauangaanga
Philippines- Dayang Kalangitan
Polynesia- Kamehameha
End
So, now that's all done. Now to the arguments!
submitted by voggers to civ [link] [comments]

AUGUST 2020 TARGET WD LIMIT $5000 TRADING BINARY.COM BINARY OPTIONS STRATEGY - Easy Binary Options Strategy 2020. Regulated Binary Options Brokers Australia - HighLow Broker Review The Binary Lab - YouTube Binary Options Trading Software Development Solutions  Chetu

Australia Securities and Investment Commission: In choosing the Binary Options broker, the regulatory status of the brokerage firm should be your first consideration as a trader to protect you from scams. The only setback there is in being regulated by a regulator is the limit on traders being accepted primarily based on geographical location Binary Options Trading. Binary options is a simple trading instrument that can be used to earn money by guessing the future of the Forex, stocks, commodity and other prices. With binary options you either win if you guessed it right, or lose if you guessed it wrong. BinaryTrading.com is here to help you to win more often than lose. Binary Options Copy Trading Club is a group of full-time traders, trading binary options on the binary.com platform. Our trading results have proven to be successful in all market conditions and we invite you to join our Binary Options Copy Trading Club. Frequency 2 posts / month Since Feb 2018 Blog binaryoptionscopytrading.clu.. Perhaps one of the most critical of all the basic strategies a binary options trader can learn is the ‘Knock-On Effect’. In theory it is also sometimes called as ‘Market Pull Strategy’. The basic concept behind the strategy is that a movement of an option will have an effect on another option. Australian Binary Options Trading by Benjamin King / updated: May 3, 2018 Once you aware of the fact that there is more than one type of trade, you may find yourself with an entirely new question.

[index] [26998] [26537] [13323] [3780] [3813] [17057] [19814] [18112] [13819] [23442]

AUGUST 2020 TARGET WD LIMIT $5000 TRADING BINARY.COM

The products offered via this website include binary options, contracts for difference ("CFDs") and other complex derivatives. Trading binary options may not be suitable for everyone. Regulated Binary Options Brokers Australia, Binary Options Brokers Australia, Binary Options Australia, binary broker for Australian users, Trusted Binary Options Brokers Australia, Best Binary ... Naming the most beneficial buying and selling Binary Options System is demanding, just because Binary Options trading platforms and proprietary (bespoke) software package are Ordinarily a matter ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Any questions, please post here or send to [email protected] AUTO TRADER ///// Automated trading for binary options with more then 150 strategies for free

Flag Counter