|
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. |
On January 30 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 08:07 Tachion wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. If Christians can adjust their way of life to exist peacefully in America despite the anti-homosexual and anti-women's values in the bible, then Muslim's deserve the same chance. Millions of Muslims existing peacefully in the US have already demonstrated they can. The false equivalence of comparing Christians to Muslims is rather tiresome. It's been a while since Christian nations en masse legislated for the killing of homosexuals. And the key difference is this: Western liberalism is born of Christian values. There is a big difference between asking Christians to adopt extensions of their faith and asking Muslims to adopt extensions of Christian faith. There is a huge cultural divide that you are not accounting for.
It wasn't an equivalence between two religions more so than it was my way of saying that everyone deserves a chance, regardless of religious values. If you want to live in America, you adhere to the laws of the country, not the laws of your religion. Integration into American culture is very important, and If you can't do that, then sure, get the fuck out. At a glance though I would say that the US and Canada (from my limited exposure up here so far) does a better job of integration than some European countries. It's awfully far from some lost cause though where closing the borders is the only answer.
|
On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well.
I'm bothered by those incidences because I would prefer those attitudes didn't exist in the world.
I'm not bothered by those incidences because I'm not affected by them and it's their lives. In a parallel universe I would be one of them. I don't feel the need to enforce my own values onto them because we can disagree so long as we don't act on them. We live in different societies and don't need to interact, and if we do need each other's help, we do it with mutual understanding.
In the context of globalism, yes, I would prefer if all communities in the world would behave more as a global community instead of warring tribes. However, I also realize that different parts of the world live in vastly different times. Western civilization have always been more progressive, as compared to say, African nations, so expecting them to all immediately "catch up" in every single facet, so to speak, is unrealistic. We should remember that just 100 years ago Western civilization also dicked around with Nazism. Islam has just a long a history as Christianity, yet some minority groups in America still fear persecution from Christians, obviously not to the same scale as Islamic extremism, but maybe it's a lot closer than you'd think if we actually measured the two persecutions statistically. And Western civilization and America is hardly innocent from provoking the flames in those countries which hate us.
If I were subject to scares such as 9/11 where the conflict started leaking into my life more, then yes, I would probably be more afraid. But in my current value system, I weigh the loss of diversity and humanity and Islamic friends against the tiny probability of harm to my society, and I am unaware of any bad things about the Canadian government's involvement in the Middle East.
|
On January 30 2017 08:33 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 08:07 Tachion wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. If Christians can adjust their way of life to exist peacefully in America despite the anti-homosexual and anti-women's values in the bible, then Muslim's deserve the same chance. Millions of Muslims existing peacefully in the US have already demonstrated they can. The false equivalence of comparing Christians to Muslims is rather tiresome. It's been a while since Christian nations en masse legislated for the killing of homosexuals. And the key difference is this: Western liberalism is born of Christian values. There is a big difference between asking Christians to adopt extensions of their faith and asking Muslims to adopt extensions of Christian faith. There is a huge cultural divide that you are not accounting for. It wasn't an equivalence between two religions more so than it was my way of saying that everyone deserves a chance, regardless of religious values. If you want to live in America, you adhere to the laws of the country, not the laws of your religion. Integration into American culture is very important, and If you can't do that, then sure, get the fuck out. At a glance though I would say that the US and Canada (from my limited exposure up here so far) does a better job of integration than some European countries. It's awfully far from some lost cause though where closing the borders is the only answer.
Just as Christianity stems from Judaism, Islam stems from Christianity. One of their many recognised prophets is Jesus so.. I doubt there's that much of a divide.
|
On January 30 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 08:07 Tachion wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. If Christians can adjust their way of life to exist peacefully in America despite the anti-homosexual and anti-women's values in the bible, then Muslim's deserve the same chance. Millions of Muslims existing peacefully in the US have already demonstrated they can. The false equivalence of comparing Christians to Muslims is rather tiresome. It's been a while since Christian nations en masse legislated for the killing of homosexuals. And the key difference is this: Western liberalism is born of Christian values. There is a big difference between asking Christians to adopt extensions of their faith and asking Muslims to adopt extensions of Christian faith. There is a huge cultural divide that you are not accounting for.
I agree. Christians have killed far more people and held back far more progress in my country (United States) than Muslims have, both historically and even in just the past 1-2 decades, during the most recent anti-Muslim fearmongering. I am far, far more worried about what fundamentalist Christians do around here than fundamentalist Muslims.
|
On January 30 2017 08:24 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 08:17 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 07:50 biology]major wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals. There's radicals, then there's sympathizers, then there's the middle group that have backwards beliefs that won't integrate well into our society (stoning for adultery, believe homosexuals/apostates to be executed), then theres the remaining normal ones who probably don't care for these beliefs and could integrate into western society. So how do we seperate these? How do we just prevent people from lying and abusing a system we put in place to get the ones we want and stop the ones we don't want? I'm an immigrant btw, naturalized, so I fully understand the immigrant struggle. My first point would be, the people who don't like Western cultures wouldn't apply to live in Western countries. So the sympathizers and middle group and radicals wouldn't even come. If sympathizers and middle groups did come, they would come because they believe that the opportunities available in the Western world would be more beneficial, and would learn to accustom themselves to the given landscape. If radicalists tried to abuse the system, we would hope that our immigration process is able to catch them, which it does pretty well. But some people will definitely leak through. In which case, here is one of the fundamental points of contention - is the small risk of uncaught, extreme radicalism worth losing the diversity of the "normals" and worth your humanity (in the case of refugees). Everyone will probably have a different position on the spectrum for that answer. In Canada, that answer has been unequivocally, yes, it is worth it. In the US, it's up for contention. Personally, I have Muslim friends who have immigrated from Syria and Afghanistan and/or have family there. That is an extremely naive view. My parents came here purely for economic benefit. Not for patriotisim or love for USA. It just so happens that they also don't have ass backward views and so were able to assimilate rather easily.
And they wouldn't have come here if they had the ass backward views...? They were disincentivized from holding those views because of the risk to their economic benefits. That's the point.
|
Well love him or hate him (And personally i love the guy) you have to agree he is doing exactly what he said he would.
Heck even if he promised to close Guantanamo he actually would!
|
Y'all need to read some Huntington. He has done a pretty good job predicting the course of the 21st Century so far.
|
On January 30 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 08:07 Tachion wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. If Christians can adjust their way of life to exist peacefully in America despite the anti-homosexual and anti-women's values in the bible, then Muslim's deserve the same chance. Millions of Muslims existing peacefully in the US have already demonstrated they can. The false equivalence of comparing Christians to Muslims is rather tiresome. It's been a while since Christian nations en masse legislated for the killing of homosexuals. And the key difference is this: Western liberalism is born of Christian values. There is a big difference between asking Christians to adopt extensions of their faith and asking Muslims to adopt extensions of Christian faith. There is a huge cultural divide that you are not accounting for.
Western values aren't Christian, it's Christian values in western countries are western. It doesn't matter if your Muslim or Christian, your value are based on your cultural heritage and education which is the same for adopting values toward a new culture.
|
On January 30 2017 08:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well love him or hate him (And personally i love the guy) you have to agree he is doing exactly what he said he would.
Heck even if he promised to close Guantanamo he actually would!
unlikely. closing guantanamo isn't so easy to do. and he's trying to do what he said he would, not necessarily succeeding at it. which is no different from obama, or indeed most presidents.
|
|
|
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.
How about Mexicans? And Chinese? Seems to me Trump is going for all xenos, and not just Muslims. Sure, different legislation targets different groups, and the latest discussion had been about the EO to target Muslims, but Trump doesn't discriminate.
|
On January 30 2017 08:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +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. How about Mexicans? And Chinese? Seems to me Trump is going for all xenos, and not just Muslims. Sure, different legislation targets different groups, and the latest discussion had been about the EO to target Muslims, but Trump doesn't discriminate.
Just get it over with and create an Inquisition and task Ordo Xenos with removing the xenos scum.
Hereticus won't be far behind to make sure the media says what he wants.
|
edit: Nevermind, wont bother responding to a useless post.
edit2: Lol DPB, are you really going to go the well Christians have killed me people back in the day (because they were the strongest religion for quite some time) as a genuine argument?
|
On January 30 2017 08:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 08:07 Tachion wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. If Christians can adjust their way of life to exist peacefully in America despite the anti-homosexual and anti-women's values in the bible, then Muslim's deserve the same chance. Millions of Muslims existing peacefully in the US have already demonstrated they can. The false equivalence of comparing Christians to Muslims is rather tiresome. It's been a while since Christian nations en masse legislated for the killing of homosexuals. And the key difference is this: Western liberalism is born of Christian values. There is a big difference between asking Christians to adopt extensions of their faith and asking Muslims to adopt extensions of Christian faith. There is a huge cultural divide that you are not accounting for. I agree. Christians have killed far more people and held back far more progress in my country (United States) than Muslims have, both historically and even in just the past 1-2 decades, during the most recent anti-Muslim fearmongering. I am far, far more worried about what fundamentalist Christians do around here than fundamentalist Muslims.
Sure, in this country Christians refuse to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. In Muslim countries, homosexuals are killed when outted. But yes, let's please keep talking about how badly American Christians have treated homosexuals and ignore the differences in relative treatment of homosexuals between the cultures.
|
On January 30 2017 07:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:
In much the same way I'd like to save the polar bears even though they don't bring direct benefit to me, I have a way I picture the world, and I'd like to help shape it that that "utopia" if you will. Not so much a passerby of the Earth, but a sculptor that leaves his mark. It is selfish, but I wasn't aware that this is some uncommon sentiment. I myself am an immigrant to Canada, but that doesn't mean I can't have some anti-immigrant thoughts. Surely you wouldn't like to have woman's rights be abolished after you die, I wouldn't like certain powers that don't agree with my mental framework to have lots of power over all the surroundings that I have been a part of all my life.
I'm sure my sentiments are the far more uncommon ones, but quite frankly, a lot of these things don't really matter to me. What happens to the world after I die happens.
On January 30 2017 07:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think a big reason why blocking out a certain group is all or nothing is because it grows resentment, and as long as you don't fully eliminate them, you don't defeat them. If you are going to be an asshole to Muslim people, like we are being, yet still allow their percentage of the population numbers rise, then you are giving them more power over time, while they hate you more than ever. Doesn't seem like a good formula, hence why it's one extreme or another.
On the contrary, I believe it's isolation and separation that grows resentment and hate. It's easier to hate and dehumanize people that you don't know that live halfway across the world. It's much more difficult to hate someone who lives across the street and who, despite the fact that he holds some religious beliefs that are foreign to you, you realize isn't really a bad guy. If we're going to build any kind of understanding between Muslims and Americans, it's only by having Muslims in a America to help Americans understand Muslims and Muslims understand Americans.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
kind of silly to be talking about isis at this point. it's a fly buzzing around the giant vat of shit we are standing in.
isis is only relevant insofar as it provides some opportunity for trump to generate crisis for our military and government.
while it is true that the armed forces are required to follow the constitution and not follow illegal orders, there is ample opportunity for constitutional crisis, when trump's minions or handlers order some sort of illegal order.
while resignations have been useful in the past as a sort of check on the presidency, this won't work now. it's an entirely different threat we face, not someone calculating for his own political future, but a hijacked office with little regard for much of anything. resignation of senior leadership would only undermine defenses.
now, some general thoughts on what trump means for the world.
the purpose of the trump card as a tool of the russian state is to undermine the entire liberal world order. undermining the moral authority of the united states would be along the same lines. i'm rather concerned by the possibility of some sort of military conflict under this scenario, because it will be cast as a sheer assertion of brute national interest on the part of trump's america. this would then be a confirmation of what the opposition has always claimed about the united states. when the problem is people viewing the world along ethno-nationalist lines, actions that confirm this view are highly detrimental to resisting the spread of such views.
i would put the likelihood of some sort of military incident at a pretty low level, but there is another threat that is pretty much 100% going to happen. to understand this threat, you'd need to understand the two levels of authoritarian states. there is the interest of the 'state', and then there is the interest of the 'party elite.' while, for example, russian or china would react harshly when matters of 'national pride' such as territorial disputes arise, these are not existential threats. the truly existential threats are destabilizing elements affecting the survival of the party elites. touch or threaten the stability of the party, and there is no turning back.
it so happens that the 'rest of the world', largely consisting of authoritarian, extractive systems, has been fighting the social media war as an existential threat for a long time. from the middle east to russia to china, the words of the people is the chief object of management and control. things like the arab spring may seem like random far away protests, signifying benghazi to the united states, but they generate deep panic amongst authoritarian puppeteers. revolutions demand reactionary suppression. in the old days, repression meant sending in the troops, but in the modern context, it is really about active political messaging. a sort of political campaign being waged constantly to shape reality to the advantage of the party.
it would be easy to say, resisting trump is about cultivating liberal democratic values and then everything will be fine. the present situation is a bit more complicated. there is a very drastic difference in organization on the two sides. to handicap tis situation, i'd place my bets with the autocrats. they may be evil, but they are not stupid.
i'll be okay with fast forwarding 8 years and see what the losses are, and then devising a plan. i have no faith in any sort of actual resistance vs trump as long as there is no awareness of the level at which this conflict is being waged.
|
On January 30 2017 08:14 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 08:06 opisska wrote:On January 30 2017 07:59 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:52 opisska wrote:On January 30 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On January 30 2017 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 02:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 02:38 ChristianS wrote:
Priebus says it's not a fuckup and they're not apologizing for anything, but also says it won't affect green card holders going forward. They should apologize for including green card holders. They shouldn't apologize for continuing this ban. These are the same ideologies that Trump campaigned on, and they were elected for it. One thing to keep in mind is that this executive order can't be viewed in a vacuum. Its seems fairly clear that the inclusion of green card holders was a deliberately provocative act. The Trump Administration is setting the table for some big changes to America's immigration policy. I strongly suspect that this executive order is just the first of a coming of series of "outrages" that Trump will be deliberately triggering on the Left. Wait, so if I understand you correctly: they're not just implementing policies the left thinks is bad; they're intentionally implementing policies even they think are bad just to piss off the left. Why? What's the end goal to pissing off liberals? They usually get plenty pissed off on their own, don't they? Trump sees his more extremist proclamations as tools to get what he wants policy-wise. He sets the table with an extreme position and bargains back from there. This is a well-documented behavior of his. I think that he's setting the table for immigration reform with this executive order. One of my frustrations with your arguments in this thread is that you're such a political operative about everything. You only contribute on subjects that you think will be favorable to you, and when you do everything seems so calculated, like you would never just say what you think because you think it.
This results in conversations like:
"Wtf is this new Trump policy? It's excluding a bunch of long-time legal American residents from coming back to the country, just because they picked a bad time to go on vacation, and it's pissing everybody off."
"You just don't get it, this is all part of Trump's master plan."
"To piss everybody off?"
"Exactly."
"...?"
Like really, you have no comment on the significant human cost of this policy, you just want to say something esoteric about Trump's master plan so you can say we're all playing into his hands by criticizing his shitty policies? I already acknowledged the human cost of Trump's policy. I just don't find that conversation or the dwelling on it to be particularly interesting. There is a cost to everything. The real question is what we're getting in exchange. And I find it curious that anyone would find my more clinical posts to be objectionable. From my experience I catch far less flak (if any) from those posts than when I say what I actually substantively think on anything. So when you bulldoze the lives of completely innocent people, you just call it "human cost", acknowledge it and then everyone is obliged to move on? That is almost unbelievable. The inclusion of green card holders serves no practical value. It was either done on purpose, which would mean that the US president is willing to sacrifice legal residents of the country for some kind of a power game, or out of sheer ignorance, which we mean that he does so because he doesn't know better. Both options are disastrous. No, I don't expect people to just "move on." The negative reaction and other consequences are all part of the cost of the action. You said that you don't find "dwelling on it interesting", which I see as a request for the other people in the discussion to move on from it, that's what I meant. But that is a very cheap way of argumentation - you are just labeling the strongest argument against your position as uninteresting in the hope that it helps you dismiss it. What I really find interesting is that even though I have skimmed literarly hundreds of opinions of Trump supporters at various places online, I just wasn't able to find a single rational argument for the inclusion of the green card holders. Is this really the new standard of discussion, where the most blatant flaws in logic will just be loudly ignored, because it's the most convenient? I can only guess why green card holders were included. But the decision was deliberate by all reports, so I expect that there is a reason (good, bad or otherwise). Are you able to picture a good reason? A reason good enough to sacrifice lives of random ordinary people for? Are you OK with that happening without the reason being provided? Why? Do you really think that something is at stake here, so that such drastic measures needed to be taken, on the timescale of days, without any real explanation? Do you think that this is the way politics should be conducted? I could honestly imagine that I would accept such behavior in case it would prevent an imminent threat, but that is just extremely unlikely in this case, as it has been time and time again demonstrated in this very thread how inefficient an anti-terrorist measure this is (and just "changing the stance on immigration" could surely have waited a couple of months after all these years). Your justification is basically "he does it for good reasons", which is the kind of benefit of doubt that people should never give to their leaders outside of actual war.
I'm willing to pay a fairly high price to implement sane immigration policies and ensure that the US retains its American culture. The problem with liberals and the left is that, in their vain pursuit of multiculturalism, they ignore cultivating the glue that binds a nation together. In fact, they attack it. If you are going to have a multicultural society, then you better damned well make sure that there is a strong national identity that binds everyone together (ie you better be nationalist). But the left openly craps on nationalism (they even crap on the idea of forcing a common, national language), thereby setting us up for a lot of problems down the road.
|
On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well.
Wait. What? Sure I am, but let's not single out Muslims here... how about:
We don't have to go as far as the Spanish Inquisition to find the populations of Christians that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Midwestern states? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well.
|
On January 30 2017 09:01 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:
In much the same way I'd like to save the polar bears even though they don't bring direct benefit to me, I have a way I picture the world, and I'd like to help shape it that that "utopia" if you will. Not so much a passerby of the Earth, but a sculptor that leaves his mark. It is selfish, but I wasn't aware that this is some uncommon sentiment. I myself am an immigrant to Canada, but that doesn't mean I can't have some anti-immigrant thoughts. Surely you wouldn't like to have woman's rights be abolished after you die, I wouldn't like certain powers that don't agree with my mental framework to have lots of power over all the surroundings that I have been a part of all my life. I'm sure my sentiments are the far more uncommon ones, but quite frankly, a lot of these things don't really matter to me. What happens to the world after I die happens. Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I think a big reason why blocking out a certain group is all or nothing is because it grows resentment, and as long as you don't fully eliminate them, you don't defeat them. If you are going to be an asshole to Muslim people, like we are being, yet still allow their percentage of the population numbers rise, then you are giving them more power over time, while they hate you more than ever. Doesn't seem like a good formula, hence why it's one extreme or another. On the contrary, I believe it's isolation and separation that grows resentment and hate. It's easier to hate and dehumanize people that you don't know that live halfway across the world. It's much more difficult to hate someone who lives across the street and who, despite the fact that he holds some religious beliefs that are foreign to you, you realize isn't really a bad guy. If we're going to build any kind of understanding between Muslims and Americans, it's only by having Muslims in a America to help Americans understand Muslims and Muslims understand Americans.
I agree with you completely, that's the point of a multicultural work place, it builds tolerance towards other groups.
I think it's a very effective policy in the corporate work place, but I would look at it this way as well. You wont hate this person as much if he's your neighbor, but are you going to be good friends with him?
That's the thing about the co-existence concept, you're trying to make it so we can survive living with each other, but are you bringing people together enough that they are celebrating similar things, and contributing to that community spirit? Because you can either say you're going to just kick everyone out who doesn't think like you, and have a good time... Kind of like how a group of friends stops hanging out with the weird kid... Or you're going to try and make it work with everyone, regardless of how "strange" they are, and you have a somewhat less intimate and more synthetic bond between the group.
That's my view of the coexistence and tolerance argument. There's a tradeoff to coexisting with people that aren't just like you... It's not a either we kill each other or we get along together argument that some university posters I see try and paint.
|
On January 30 2017 08:27 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The US has never had a problem assimilating people, we do it better than anyone else. You know, that whole melting pot thing, appreciating differences, the notion that hating someone because of their race or religion is the most unamerican thing possible. Muslims assimilating in America isn't an issue.
I'd argue Brazil is even better at it. Perhaps Singapore too. But yes, the US is a lot better at it than most nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
