|
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 September 09 2015 00:03 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 00:00 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:57 Faust852 wrote:On September 08 2015 23:44 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:36 dismiss wrote:On September 08 2015 23:34 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:26 dismiss wrote:On September 08 2015 23:25 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:21 dismiss wrote:
It's like you've never heard of the arab spring or looked at the results after a year or two. How many unsuccessful revolutions did Christian and EU countries have before you all figured it out? Its not a fast or clean process. Surprisingly few actually. Only the English Civil War and if you want to count the French Revolution that too, Also some business in Spain. Granted I don't know a whole lot about Eastern Europeans history of government, so there might be more there. You already named the same number as arab spring of the top of your head. No one has a perfect track record when it comes to reforming their nation. Success is not a give in. The arab spring happened in around ~20 countries, in all of which it failed. Discounting stuff like western assistance etc completely as well. Or did I miss alien fighter planes during the English civil war? What did you expect, them instantly to create democratic nations in the span of 2 years? It took my country like 5 years after we won the war to write the constitution and get everyone on the same page. It was 10 over years before our government took office. And no one was dumping oil money into our region and we had no neighbors to fuck with us. Faust852: But how many generations did it take to throw of theocracy for the EU? That doesn't happen over night either. It might happen faster for the Middle East when it starts, but it will take generations. Acrofales: Just use Kentucky. No one will defend that state's population of religious wackjobs. Ehrm. I mean, the middle east is radicalizing, each generation is more radical than the other, not the other way around. I mean in even 3 years they started from secular to theocracy. Those region are lost to islam because every people who think they are nutjobs is just leaving the region. In medieval age Europe you had no choice but to fight for your value, nowhere to flee. In middle east, you just ask for refugee status. Islamisation is the biggest brain drain in history. You’re not wrong. The biggest problem that region faces is that the educated are fleeing on mass and there being no one create a passable government when these wars end. Of course, the endless supply of oil money being dumped into the region doesn’t help. Its allows for the funding of groups that normally couldn’t sustain themselves. So we agree that their is absolutly no solution for them ? What to do ? Imho we should choice the lesser of both evil. A secular dictatorship, alike to pre-arab spring.
No, I didn’t say that. Only that is a difficult problem that will be hard to solve. I don’t make it a practice of saying that 1.6 billion people can’t live in a in some for democratic because of their religion. But the process of getting there will be hard.
|
On September 08 2015 23:49 RapidTiger wrote:
So Germany is taking in most of the refugees. But what about Sweden and Norway? They're doing nothing about this situation. Germany can't handle all the refugees. If I was German, I'd be furious.
According to the article posted 4 pages earlier Sweden is supposed to take ~6k refugees, dunno about Norway because theyre not a part of EU.
|
On September 09 2015 00:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 00:03 Faust852 wrote:On September 09 2015 00:00 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:57 Faust852 wrote:On September 08 2015 23:44 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:36 dismiss wrote:On September 08 2015 23:34 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:26 dismiss wrote:On September 08 2015 23:25 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:21 dismiss wrote:
It's like you've never heard of the arab spring or looked at the results after a year or two. How many unsuccessful revolutions did Christian and EU countries have before you all figured it out? Its not a fast or clean process. Surprisingly few actually. Only the English Civil War and if you want to count the French Revolution that too, Also some business in Spain. Granted I don't know a whole lot about Eastern Europeans history of government, so there might be more there. You already named the same number as arab spring of the top of your head. No one has a perfect track record when it comes to reforming their nation. Success is not a give in. The arab spring happened in around ~20 countries, in all of which it failed. Discounting stuff like western assistance etc completely as well. Or did I miss alien fighter planes during the English civil war? What did you expect, them instantly to create democratic nations in the span of 2 years? It took my country like 5 years after we won the war to write the constitution and get everyone on the same page. It was 10 over years before our government took office. And no one was dumping oil money into our region and we had no neighbors to fuck with us. Faust852: But how many generations did it take to throw of theocracy for the EU? That doesn't happen over night either. It might happen faster for the Middle East when it starts, but it will take generations. Acrofales: Just use Kentucky. No one will defend that state's population of religious wackjobs. Ehrm. I mean, the middle east is radicalizing, each generation is more radical than the other, not the other way around. I mean in even 3 years they started from secular to theocracy. Those region are lost to islam because every people who think they are nutjobs is just leaving the region. In medieval age Europe you had no choice but to fight for your value, nowhere to flee. In middle east, you just ask for refugee status. Islamisation is the biggest brain drain in history. You’re not wrong. The biggest problem that region faces is that the educated are fleeing on mass and there being no one create a passable government when these wars end. Of course, the endless supply of oil money being dumped into the region doesn’t help. Its allows for the funding of groups that normally couldn’t sustain themselves. So we agree that their is absolutly no solution for them ? What to do ? Imho we should choice the lesser of both evil. A secular dictatorship, alike to pre-arab spring. No, I didn’t say that. Only that is a difficult problem that will be hard to solve. I don’t make it a practice of saying that 1.6 billion people can’t live in a in some for democratic because of their religion. But the process of getting there will be hard.
I personnaly wouldn't group the muslim as a solid block of 1.6bn person. There are a lot of difference between Wahhabism from Sunnism and Sufism or Ibadism. Some group are much more radical than other. Ofc those are the one who piss everyone off. Look at Oman for exemple. Or Morocco. Quite and peaceful.
Edit : I also don't think that democracy is always the best political system.
I'm all in favor of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good as one genius,
but I draw the line when someone takes the next step
and concludes that two idiots are better than one genius. -- Leo Szilard
|
On September 09 2015 00:19 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 00:08 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2015 00:03 Faust852 wrote:On September 09 2015 00:00 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:57 Faust852 wrote:On September 08 2015 23:44 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:36 dismiss wrote:On September 08 2015 23:34 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2015 23:26 dismiss wrote:On September 08 2015 23:25 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
How many unsuccessful revolutions did Christian and EU countries have before you all figured it out? Its not a fast or clean process. Surprisingly few actually. Only the English Civil War and if you want to count the French Revolution that too, Also some business in Spain. Granted I don't know a whole lot about Eastern Europeans history of government, so there might be more there. You already named the same number as arab spring of the top of your head. No one has a perfect track record when it comes to reforming their nation. Success is not a give in. The arab spring happened in around ~20 countries, in all of which it failed. Discounting stuff like western assistance etc completely as well. Or did I miss alien fighter planes during the English civil war? What did you expect, them instantly to create democratic nations in the span of 2 years? It took my country like 5 years after we won the war to write the constitution and get everyone on the same page. It was 10 over years before our government took office. And no one was dumping oil money into our region and we had no neighbors to fuck with us. Faust852: But how many generations did it take to throw of theocracy for the EU? That doesn't happen over night either. It might happen faster for the Middle East when it starts, but it will take generations. Acrofales: Just use Kentucky. No one will defend that state's population of religious wackjobs. Ehrm. I mean, the middle east is radicalizing, each generation is more radical than the other, not the other way around. I mean in even 3 years they started from secular to theocracy. Those region are lost to islam because every people who think they are nutjobs is just leaving the region. In medieval age Europe you had no choice but to fight for your value, nowhere to flee. In middle east, you just ask for refugee status. Islamisation is the biggest brain drain in history. You’re not wrong. The biggest problem that region faces is that the educated are fleeing on mass and there being no one create a passable government when these wars end. Of course, the endless supply of oil money being dumped into the region doesn’t help. Its allows for the funding of groups that normally couldn’t sustain themselves. So we agree that their is absolutly no solution for them ? What to do ? Imho we should choice the lesser of both evil. A secular dictatorship, alike to pre-arab spring. No, I didn’t say that. Only that is a difficult problem that will be hard to solve. I don’t make it a practice of saying that 1.6 billion people can’t live in a in some for democratic because of their religion. But the process of getting there will be hard. I personnaly wouldn't group the muslim as a solid block of 1.6bn person. There are a lot of difference between Wahhabism from Sunnism and Sufism or Ibadism. Some group are much more radical than other. Ofc those are the one who piss everyone off. Look at Oman for exemple. Or Morocco. Quite and peaceful.
Again, part of the problem. There are so many different sects of Islam that all have different relationships to secular government and we(the collective west and our media) paint them all with this huge brush because its easier than understanding the politics and tensions in the region. And because governments simply don't last in the Middle East, many of these sects feel not attachment to them or see them as a source of security.
Edit: I take the Churchill view on Democracy.
|
NL doing the right thing imho
http://nos.nl/artikel/2056557-kabinetsakkoord-opvang-vluchtelingen-met-voorbehoud.html
Dutch Cabinet: take in refugees, but with reservations.
The cabinet has reached an accord over the Dutch poisition for adressing the refugee issue. In the future, the Netherlands will only be willing to take in refugee who applied [for asylum] in designated safe zones in the region. Migrants who did not apply there and come to Europe directly must be deported. The Ministry of Safety and Justice confirmed that this will be the Dutch position during the European summit next monday.
It will not be possible to realise this in the short term and [it will] require support from multiple other European countries. In the mean time the government acquiesced to the plan to distribute refugees across European countries.
Safety
The Netherlands wants to enter into agreements with countries considered safe, so that processing centres can be build there. An example of such a 'safe country' where war refugees could go to apply [for asylum] would be Turkey.
Secretary tasked with Asylum cases Dijkhof will explain the plans in detail later this afternoon.
Divisions
Earlier today Labour leader Samson said that the Netherlands and other European countries should come together to spread the [burden of] asylumseekers equally. He calls the [current] divisions 'scandalous'.
The Liberal coalition partner wants to close Europe's outer borders to control the flow of asylumseekers. Liberal MP Azmani is of the position that the current system facilitates human trafficking and allows for uncontrolled acces to terrorists.
Deporting the illegal refugees and migrants, and picking up the one they want directly from refugees camps in Turkey etc...
Exactly what I said a couple of days ago, yey me
|
The more resources a region has, the less incentives it has to develop. The Middle Easy will start to grow probably when nobody will need the oil, or when the oil will drain. If the whole world will not be dead by then due to pollution.
There's another system though that works pretty well in rich petroleum countries, like Qatar or Saudi Arabia. I think it's a monarchy based on family. Probably this is best suitable for that region.
Now, as has been mentioned already all of the people coming in Europe are migrants - not refugees. The refugee goes to the first peaceful country and tries to establish his life there. They might end up coming to Europe if they get refused the refugee status in other countries, but this is not the case here. Not to mention all the people coming from peaceful countries, as they have a chance to join the wave.
The migrants are fine in small numbers, as they are young and they are looking for better life. And to get a better life, they might try to find a job, open a business or some other creative things - overall their contribution to society is positive. This might not be true when the host country is pretty socialistic with good benefits for nothing. And this becomes dangerous when they are in big numbers. Because, no matter how you put it they are different from host population and dispersion increases. The bigger dispersion, the more likely some arguments to occur, some things to be seen differently.
Anything that involves people in big numbers becomes an experiment. There's no way to tell how it will turn out to be. Now everybody hopes that Germany and friends will manage well this crisis. Everybody hopes the majority of those people will integrate in society within 5-10 years. Or that Europeans will integrate well in their society. Any of these two scenarios would be a success. Provided Europe remains a democracy. Everything else, is gray area with a lot of bad things.
|
On September 09 2015 00:12 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2015 23:49 RapidTiger wrote:
So Germany is taking in most of the refugees. But what about Sweden and Norway? They're doing nothing about this situation. Germany can't handle all the refugees. If I was German, I'd be furious. According to the article posted 4 pages earlier Sweden is supposed to take ~6k refugees, dunno about Norway because theyre not a part of EU.
Lets get the fact straight shall we. First of all, except for Malta and other tiny islands Sweden has taken by far the highest number of asylum seekers per capita.
Population Number of asylum seekers (approved) Citizens per refugee
9,292,359 86,615 107
82,046,000 571,685 144
Secondly many people that can't get asylum in Sweden get permanent residency for "special reasons". Basically the UN doesn't think there's a need for asylum but we do so they get to stay. Also relatives for asylum seekers doesn't count either.
Number of immigrants from non EU countries (in millions)
Country Total population Non EU immigrants % of population
Germany 81.802 6.415 7.8 %
Sweden 9.340 0.859 9.2 %
And finally the quotas are set up by the EU to be "fair". Swedish media and all political parties have already said were going to take a lot more than the quotas. So there's no reason to be alarmed.
|
On September 09 2015 01:06 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 00:12 Sent. wrote:On September 08 2015 23:49 RapidTiger wrote:
So Germany is taking in most of the refugees. But what about Sweden and Norway? They're doing nothing about this situation. Germany can't handle all the refugees. If I was German, I'd be furious. According to the article posted 4 pages earlier Sweden is supposed to take ~6k refugees, dunno about Norway because theyre not a part of EU. Lets get the fact straight shall we. First of all, except for Malta and other tiny islands Sweden has taken by far the highest number of asylum seekers per capita. Population Number of asylum seekers (approved) Citizens per refugee 9,292,359 86,615 107 82,046,000 571,685 144 Secondly many people that can't get asylum in Sweden get permanent residency for "special reasons". Basically the UN doesn't think there's a need for asylum but we do so they get to stay. Also relatives for asylum seekers doesn't count either. Number of immigrants from non EU countries (in millions) Country Total population Non EU immigrants % of population Germany 81.802 6.415 7.8 % Sweden 9.340 0.859 9.2 % And finally the quotas are set up by the EU to be "fair". Swedish media and all political parties have already said were going to take a lot more than the quotas. So there's no reason to be alarmed.
Yet Sweden Democrate (biggest party according to the pool in August, probably even bigger now) is excluded from the refugee crisis talk
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6250023
SWEDEN YES
|
On September 08 2015 15:00 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2015 14:39 Sermokala wrote:
I'd be a ton more surprised if Germany was less wildly acepting of the syrian refugees. Their experiences with turkish immigrants are a lesson that other euro countries probably just have never had. Before that mass migrations of people were probably thought to be a hostile act by those "different" people coming to take their things.
Not saying its not a shitty thing to refuse people escaping war zones to your country but not everyone can be as accepting of immigrants as America. You really should brush up on your history of Europe before making silly posts like this. And USA is not all that accepting of immigrants - just ask any of the vast numbers of illegals...
I really don't get this. you think the treatment of Illegal mexican imigrants is anywhere on par with the treatment of the refugees from the middle east into the euro zone? Half the country may want them gone but they're still here and don't have their places where they rest burned to the ground. Most of them are working hard and contributing to the welfare state pretty well. I'd be surprised the left in the country isn't trying to treat them like refugees from the drug war but I'd never expect them to be competent.
I was more referring to the refugee situation with the Hmong people and somalian people who both recently have come over in droves. more of them now live in america then don't live in america. I think if they're willing to be taken in by a catholic parish like the pope is ordering them to then it'd be fine with the greater population.
You'd think countries in the midst of economic stagnation and hardship would welcome the economic boon with open arms. Germany doesn't give a shit about where they came from they're working the long game on the situation.
|
On September 08 2015 15:24 Maenander wrote:I didn't know Islam defines a race now. Yes, Eastern European countries are pretty intolerant from "our" viewpoint. But it's too easy to pick on them from the outside. We are talking about small countries that had to defend their identities against larger cultures for a long time. And the memories of the conflict against the Ottoman Empire, that was stylized into a conflict between Muslims and Christians, might still be alive in some of those countries. Given that Muslim countries don't exactly appear like successful model countries in the news right now and Christians are the targets of raving Islamists in some parts of the world, it's not exactly hard to understand why there would be an animosity towards Muslim immigrants in countries that are hardly used to immigrants at all.
On September 08 2015 17:54 Sent. wrote:Racist Europeans still accept way more Syrian refugees than North Americans or rich muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, don't they?
On September 08 2015 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:Where in the article does it say that? You mean accepting only Christians? How is that even racist? Not only is not racist, but it's also a very sensible policy. We don't need refugees that will surely fail to integrate.
That's the point. It doesn't say it anywhere in the article. When I read all the media coverage of this "migrants crisis" I have to laugh. They're all like, this crisis is very complicated, Europe seems unable to act, it's paralyzed by its bureaucratic political structure, seems unable to find agreement on quotas, blah blah blah...
Which is why it's nice when people come along like Hungary's Viktor Orban to cut through all the bullshit to let us know what the real problem is: WE don't want THEM here. The media doesn't dare say it, but it's the elephant in the room: Europe doesn't want refugees because it's racist. That's what the honest headline would be.
Now of course not all Europeans are racist, many, maybe even the majority aren't. And some of those people have shown up, for example, in Germany. And many countries are led by unracist or even anti-racist governments. But there's no denying that racism is widespread in Europe, racist politics are a powerful currency, racist parties exist in almost every European country, some even form the government, and the real reason there is a "refugee crisis" in the EU right now mostly just boils down to good old fashioned racism.
|
Ah yes, we're all racist because we have laws that are supposed to regulate this sort of thing and worry about how much money it's going to cost as well as the problems arising from having a huge amount of people not familiar with the manners of their respective host countries, language, etc.
|
^Islamophobia isn't racism since Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. I totally understand islamophobia and adhere to it to some degree, mainly because I despite religions in general, but I despite islam even more because it's degrading, old fashioned, and dangerous to some extend.
So people refusing to see a huge wave of Islam when they are confronting to it every day is totally understandable.
And again Islamophobie != Racism.
That would be even stupider because if you were to be racist of arab people, so you would be Italian or Spanish, since they are also brownish caucasians.
|
On September 09 2015 01:33 dismiss wrote:
Ah yes, we're all racist because we have laws that are supposed to regulate this sort of thing and worry about how much money it's going to cost as well as the problems arising from having a huge amount of people not familiar with the manners of their respective host countries, language, etc.
The best part is you missed or ignored the part where he said that wasn't the case. Only that racism/Islamophobia is a problem for the EU. Which isn't like news for anyone, I would hope. Its a problem in the US too. A big one.
On September 09 2015 01:34 Faust852 wrote:
^Islamophobia isn't racism since Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. I totally understand islamophobia and adhere to it to some degree, mainly because I despite religions in general, but I despite islam even more because it's degrading, old fashioned, and dangerous to some extend.
So people refusing to see a huge wave of Islam when they are confronting to it every day is totally understandable.
And again Islamophobie != Racism.
That would be even stupider because if you were to be racist of arab people, so you would be Italian or Spanish, since they are also brownish caucasians.
Racism has never been logical or rational. And people can be racist towards their own race. And understandable does not mean excusable.
|
Source: New York Times
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eqHQnf6.png)
so yeah, there's no reason to be mad as a german even if we've taken in the most by total numbers.
|
On September 09 2015 01:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 01:33 dismiss wrote:
Ah yes, we're all racist because we have laws that are supposed to regulate this sort of thing and worry about how much money it's going to cost as well as the problems arising from having a huge amount of people not familiar with the manners of their respective host countries, language, etc. The best part is you missed or ignored the part where he said that wasn't the case. Only that racism/Islamophobia is a problem for the EU. Which isn't like news for anyone, I would hope. Its a problem in the US too. A big one. Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 01:34 Faust852 wrote:
^Islamophobia isn't racism since Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. I totally understand islamophobia and adhere to it to some degree, mainly because I despite religions in general, but I despite islam even more because it's degrading, old fashioned, and dangerous to some extend.
So people refusing to see a huge wave of Islam when they are confronting to it every day is totally understandable.
And again Islamophobie != Racism.
That would be even stupider because if you were to be racist of arab people, so you would be Italian or Spanish, since they are also brownish caucasians. Racism has never been logical or rational. And people can be racist towards their own race. And understandable does not mean excusable.
Wait what. I am against unlimited migration. Pretty sure I am not racist though. There are plenty of reasons to not want huge quantities of foreign people in your country other than "I think they're inherently superior because they're brown.", crazy, right?
He suggests that not welcoming the whole slew would be racist, but yeah, go p6 tier reading ability.
|
On September 09 2015 01:38 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 01:36 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2015 01:33 dismiss wrote:
Ah yes, we're all racist because we have laws that are supposed to regulate this sort of thing and worry about how much money it's going to cost as well as the problems arising from having a huge amount of people not familiar with the manners of their respective host countries, language, etc. The best part is you missed or ignored the part where he said that wasn't the case. Only that racism/Islamophobia is a problem for the EU. Which isn't like news for anyone, I would hope. Its a problem in the US too. A big one. On September 09 2015 01:34 Faust852 wrote:
^Islamophobia isn't racism since Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. I totally understand islamophobia and adhere to it to some degree, mainly because I despite religions in general, but I despite islam even more because it's degrading, old fashioned, and dangerous to some extend.
So people refusing to see a huge wave of Islam when they are confronting to it every day is totally understandable.
And again Islamophobie != Racism.
That would be even stupider because if you were to be racist of arab people, so you would be Italian or Spanish, since they are also brownish caucasians. Racism has never been logical or rational. And people can be racist towards their own race. And understandable does not mean excusable. Wait what. I am against unlimited migration. Pretty sure I am not racist though. There are plenty of reasons to not want huge quantities of foreign people in your country other than "I think they're inherently superior because they're brown.", crazy, right?
The only person call you racist is you. It is entirely your problem. The resistance to helping the refugees and generally paralysis on the issue is partly due to racism. Just like immigration in the US and it going no place is partly caused by racism. You can clearly see in the rhetoric around both of the topics. That doesn’t make you racist or your concerns motivated by racism. Though your defensive response to the topic of racism makes me think it is a major concern that your opinion might be viewed that way. But once again, that is your perception, rather than the reality.
|
On September 09 2015 01:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 01:34 Faust852 wrote:
^Islamophobia isn't racism since Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. I totally understand islamophobia and adhere to it to some degree, mainly because I despite religions in general, but I despite islam even more because it's degrading, old fashioned, and dangerous to some extend.
So people refusing to see a huge wave of Islam when they are confronting to it every day is totally understandable.
And again Islamophobie != Racism.
That would be even stupider because if you were to be racist of arab people, so you would be Italian or Spanish, since they are also brownish caucasians. Racism has never been logical or rational. And people can be racist towards their own race. And understandable does not mean excusable.
1. Islamophobia is not the same as racism. Many people are more than willing to take non-Muslim refugees and are willing to support them.
2. With where genetics is today, the only way you can conclusively make the statement that "race isn't real" is if you are essentially accepting conjecture as fact. Not a scientific conclusion, at any rate.
|
On September 09 2015 01:25 Evil_Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2015 15:24 Maenander wrote:I didn't know Islam defines a race now. Yes, Eastern European countries are pretty intolerant from "our" viewpoint. But it's too easy to pick on them from the outside. We are talking about small countries that had to defend their identities against larger cultures for a long time. And the memories of the conflict against the Ottoman Empire, that was stylized into a conflict between Muslims and Christians, might still be alive in some of those countries. Given that Muslim countries don't exactly appear like successful model countries in the news right now and Christians are the targets of raving Islamists in some parts of the world, it's not exactly hard to understand why there would be an animosity towards Muslim immigrants in countries that are hardly used to immigrants at all. Show nested quote +On September 08 2015 17:54 Sent. wrote:Racist Europeans still accept way more Syrian refugees than North Americans or rich muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, don't they? Show nested quote +On September 08 2015 20:12 maybenexttime wrote:Where in the article does it say that? You mean accepting only Christians? How is that even racist? Not only is not racist, but it's also a very sensible policy. We don't need refugees that will surely fail to integrate. That's the point. It doesn't say it anywhere in the article. When I read all the media coverage of this "migrants crisis" I have to laugh. They're all like, this crisis is very complicated, Europe seems unable to act, it's paralyzed by its bureaucratic political structure, seems unable to find agreement on quotas, blah blah blah... Which is why it's nice when people come along like Hungary's Viktor Orban come along to cut through all the bullshit to let us know what the real problem is here: WE don't want THEM here. The media doesn't dare say it, but it's the elephant in the room: Europe doesn't want refugees because it's racist. That's what the honest headline would be. Now of course not all Europeans are racist, many, maybe even the majority aren't. And some of those people have shown up, for example, in Germany. And many countries are led by unracist or even anti-racist governments. But there's no denying that racism is widespread in Europe, racist politics are a powerful currency, racist parties exist in almost every European country, some even form the government, and the real reason there is a "refugee crisis" in the EU right now mostly just boils down to good old fashioned racism.
Blah blah blah. Leftist nonsense. Are we supposed to take you seriously? Then take disagreeing opinions seriously instead of dismissing them as "racist".
|
On September 09 2015 01:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 01:38 dismiss wrote:On September 09 2015 01:36 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2015 01:33 dismiss wrote:
Ah yes, we're all racist because we have laws that are supposed to regulate this sort of thing and worry about how much money it's going to cost as well as the problems arising from having a huge amount of people not familiar with the manners of their respective host countries, language, etc. The best part is you missed or ignored the part where he said that wasn't the case. Only that racism/Islamophobia is a problem for the EU. Which isn't like news for anyone, I would hope. Its a problem in the US too. A big one. On September 09 2015 01:34 Faust852 wrote:
^Islamophobia isn't racism since Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. I totally understand islamophobia and adhere to it to some degree, mainly because I despite religions in general, but I despite islam even more because it's degrading, old fashioned, and dangerous to some extend.
So people refusing to see a huge wave of Islam when they are confronting to it every day is totally understandable.
And again Islamophobie != Racism.
That would be even stupider because if you were to be racist of arab people, so you would be Italian or Spanish, since they are also brownish caucasians. Racism has never been logical or rational. And people can be racist towards their own race. And understandable does not mean excusable. Wait what. I am against unlimited migration. Pretty sure I am not racist though. There are plenty of reasons to not want huge quantities of foreign people in your country other than "I think they're inherently superior because they're brown.", crazy, right? The only person call you racist is you. It is entirely your problem. The resistance to helping the refugees and generally paralysis on the issue is partly due to racism. Just like immigration in the US and it going no place is partly caused by racism. You can clearly see in the rhetoric around both of the topics. That doesn’t make you racist or your concerns motivated by racism. Though your defensive response to the topic of racism makes me think it is a major concern that your opinion might be viewed that way. But once again, that is your perception, rather than the reality.
But it isn't, neither is that what he said. If there was any real racism in the way European governments dealt with this I'm pretty sure they'd just let the refugees drown and/or starve. It's a lot of people, having to be dealt with in a way that no country is used to in such quantities.Of course it's not going to go over without a hitch, especially since there's there's not one big blob of refugees.
|
On September 09 2015 01:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 01:36 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2015 01:34 Faust852 wrote:
^Islamophobia isn't racism since Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. I totally understand islamophobia and adhere to it to some degree, mainly because I despite religions in general, but I despite islam even more because it's degrading, old fashioned, and dangerous to some extend.
So people refusing to see a huge wave of Islam when they are confronting to it every day is totally understandable.
And again Islamophobie != Racism.
That would be even stupider because if you were to be racist of arab people, so you would be Italian or Spanish, since they are also brownish caucasians. Racism has never been logical or rational. And people can be racist towards their own race. And understandable does not mean excusable. 1. Islamophobia is not the same as racism. Many people are more than willing to take non-Muslim refugees and are willing to support them. 2. With where genetics is today, the only way you can conclusively make the statement that "race isn't real" is if you are essentially accepting conjecture as fact. Not a scientific conclusion, at any rate.
Evidence is that lot of countries are ok as lonk as the refugees are Christians  So still arab.
So yeah, not racist at all. I don't even know how people can bring this term here. It's not like we are in the USA with a schism between black and white people.
Oh by the was, racism is forbidden by law in most of Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
