|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 19 2021 23:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 20:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2021 19:33 Dav1oN wrote:On August 19 2021 04:05 Nebuchad wrote:
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly. I'd argue. They are all humans no matter how closer or far away geographically. Acting accordingly - it's easier said than done. There is no perfect solution at this point, only if Taliban (and other islamic barbarian groups) magically vanished from the existence And a few questions arises - What would be the price of acting accordingly for the Europe? Should Europe take this responsibility in the first place? I think there's an instinct to say that they're all humans no matter what but a lot more people have subhuman categories than are willing to say. After all, 49.7% of Swiss people voted that swiss companies that don't respect human rights abroad shouldn't be prosecuted in Switzerland, which still feels eerie to me that I get to say that every time. As a result you end up talking about other questions, but those other questions are mainly distractions from the main topic. And it's very hard to make arguments for the main topic btw. If someone thinks everyone deserves human rights and human treatment, how are you ever going to convince them that they don't? And vice versa? The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces a complex and difficult problem to a simple binary and that doesn't really end up making sense. Where are they going to go? In my country, there is a huge housing and homelessness crisis. Are we going to simply bring more homeless over here, or are we going to prioritize them for social housing ahead of people who have been waiting for years for somewhere to live? Currently in the UK there are Afghani refugees being put up in abandoned hotels but that won't last. How are they going to survive? On the benefits system for a while before they find work? Great excuse for our government to cut benefits again, severely effecting current local population. Human/not human isn't really something that comes in to the decision making here, its a more practical issue. Besides, the people making the decisions don't really treat anyone as human.
In politics what's complex is generally implementation, the goals are overall almost always very simple. A part of the complexity is what you bring up but it would be oblivious to not acknowledge that before we can implement anything there's a decent part of our population that isn't sure we should be doing anything at all, and that their reluctance is not based on fearing that we can't implement something (even if that's probably what they'll bring up if you ask). If you have a homelessness crisis, I would contend that the homeless are also treated as less than human, and that this is an addition to the same issue, not two issues that compete against each other. Homelessness crises are generally fought in two ways, either you fight homelessness or you fight the homeless. You'll find that there is a correlation between the group of people that wants to fight the homeless and the group of people that opposes the arrival of refugees. Again, goals are generally simple.
|
How can anyone complain that refugee numbers show little representation of single woman? Not only are single woman under represented in those societies anyway. Woman in general are still not able to act as independently in our own society compared to men. If western woman are still afraid to walk home alone after a party, think about afghan woman having to cross nations on their own. Our world is a cruel place and men have a lot less to worry about when they leave their old life behind.
|
On August 18 2021 03:55 Dav1oN wrote:
The biggest thing that triggers me when (probably many others as well) watching refugee videos is a wild gender distribution. It's very male dominant. And I think that's the reason which leads to all those social problems @Gorsameth just mentioned.
IMO if you really want to be good at selection by accepting only "good refugees" with net positive outcome, than gender distribution should be female favored (something like 80% female/20% male). I have hard time to imagine a refugee woman trying to make it's own isolated community in any European country. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but an average arab woman will adapt much faster to western culture/values in comparison to an average arab man
In a perfect world - accept a refugee woman in, provide her with language/cultural classes, which eventually allows her to find a job, to find a husband, to raise her kids and to become net positve. This way you can solve negative demographic situation much faster, you'll get less crimes, more genetic diversity etc
The journey is incredibly dangerous.
You are subject to others that have immense power over you.
Nobody wants to be in that position, but women will suffer more than men will.
Because simply put, the people in power over the refugees are men. And they take what they want from their "customers".
They will sexually harass, rape, plus all the horrible stuff most men taking the route will suffer from.
I have a friend from Syria who managed to bring his family over. His older son is traumatised by the bombing he witnessed in his birthplace while the younger one integrates much better.
He would never never never ever have sent his wife instead.
It really boggles my mind that people are seriously puzzled by that??
|
On August 20 2021 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 23:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 19 2021 20:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2021 19:33 Dav1oN wrote:On August 19 2021 04:05 Nebuchad wrote:
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly. I'd argue. They are all humans no matter how closer or far away geographically. Acting accordingly - it's easier said than done. There is no perfect solution at this point, only if Taliban (and other islamic barbarian groups) magically vanished from the existence And a few questions arises - What would be the price of acting accordingly for the Europe? Should Europe take this responsibility in the first place? I think there's an instinct to say that they're all humans no matter what but a lot more people have subhuman categories than are willing to say. After all, 49.7% of Swiss people voted that swiss companies that don't respect human rights abroad shouldn't be prosecuted in Switzerland, which still feels eerie to me that I get to say that every time. As a result you end up talking about other questions, but those other questions are mainly distractions from the main topic. And it's very hard to make arguments for the main topic btw. If someone thinks everyone deserves human rights and human treatment, how are you ever going to convince them that they don't? And vice versa? The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces a complex and difficult problem to a simple binary and that doesn't really end up making sense. Where are they going to go? In my country, there is a huge housing and homelessness crisis. Are we going to simply bring more homeless over here, or are we going to prioritize them for social housing ahead of people who have been waiting for years for somewhere to live? Currently in the UK there are Afghani refugees being put up in abandoned hotels but that won't last. How are they going to survive? On the benefits system for a while before they find work? Great excuse for our government to cut benefits again, severely effecting current local population. Human/not human isn't really something that comes in to the decision making here, its a more practical issue. Besides, the people making the decisions don't really treat anyone as human. In politics what's complex is generally implementation, the goals are overall almost always very simple. A part of the complexity is what you bring up but it would be oblivious to not acknowledge that before we can implement anything there's a decent part of our population that isn't sure we should be doing anything at all, and that their reluctance is not based on fearing that we can't implement something (even if that's probably what they'll bring up if you ask). If you have a homelessness crisis, I would contend that the homeless are also treated as less than human, and that this is an addition to the same issue, not two issues that compete against each other. Homelessness crises are generally fought in two ways, either you fight homelessness or you fight the homeless. You'll find that there is a correlation between the group of people that wants to fight the homeless and the group of people that opposes the arrival of refugees. Again, goals are generally simple.
Source? Because that sounds like bullshit.
|
Idk if fight the homeless is a deliberate choice of words here, i.e. explicitly not Fight homelessness.
My brain could somehow make sense of the former by stretching some imagination but it's even harder with the latter.
|
On August 20 2021 02:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2021 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2021 23:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 19 2021 20:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2021 19:33 Dav1oN wrote:On August 19 2021 04:05 Nebuchad wrote:
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly. I'd argue. They are all humans no matter how closer or far away geographically. Acting accordingly - it's easier said than done. There is no perfect solution at this point, only if Taliban (and other islamic barbarian groups) magically vanished from the existence And a few questions arises - What would be the price of acting accordingly for the Europe? Should Europe take this responsibility in the first place? I think there's an instinct to say that they're all humans no matter what but a lot more people have subhuman categories than are willing to say. After all, 49.7% of Swiss people voted that swiss companies that don't respect human rights abroad shouldn't be prosecuted in Switzerland, which still feels eerie to me that I get to say that every time. As a result you end up talking about other questions, but those other questions are mainly distractions from the main topic. And it's very hard to make arguments for the main topic btw. If someone thinks everyone deserves human rights and human treatment, how are you ever going to convince them that they don't? And vice versa? The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces a complex and difficult problem to a simple binary and that doesn't really end up making sense. Where are they going to go? In my country, there is a huge housing and homelessness crisis. Are we going to simply bring more homeless over here, or are we going to prioritize them for social housing ahead of people who have been waiting for years for somewhere to live? Currently in the UK there are Afghani refugees being put up in abandoned hotels but that won't last. How are they going to survive? On the benefits system for a while before they find work? Great excuse for our government to cut benefits again, severely effecting current local population. Human/not human isn't really something that comes in to the decision making here, its a more practical issue. Besides, the people making the decisions don't really treat anyone as human. In politics what's complex is generally implementation, the goals are overall almost always very simple. A part of the complexity is what you bring up but it would be oblivious to not acknowledge that before we can implement anything there's a decent part of our population that isn't sure we should be doing anything at all, and that their reluctance is not based on fearing that we can't implement something (even if that's probably what they'll bring up if you ask). If you have a homelessness crisis, I would contend that the homeless are also treated as less than human, and that this is an addition to the same issue, not two issues that compete against each other. Homelessness crises are generally fought in two ways, either you fight homelessness or you fight the homeless. You'll find that there is a correlation between the group of people that wants to fight the homeless and the group of people that opposes the arrival of refugees. Again, goals are generally simple. Source? Because that sounds like bullshit.
I don't have a source.
|
Northern Ireland25984 Posts
On August 20 2021 02:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2021 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2021 23:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 19 2021 20:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2021 19:33 Dav1oN wrote:On August 19 2021 04:05 Nebuchad wrote:
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly. I'd argue. They are all humans no matter how closer or far away geographically. Acting accordingly - it's easier said than done. There is no perfect solution at this point, only if Taliban (and other islamic barbarian groups) magically vanished from the existence And a few questions arises - What would be the price of acting accordingly for the Europe? Should Europe take this responsibility in the first place? I think there's an instinct to say that they're all humans no matter what but a lot more people have subhuman categories than are willing to say. After all, 49.7% of Swiss people voted that swiss companies that don't respect human rights abroad shouldn't be prosecuted in Switzerland, which still feels eerie to me that I get to say that every time. As a result you end up talking about other questions, but those other questions are mainly distractions from the main topic. And it's very hard to make arguments for the main topic btw. If someone thinks everyone deserves human rights and human treatment, how are you ever going to convince them that they don't? And vice versa? The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces a complex and difficult problem to a simple binary and that doesn't really end up making sense. Where are they going to go? In my country, there is a huge housing and homelessness crisis. Are we going to simply bring more homeless over here, or are we going to prioritize them for social housing ahead of people who have been waiting for years for somewhere to live? Currently in the UK there are Afghani refugees being put up in abandoned hotels but that won't last. How are they going to survive? On the benefits system for a while before they find work? Great excuse for our government to cut benefits again, severely effecting current local population. Human/not human isn't really something that comes in to the decision making here, its a more practical issue. Besides, the people making the decisions don't really treat anyone as human. In politics what's complex is generally implementation, the goals are overall almost always very simple. A part of the complexity is what you bring up but it would be oblivious to not acknowledge that before we can implement anything there's a decent part of our population that isn't sure we should be doing anything at all, and that their reluctance is not based on fearing that we can't implement something (even if that's probably what they'll bring up if you ask). If you have a homelessness crisis, I would contend that the homeless are also treated as less than human, and that this is an addition to the same issue, not two issues that compete against each other. Homelessness crises are generally fought in two ways, either you fight homelessness or you fight the homeless. You'll find that there is a correlation between the group of people that wants to fight the homeless and the group of people that opposes the arrival of refugees. Again, goals are generally simple. Source? Because that sounds like bullshit.
Do you really need a source on that one?
There is a not insignificant cohort of people who don’t like welfare programs in general, or may like them for people they deem as good people (be it in some employment, or at least actively job hunting or whatever. Who tend to also view the homeless as defective in some way, be it a slave to addictions or the crime of ‘not trying hard enough’.
These views are pretty bloody common. They will shift the goalposts, if and only if regular migration or a refugee crisis pops up, from some variant of ‘fuck the homeless’ to ‘we should take care of our own homeless before taking in refugees’.
It doesn’t take some peer reviewed study to extrapolate a little from one position to a very similar one. Likewise I don’t think it would be particularly arguable that there’s a correlation between people who are supportive of or want expansion of state social safety nets, and those more receptive to refugee arrival.
It won’t be a direct 1:1 for every single person no, but it’ll hold broadly.
|
Northern Ireland25984 Posts
On August 20 2021 02:52 Artisreal wrote:
Idk if fight the homeless is a deliberate choice of words here, i.e. explicitly not Fight homelessness.
My brain could somehow make sense of the former by stretching some imagination but it's even harder with the latter.
Perhaps something will be lost in my compression, I would take ‘fight the homeless’ as still seeking a solution of sorts. Only that takes the form of ‘tough love’. If we make it really shit to be homeless, people will be incentivised to pulling themselves up by the bootstraps.
Fight homelessness, you provide support and deal with the myriad of issues that feed into homelessness structurally.
Maybe I’m reading it wrong. In the former conception, ‘fight the homeless’ is targeted at a hypothetical actual homeless person. That person is homeless because of that person’s actions, and solutions need to be tailored to those perceived deficiencies.
Fighting homelessness you’re looking at a wider phenomenon that structurally stems from more than individuals and their choices, and seeking solutions from that different framing.
|
On August 20 2021 02:52 Artisreal wrote:
Idk if fight the homeless is a deliberate choice of words here, i.e. explicitly not Fight homelessness.
My brain could somehow make sense of the former by stretching some imagination but it's even harder with the latter.
Fight homelessness is making it so that the homelessness issue is improved and less people are homeless (better welfare, public housing, good stuff). Fight the homeless is chasing the homeless away so that they aren't visible in the streets anymore (spikes on public banks, police raids, and so on)
|
On August 20 2021 02:57 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2021 02:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 20 2021 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2021 23:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 19 2021 20:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 19 2021 19:33 Dav1oN wrote:On August 19 2021 04:05 Nebuchad wrote:
As usual with subjects like this, just figure out whether humans that live far away from you are still humans or not, and then act accordingly. I'd argue. They are all humans no matter how closer or far away geographically. Acting accordingly - it's easier said than done. There is no perfect solution at this point, only if Taliban (and other islamic barbarian groups) magically vanished from the existence And a few questions arises - What would be the price of acting accordingly for the Europe? Should Europe take this responsibility in the first place? I think there's an instinct to say that they're all humans no matter what but a lot more people have subhuman categories than are willing to say. After all, 49.7% of Swiss people voted that swiss companies that don't respect human rights abroad shouldn't be prosecuted in Switzerland, which still feels eerie to me that I get to say that every time. As a result you end up talking about other questions, but those other questions are mainly distractions from the main topic. And it's very hard to make arguments for the main topic btw. If someone thinks everyone deserves human rights and human treatment, how are you ever going to convince them that they don't? And vice versa? The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces a complex and difficult problem to a simple binary and that doesn't really end up making sense. Where are they going to go? In my country, there is a huge housing and homelessness crisis. Are we going to simply bring more homeless over here, or are we going to prioritize them for social housing ahead of people who have been waiting for years for somewhere to live? Currently in the UK there are Afghani refugees being put up in abandoned hotels but that won't last. How are they going to survive? On the benefits system for a while before they find work? Great excuse for our government to cut benefits again, severely effecting current local population. Human/not human isn't really something that comes in to the decision making here, its a more practical issue. Besides, the people making the decisions don't really treat anyone as human. In politics what's complex is generally implementation, the goals are overall almost always very simple. A part of the complexity is what you bring up but it would be oblivious to not acknowledge that before we can implement anything there's a decent part of our population that isn't sure we should be doing anything at all, and that their reluctance is not based on fearing that we can't implement something (even if that's probably what they'll bring up if you ask). If you have a homelessness crisis, I would contend that the homeless are also treated as less than human, and that this is an addition to the same issue, not two issues that compete against each other. Homelessness crises are generally fought in two ways, either you fight homelessness or you fight the homeless. You'll find that there is a correlation between the group of people that wants to fight the homeless and the group of people that opposes the arrival of refugees. Again, goals are generally simple. Source? Because that sounds like bullshit. Do you really need a source on that one? There is a not insignificant cohort of people who don’t like welfare programs in general, or may like them for people they deem as good people (be it in some employment, or at least actively job hunting or whatever. Who tend to also view the homeless as defective in some way, be it a slave to addictions or the crime of ‘not trying hard enough’. These views are pretty bloody common. They will shift the goalposts, if and only if regular migration or a refugee crisis pops up, from some variant of ‘fuck the homeless’ to ‘we should take care of our own homeless before taking in refugees’. It doesn’t take some peer reviewed study to extrapolate a little from one position to a very similar one. Likewise I don’t think it would be particularly arguable that there’s a correlation between people who are supportive of or want expansion of state social safety nets, and those more receptive to refugee arrival. It won’t be a direct 1:1 for every single person no, but it’ll hold broadly.
Yes.
In 2015 you could argue that Sweden was still one of the most immigrant/refuge friendly country in the world based on a lot of different metrics.
In 2021 the most immigration friendly parties are forming and/or supporting the government which is left/liberal. It would be fair to say that most (not all) of these parties are not against the homeless.
This week this government is saying that we will never go back to taking in refuges like we did in the past. Just a few days ago they even debated if we should take in our interpreters from Afghanistan.
Why? Because there is a significant bias against immigration/refuges in Sweden and they don't want to lose their voters and get decimated next year.
However their voting base is still overwhelmingly socialist/left leaning.
Thus, in Sweden at the moment there seems to be very little of the "clear" overlap that you guys seem to see...
From a personal standpoint I didn't vote for this government but I am also am against immigration and refuges and I want to fight homelessness and not homeless people. As do most people I know and talk to.
So I have never seen this correlation and I have seen a LOT of proof against it. So to me it's utter bullshit unless verified by some trusted source.
|
I will say that Scandinavia is a little weird in that your liberal parties appear to be genuinely left-leaning and not absolute ghouls like they are in the rest of Europe and in the US, so maybe it creates different circumstances for society all around. But I was going with a very standard extrapolation similar to what WombaT describes, and like him I find that to be extremely logical, if you need a source I can't provide that.
|
Norway28705 Posts
I'm inclined to agree with Nebuchad both regarding his general point and the addendum that Scandinavian countries are an exception, where you have parties that are genuinely concerned with combating homelessness and that genuinely care about the homeless but who still don't want to help refugees. It's a generalization and exceptions exist, but there's definitely overlap in thinking 'fuck the homeless' and thinking 'fuck refugees'.
|
On August 20 2021 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2021 02:52 Artisreal wrote:
Idk if fight the homeless is a deliberate choice of words here, i.e. explicitly not Fight homelessness.
My brain could somehow make sense of the former by stretching some imagination but it's even harder with the latter. Fight homelessness is making it so that the homelessness issue is improved and less people are homeless (better welfare, public housing, good stuff). Fight the homeless is chasing the homeless away so that they aren't visible in the streets anymore (spikes on public banks, police raids, and so on)
Thank you for clarifying 
|
So, Germany just voted and it looks like we are going to have a nightmare of coalitions for the next 4 years. No matter how you look at it, SPD-Grüne-FDP or CDU-Grüne-FDP or SPD-CDU are terriiiibbblle from a political standpoint. The fact that FDP is in it wants me to bet money on Jamaica, i bet they will simply fuck everyone over and declare that they are not going into a traffic lights coalition. Greens have no real problem going into coalition with CDU, they are pragmatic, they will do what gets them into the government. Calling it here. Jamaica, for the next 4 years. Depressing.
From my standpoint, that is depressing. Everything will stay exactly as before. A bit of lipservice for green ideas. A lot of "We have to help our economy first" talk. Not that the greens are as scary to the political status quo as the AfD paints them, but at least they might have tried to change a few things. Like that, everybody can hide behind the coalition, blame the partners for not getting their program through and then just do enough surface work to make it look like they really really tried.
At least AfD is losing some votes despite Corona, despite all the problems the other parties had and despite the aging of the voting population...
|
Yeah I kinda agree.
Lindner (FDP) is more likely to play hardball than the Greens imo, so personally I would say Jamaica the most likely, but SPD + Greens + FDP is def on the table if for some reason the FDP actually is willing to give up on some things and the Greens play tough.I find that kinda unlikely but hey, maybe FDP learned from their last general election where they ended up walking out of the talks because they thought that would make them popular with their voterbase for being principled which then ended up a massive mistake and made them tank like crazy. They really were made out to be the bad guys last time around so while I think it's unlikely they're up for negotiating a bit more freely, that kick in the shins from last time around might make them reconsider.
If Die Linke had a bit more the Greens could have some more power to push for SPD + Greens + FDP by hinting at SPD + Greens + Die Linke as an alternative if the FDP ends up repeating its tantrum but with Die Linke on 4.9% it's probably not something people will take seriously?
|
49.7% that's so fucked. I don't think it would have been a massive revolution if it was the other way around either, but you can't help but wonder...
|
What's that number? SPD +CDU? Dont worry, they could govern with that as both get more seats than their percentage. They will not though, probably.
|
On September 27 2021 23:59 Broetchenholer wrote:
What's that number? SPD +CDU? Dont worry, they could govern with that as both get more seats than their percentage. They will not though, probably.
I saw this for red red green this morning on Twitter
Edit: apparently that was with 89% reporting and the final results are less close, my bad
|
Red and green is only around 40%, if they had 10% more together, it would have been really great. Maybe you saw the numbers from Berlin or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
|
Would anyone from Germany be willing to give a somewhat approachable summary of what has changed? What will be different between the current Merkel govt and whatever is coming next? What kind of coalition is going to happen? I'm pretty ignorant of German politics other than Merkel being supreme.
Something along the lines of:
"Previously: ____
And now: _____"
Would be really helpful and appreciated, if anyone feels like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
