|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada13410 Posts
On January 30 2017 06:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:28 ChristianS wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:On January 30 2017 05:31 ZeromuS wrote:On January 30 2017 04:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On January 30 2017 03:55 TheYango wrote:
Even if we're kicking out everyone from those countries with visas, there has got to be a better way of doing it than just suddenly telling them they can't come back with no recourse for any of their family, jobs, or assets in the US. It's devastating enough to suddenly tell them they can't live in the US anymore, but even if you feel the muslim ban is justified, do you also feel it's fair to take everything they own away from them as well? Of course not, but we're not kicking everyone out, but rather preventing new immigrants for a 90 or 120 day period from select countries while the government decides how to proceed. I think bring frozen from your assets for 3-4 months by far isn't ideal, but I can't think of a different way to do it outside of giving these people a longer heads up. These people aren't new immigrants. They already have their green cards, they just happen to not be in the borders when a piece of paper was signed. I think being frozen from your assets for 3-4 months with no legal representation is inherently unjust. You are basically accepting that the US is selling out its fundamental legal and constitutional bedrock because of xenophobia. This is more than preventing new immigrants. If that was the case close borders to every single person in the world who doesnt have a valid visa/green card/citizenship. If you think the ideology behind this ban isn't a ban on muslims, then I don't know what to tell you. Even Rudy Guliani admitted to it on National American television. Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally. So I guess that's what we disagree on, you think it's an unfounded hate for muslim people, I don't (I'm an agnostic person, I think the world would be better without organized religion, but alas. That said, I think there's certain aims you can't achieve when people's beliefs are this divided by different religions, and in my eyes, the dislike for Muslim people has a genuine and legitimate argument, just not one that I agree with). Iirc you were a fan of using race as a proxy for culture when talking about the US no longer being majority white as a problem. Worth asking, if an immigration policy were motivated by a belief that a higher population of brown people would be bad for the country, would you be prepared to write that off as xenophobic? Because if not wanting brown people around doesn't count as xenophobia I don't know what does. his dispute seems to be more about the colloquial definition of xenophobia (which is more general dislike of foreigners), vs the clinical definition (which is a phobia, an irrational fear by definition). the use of the phobia suffix has extended aways beyond it's clinical definition, so the confusion comes up some when people use different versions of the same word.
xenophobia is NOT I REPEAT NOT A CLINICAL WORD.
it just borrows the phobia part. It is 100% a word used to describe something and is seperate from the idea of a psychological definition.
IT IS THE INTENSE OR IRRATIONAL FEAR OF SOMEONE FROM A DIFFERENT OUT GROUP FROM YOUR IN GROUP.
Disliking another CULTURE is just as xenophobic as disliking another person's SKIN COLOUR.
And to top this off does Fiwi even know what Sharia is? Sharia is the equivalent of the Catholic Catechism -- its the fucking rules that were made looooooong ago. Not drinking alcohol? Thats sharia. Not eating pork? Also shockingly sharia.
People can have WOW nuanced understandings of their religions and be more liberal than being ultra hyper conservative.
|
On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical.
Yes, if you didn't like dogs for that reason, that'd be considered irrational to me. I'm not a philosopher, so knowing exactly what is rational and what isn't is just a gut reaction to me.
My "fear" of Muslim people is that people with a different framework of values than me will have more power in the country I live in by being larger in population, and will enact over time changes in the government that I don't particularly agree with. For example, Trump won the white vote by a 21 point margin, he also won the male vote much heavier than the female vote. Chances are that a white + male is closer to my values than say a hispanic woman (though again a correlation not causation), so generally speaking, it's in your best interest for the people that share your values to have more power (unless you believe that people with other views will enhance your worldviews and experience).
So of course we have some human rights, but there's a reason why we didn't have women voting for so long, and I have no doubt in my mind that if we didn't have them now, there would be a very significant chunk of men fighting to keep it men only... But compromises have to be made, because then it really is that "First they came..." poem.
The things just gets me is when people start their argument that the fear of Muslim people is completely unfounded, because it's not. I wont lie, I'm surrounded by a lot of very conservative people that I often don't agree with, but I atleast get to hear their arguments and feel their emotions. Too large of a population just discards that this even happens.
|
On January 30 2017 05:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 05:31 ZeromuS wrote:On January 30 2017 04:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On January 30 2017 03:55 TheYango wrote:
Even if we're kicking out everyone from those countries with visas, there has got to be a better way of doing it than just suddenly telling them they can't come back with no recourse for any of their family, jobs, or assets in the US. It's devastating enough to suddenly tell them they can't live in the US anymore, but even if you feel the muslim ban is justified, do you also feel it's fair to take everything they own away from them as well? Of course not, but we're not kicking everyone out, but rather preventing new immigrants for a 90 or 120 day period from select countries while the government decides how to proceed. I think bring frozen from your assets for 3-4 months by far isn't ideal, but I can't think of a different way to do it outside of giving these people a longer heads up. These people aren't new immigrants. They already have their green cards, they just happen to not be in the borders when a piece of paper was signed. I think being frozen from your assets for 3-4 months with no legal representation is inherently unjust. You are basically accepting that the US is selling out its fundamental legal and constitutional bedrock because of xenophobia. This is more than preventing new immigrants. If that was the case close borders to every single person in the world who doesnt have a valid visa/green card/citizenship. If you think the ideology behind this ban isn't a ban on muslims, then I don't know what to tell you. Even Rudy Guliani admitted to it on National American television. People keep circulating this thing about Giuliani without going into detail so I wanted to find a reference for us to catch his own words, because most of us don't have the TV on 24/7, and if we did it might not be on Fox: + Show Spoiler +
Closing the borders for Muslims. Opening secret torture camps/ prisons outside of the juristiction of national or international law. Killing families of terrorists. These are all things Trump openly want to do. I am legitimatley afraid that this is going to result in war and genocide. All he needs might be another fire in the Reichstag.
|
it is specifically islamophobia, not xenophobia. No one cares about hindus or sikhs or buddhists or christians or jews, or whether you are black, brown, yellow, or white. It is specifically islam, and it is not irrational to be very skeptical of this religion in particular.
|
On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical.
This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation.
|
On January 30 2017 06:48 FiWiFaKi wrote:
My "fear" of Muslim people is that people with a different framework of values than me will have more power in the country I live in by being larger in population, and will enact over time changes in the government that I don't particularly agree with.
And this is precisely why your fear is irrational. Simply because they hold certain beliefs, you've come to a conclusion that they might act a certain way based on those beliefs to change your country, when in fact you have no real logical reason to believe that Muslim immigrants would act on their beliefs or that they would ever be able to muster the political capital to enact such changes. Your fear is based solely on the possibility that it *could* happen with no sound logical basis in reality to convince anyone that such a possibility is at all probable.
|
On January 30 2017 06:50 biology]major wrote:
it is specifically islamophobia, not xenophobia. No one cares about hindus or sikhs or buddhists or christians or jews, or whether you are black, brown, yellow, or white. It is specifically islam, and it is not irrational to be very skeptical of this religion in particular.
I think we have feelings that stem from the same roots about any group of people that have are different belief system than ours. Just a lot of other systems with can normalize a lot easier in our frameworks... Like monks, these guys are good people you know. From the people I know in my life, chinese people have very similar motivations to the white people I know, so again, we can normalize them a lot easier. Europeans same thing, we're very similar.
But how our brain processes the information and decides on the view about a certain group of people isn't exclusive to Islam.
|
KwarK edited:
I know how to see through edit history.
Moderator note: I clicked the wrong edit button.
On January 30 2017 06:48 FiWiFaKi wrote: Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote: On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote: Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally. If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. I got mad, I made a bit post. Sufficed to say. Fiwi your thinly veiled racism/anti muslim/xenophobia/whatever you want to call it is appalling.
|
On January 30 2017 06:54 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:48 FiWiFaKi wrote:
My "fear" of Muslim people is that people with a different framework of values than me will have more power in the country I live in by being larger in population, and will enact over time changes in the government that I don't particularly agree with. And this is precisely why your fear is irrational. Simply because they hold certain beliefs, you've come to a conclusion that they might act a certain way based on those beliefs to change your country, when in fact you have no real logical reason to believe that Muslim immigrants would act on their beliefs or that they would ever be able to muster the political capital to enact such changes. Your fear is based solely on the fact that it *could* happen with no sound logical basis in reality to convince anyone that such a possibility is at all probable.
What political capital, I'm confused?
Literally all it takes is a person voting for someone who is a bit more pro-Muslim than another person, no political capital needed at all. Then a party might see that if it has a Muslim person in it's cabinet, then they get a bit more votes, and goes from there. This shift is so subtle, but it's clear as day.
Look, we don't treat citizen of our country the same as we treat citizen of other countries. If someone in my country has some pedophile thoughts, we don't lock him up, because he didn't act on them (though if he's seen as a danger to society, we would put him on a watch list, and potentially even detain him, much like suspected terrorists).
But you're choosing who you are going to bring in, you're going to pick the best you can, and you're obviously not going to bring the guy who is having pedophile thoughts (assuming you know 100%), even though he's done nothing wrong. It's a game of statistics... We try not to play a game of statistics with our own people, because it leads to discrimination of individual people (not hiring a black person because they're more likely to steal, even though this specific black guy would never do it). But with immigrants you want to play this game of statistics, and pick who is likely to be the best.
And hence even though you have no reason to assume this specific person will do something bad, you have evidence and reasoning to suggest why you prefer group x over group y.
|
On January 30 2017 06:59 ChristianS wrote:
Moderator note: I clicked the wrong edit button.
Am I being actioned?
|
Its always sad to watch racists/xenophobes/whatever try to justify how their views are acceptable. Trust me, your not convincing anyone but your own and all your doing to the rest of us is show how blind you are.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On January 30 2017 07:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:59 ChristianS wrote:
Moderator note: I clicked the wrong edit button.
Am I being actioned?
No.
|
Germany25658 Posts
On January 30 2017 07:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:59 ChristianS wrote:
Moderator note: I clicked the wrong edit button.
Am I being actioned?
Nope. Slight misclicks happened. Feel free to post your post again^^
|
On January 30 2017 07:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:59 ChristianS wrote:
Moderator note: I clicked the wrong edit button.
Am I being actioned?
Guessing someone hit the edit button on your post and didn't notice till it was too late. It's right there next to the quote button. I've almost fucked up posts a few times but caught my error before it was too late lol
|
On January 30 2017 07:03 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:02 ChristianS wrote:On January 30 2017 06:59 ChristianS wrote:
Moderator note: I clicked the wrong edit button.
Am I being actioned? No.
Ah. But the post is gone I assume? Oh well, I should probably go do something else anyway.
|
Canada13410 Posts
On January 30 2017 07:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:59 ChristianS wrote:
Moderator note: I clicked the wrong edit button.
Am I being actioned?
No,
Here is what actually happened.
I lost my temper, made a very stupid post, regretted it immediately and went to edit it. But then the website glitched and for some reason my edit glitched into your post 
Very sorry christian, if the previous post was still there I would have returned it to its original post but you can't do that on TL.
So 100% my fuckup, I feel bad and to be honest, the other mods are chewing me out right now. So you can feel good about that at least 
|
On January 30 2017 07:02 FiWiFaKi wrote:
What political capital, I'm confused?
Literally all it takes is a person voting for someone who is a bit more pro-Muslim than another person, no political capital needed at all. Then a party might see that if it has a Muslim person in it's cabinet, then they get a bit more votes, and goes from there. This shift is so subtle, but it's clear as day.
This is a slippery-slope argument of the highest caliber. To which my only response can be "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it".
On January 30 2017 07:02 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Look, we don't treat citizen of our country the same as we treat citizen of other countries. If someone in my country has some pedophile thoughts, we don't lock him up, because he didn't act on them (though if he's seen as a danger to society, we would put him on a watch list, and potentially even detain him, much like suspected terrorists).
But you're choosing who you are going to bring in, you're going to pick the best you can, and you're obviously not going to bring the guy who is having pedophile thoughts (assuming you know 100%), even though he's done nothing wrong. It's a game of statistics... We try not to play a game of statistics with our own people, because it leads to discrimination of individual people (not hiring a black person because they're more likely to steal, even though this specific black guy would never do it). But with immigrants you want to play this game of statistics, and pick who is likely to be the best.
And hence even though you have no reason to assume this specific person will do something bad, you have evidence and reasoning to suggest why you prefer group x over group y.
This isn't what's happening though. If religion were a single criteria in a long checklist of things that were being evaluated when we look at potential immigrants, that would be one thing. I could see that being reasonable, with other factors such as presumed benefit to society based on education, career history, etc. taken into account. Hell, that's what we were doing already. But in this case, a predominantly Muslim country-of-origin from a particular list has become automatically disqualifying, regardless of all possible mitigating factors, which I don't think is defensible. A nominally-Muslim doctor who does not actively practice his faith is equally disqualified from entering the US as an unemployed devout Muslim who strongly believes in the enactment of Sharia law. The Muslim ban as implemented ascribes no value to all other possible good that people could bring to American society. It labels people purely by their religion and/or country of origin.
|
Lol I was wondering where that angry post went. I think many here need to take a step back and take a breathe.
The fact is elections have consequences. If you hate this shit, show up in 2 and 4 years.
|
On January 30 2017 06:43 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 05:31 ZeromuS wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:On January 30 2017 05:31 ZeromuS wrote:
Even if we're kicking out everyone from those countries with visas, there has got to be a better way of doing it than just suddenly telling them they can't come back with no recourse for any of their family, jobs, or assets in the US. It's devastating enough to suddenly tell them they can't live in the US anymore, but even if you feel the muslim ban is justified, do you also feel it's fair to take everything they own away from them as well? Of course not, but we're not kicking everyone out, but rather preventing new immigrants for a 90 or 120 day period from select countries while the government decides how to proceed. I think bring frozen from your assets for 3-4 months by far isn't ideal, but I can't think of a different way to do it outside of giving these people a longer heads up. These people aren't new immigrants. They already have their green cards, they just happen to not be in the borders when a piece of paper was signed. I think being frozen from your assets for 3-4 months with no legal representation is inherently unjust. You are basically accepting that the US is selling out its fundamental legal and constitutional bedrock because of xenophobia. This is more than preventing new immigrants. If that was the case close borders to every single person in the world who doesnt have a valid visa/green card/citizenship. If you think the ideology behind this ban isn't a ban on muslims, then I don't know what to tell you. Even Rudy Guliani admitted to it on National American television. Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally. So I guess that's what we disagree on, you think it's an unfounded hate for muslim people, I don't (I'm an agnostic person, I think the world would be better without organized religion, but alas. That said, I think there's certain aims you can't achieve when people's beliefs are this divided by different religions, and in my eyes, the dislike for Muslim people has a genuine and legitimate argument, just not one that I agree with). You are deflecting and pretending like the issue isn't xenophobia. You are pretending like xenophobia can only be irrational, but then cite that islam itself is bad for the country. Yes, actually blaming muslim majority countries that have no history of terrorism in the US as a reason to block them is highly irrational. You basically in your post that the hate for muslim people is founded, and that it justifies these actions. You've used flowery language and you are trying to sound like a smart and reasoned human being but you just said something horribly islamophobic. I basically consider those words racism. Your post here boils down to let me break this down and tell me if im wrong *but im not* Show nested quote +
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
-- High muslim populations are bad for America (the west) Show nested quote +So I guess that's what we disagree on, you think it's an unfounded hate for muslim people, I don't -- Muslims are bad so its okay to hate them Then you throw in this gem Show nested quote +in my eyes, the dislike for Muslim people has a genuine and legitimate argument, just not one that I agree with -- it is okay to hate muslims (after all you just described how muslims are bad for america and its okay to hate them) -- but I dont agree with it (way to deflect with a few words a hateful post) Now please tell me how I am supposed to interpret your words in a way different than you presented them? Because as far as I'm concerned you just dislike muslims, and as long as you aren't being targetted, and its the people you dislike because they happen to follow Islam then its okay. And I will call it what it is: racism/islamophobia/xenophobia/whatever fucking word you want to throw at it. Its hateful and its wrong and I'm sorry but whatever mental gymnastics you do for your own ego, I don't care. Its hate. Pure unadulterated hate. "But but islam isn't a race" - no its not but the word racism is a lot stronger than islamophobia. Anti-Islamite? Is that a term? Because I'm sure Anti-Semite is a terrible word that people instinctively don't want to be associated with. You don't want me to call you a racist I'm sure, or being an anti-islam individual so what other word do I apply to the hate you're throwing around here?
Like I said, I think there's plenty of reasons for people to not like Muslim people, much like how there's plenty of reasons for people to not like American rednecks.
I think this obstacle is better fought by communicating and compromising, because just completely hating all Muslim people will bring lots of division in the world. That said, I can accept that white people and muslim don't get along well relative to how they get along with other groups, and therefore there is a problem. The first step to having a discussion about this is accepting there's a natural human reason why a lot of people don't like muslims. Once that happens, then we could discuss what's the best way of moving forward, whether that's deporting everyone, trying to assimilate everyone, letting both split off into their own communities, being welcoming to all and coexistence (the current democrat system).
edit: I do support banning refugees from Syria though, though I would still like to see a normal immigration process for these countries.
|
On January 30 2017 07:05 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:02 ChristianS wrote:On January 30 2017 06:59 ChristianS wrote:
Moderator note: I clicked the wrong edit button.
Am I being actioned? No, Here is what actually happened. I lost my temper, made a very stupid post, regretted it immediately and went to edit it. But then the website glitched and for some reason my edit glitched into your post Very sorry christian, if the previous post was still there I would have returned it to its original post but you can't do that on TL. So 100% my fuckup, I feel bad and to be honest, the other mods are chewing me out right now. So you can feel good about that at least
Well tell them not to chew you out on my behalf! Mistakes happen and this one seems pretty minor. If I put a lot of work into a post I always save a copy anyway, this one wasn't that important. I'll stop replying to avoid derailing the thread, but just wanted to say I appreciate the apology and have no hard feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
