|
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 January 13 2016 07:38 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2016 07:29 m4ini wrote:On January 13 2016 07:26 oneofthem wrote:On January 13 2016 07:19 m4ini wrote:
How exactly do you "de-islamify" someone? education and the cosmopolitan experience. try to minimize stuff that will incite identity based resistance responses, which ironically means greater tolerance of 'muslim' and 'islam' but with efforts to attack the content of the religion/culture. The goal itself is a good one, but there's no way you "educate" a muslim like that. Nor a catholic, for that matter. Religion is not an issue of education anyway. And stuff that "incites identity based resistance responses" is impossible to change as well, since "not wearing a burka" or "mini-skirts" are already that. There's nothing to minimize if "everyday-shit" already rustles their jimmies. edit: and in germany, freedom of religion is important - there's not much more you can do in regards of tolerating islam. The only stuff that doesn't get tolerated is the stuff that is against the law (forced marriage etc) - and you won't ever get any tolerance out of a western person for that. Rightfully so, it's not something that has to be accepted. That's something that has to change, purely on the side of muslims, there's nothing a western society can do in those regards. it is obviously a gradual process, but at the core i see a need of an internal critical moment like the enlightenment for christian west. education and teh cosmopolitian experience are meant to be taken together to refer to the secularization process that works pretty well on the youth of 'the west.' religion is the stuff of family and rural clannish enclaves, maybe islam itself is more persistent, but with the right conditions it can be digested. deislamification to me doesn't mean 'not a muslim,' just someone who is adapting islam to their new society instead of the other way around.
That's actually not even remotely comparable. Neither are christians and muslims, nor are their believes. It's actually not even the religion that is the problem, it's the indoctrination of a purely patriarchal system. And you won't get that out of them, purely because it's way too convenient.
Regarding the topic at hand, i fully agree with sending (major) criminals back, even if it means sending them back into a warzone. If you want refuge from a war, the least you could do is not bite the hand that feeds you. And i don't have a lot of sympathy for sexual offenders or violent criminals in general, that kind of behaviour is barbaric and has no place in a civilized society.
We're fully in agreement then. Also with the government, since the crimes i listed (attacks on police, sexual offenders, violent/armed crimes and "Serien-Einbrueche"( are the only ones where the new rules will apply.
However, I also think that we should not treat all of the refugees as criminals just because a very small minority of them are, or place the whole group in some sort of kin punishment because a few of them are criminals. Striking back against "the refugees" should not be the reaction to this. Punish the criminals, and treat the rest of them with the same respect that you would treat any other individual person with, instead of viewing all refugees as some sort of amorphous blob that can only be interacted with as a hole which seems to be something a lot of people suggest. People are individually responsible for their own behaviour, not for the behaviour of a drawer you put them into.
In all honesty, i don't think many people do. If it comes off like that, it's because people get immediately attacked as soon as they voice their opinion. Nobody ever said "throw them all out". Everyone said "throw the criminals out", and "make sure that criminals don't get in in the first place". In fact, many of the people that you would consider "anti-immigration" made perfectly clear that on one hand, helping refugees is fine - but not at any cost. That's not racist or "viewing all refugees as a unified blob" - it's just a perfectly reasonable view.
That's as dumb as the statement that was made a couple of pages back, where i said "stuff needs to change" and as answer i got some retarded rant about "what you gonna do, shoot them? mine fields?". It doesn't help proving a point.
|
On January 13 2016 07:40 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2016 07:07 AngryMag wrote:On January 13 2016 07:00 Simberto wrote:
Well, it is. Or would you mind explaining what you meant with your statement if not that? No why would I? Anybody who is actually interested in discussing the issue at hand understands perfectly well what was meant with the post. Why would I help you to deflect from the issue? So what you are saying is that you figured out how ridiculous that statement was, but are now incapable of retracting it due to your ego and thus just act smugly superior because "It is obvious what you meant". I am not that interested in discussing the catholic church, that problem is gonna solve itself in a few generation anyways as fewer and fewer people in each generation care about that archaic and pointless institution. I simply got drawn into this by the absurdity of your statement. Regarding the topic at hand, i fully agree with sending (major) criminals back, even if it means sending them back into a warzone. If you want refuge from a war, the least you could do is not bite the hand that feeds you. And i don't have a lot of sympathy for sexual offenders or violent criminals in general, that kind of behaviour is barbaric and has no place in a civilized society. However, I also think that we should not treat all of the refugees as criminals just because a very small minority of them are, or place the whole group in some sort of kin punishment because a few of them are criminals. Striking back against "the refugees" should not be the reaction to this. Punish the criminals, and treat the rest of them with the same respect that you would treat any other individual person with, instead of viewing all refugees as some sort of amorphous blob that can only be interacted with as a hole which seems to be something a lot of people suggest. People are individually responsible for their own behaviour, not for the behaviour of a drawer you put them into.
Your next red herring. Great job again. Nobody (atleast in the last pages o this thread) remotely implied to treat refugees as some sort of amorphous mass either. You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.
|
On January 13 2016 07:38 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2016 07:29 m4ini wrote:On January 13 2016 07:26 oneofthem wrote:On January 13 2016 07:19 m4ini wrote:
How exactly do you "de-islamify" someone? education and the cosmopolitan experience. try to minimize stuff that will incite identity based resistance responses, which ironically means greater tolerance of 'muslim' and 'islam' but with efforts to attack the content of the religion/culture. The goal itself is a good one, but there's no way you "educate" a muslim like that. Nor a catholic, for that matter. Religion is not an issue of education anyway. And stuff that "incites identity based resistance responses" is impossible to change as well, since "not wearing a burka" or "mini-skirts" are already that. There's nothing to minimize if "everyday-shit" already rustles their jimmies. edit: and in germany, freedom of religion is important - there's not much more you can do in regards of tolerating islam. The only stuff that doesn't get tolerated is the stuff that is against the law (forced marriage etc) - and you won't ever get any tolerance out of a western person for that. Rightfully so, it's not something that has to be accepted. That's something that has to change, purely on the side of muslims, there's nothing a western society can do in those regards. it is obviously a gradual process, but at the core i see a need of an internal critical moment like the enlightenment for christian west. education and the cosmopolitian experience are meant to be taken together to refer to the secularization process that works pretty well on the youth of 'the west.' religion is the stuff of family and rural clannish enclaves, maybe islam itself is more persistent, but with the right conditions it can be digested. deislamification to me doesn't mean 'not a muslim,' just someone who is adapting islam to their new society instead of the other way around. so a shift in focus from being actual racists and calling out racists, and rather focus on the content of cultural practices and beliefs.
Yes but many muslims just don't want to. In France every time you even talk about anything related to the fact that islam as it is (about the veil or the place of women in muslim societies for exemple) might be a problem for the cohesion in our society they accuse you of islamophobia.
I've talked to a fucking teacher, muslim, who told me straight to the face that even Levi-Strauss was an islamophobic (and another, a french pseudo marxist, who argued that frontiers are mental barriers put in your brain by the capilists lolz...). The antiracist doctrine and the valorisation of diversity/mobility as it is, without any nuance, has become so dominant that any critic toward the people who are defined as "dominated", not from here, or any political philosophy that argue for some kind of homogeneity (in value) in a country (like Durkheim use to for exemple) is instantly labelled as racism.
To be fair, I feel like the new dominant ideology, supported by half the bourgeoisie, is actually to resent your own country nowadays.
|
Why is it always the bourgeoisie who is apparently the only group that is capable of supporting internationalism or liberalism? Plenty of working class people around who share the views you consider to be dogmatic for a multitude of reasons. The idea of an evil "elite" of people ruling Europe in undemocratic fashion isn't really based on anything.
|
When reading these discussions, you start realizing how much value there is in people who are doted with common sense. I don't mean that for religious people, or non-religious people, etc. It's just striking how difficult it is for people to get along. Is culture that big a barrier? I think that the more people make a big deal out tolerance for others, the more people become intolerant.
I don't know.
|
On January 13 2016 08:31 Incognoto wrote:
When reading these discussions, you start realizing how much value there is in people who are doted with common sense.
Enlighten us with your opinion.
|
On January 13 2016 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Why is it always the bourgeoisie who is apparently the only group that is capable of supporting internationalism or liberalism? Plenty of working class people around who share the views you consider to be dogmatic for a multitude of reasons. The idea of an evil "elite" of people ruling Europe in undemocratic fashion isn't really based on anything.
Because it's reality. Look who vote to gain for pro sovereignty policies, for pro nation policies. There are realities you don't seem to accept : poor people barely leave their home country, go in vacation in another country, clearly see the competition that goes with the opening of borders as a problem.
|
Sorry that post was a bit short and I edited it to make up for that.
But yeah it's just weird that culture is so important to some people that they'd start killing other people for it. I don't understand how I can get along with all my arab mates in class without a hitch but for some reason this doesn't seem applicable to a lot of others. Of course, it goes both ways.
e.g. the 15 year old who attacked a teacher with a machete because he was jewish. Where do you even get the idea that you're going to live a happy, fulfilled life, by committing those crimes. Is the 15 year old too stupid to realize that what he's doing is detrimental to everyone, especially himself? Where are people getting all of this. I just don't get it.
|
On January 13 2016 08:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2016 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Why is it always the bourgeoisie who is apparently the only group that is capable of supporting internationalism or liberalism? Plenty of working class people around who share the views you consider to be dogmatic for a multitude of reasons. The idea of an evil "elite" of people ruling Europe in undemocratic fashion isn't really based on anything. Because it's reality. Look who vote to gain for pro sovereignty policies, for pro nation policies. There are realities you don't seem to accept : poor people barely leave their home country, go in vacation in another country, clearly see the competition that goes with the opening of borders as a problem.
I accept the reality that some people are being screwed over economically by globalization, but those people still are entitled to their own opinion and most of them still support the mainstream European parties, often because the economical situation alone isn't the only thing they base their vote on. It's paternalistic to assume that these people don't have a mind of their own and are somehow being manipulated by the ruling class.
There is a good chunk of people in Europe who reject the established institutions and parties and vote nationalist, but it's not a majority by a huge margin, and not all of them are well off financially. The working class has interests beside monetary gains as well. I'd never vote for Geert Wilders in my life no matter if he'd raise my pension by 200 bucks or not.
|
On January 13 2016 08:44 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2016 08:36 WhiteDog wrote:On January 13 2016 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Why is it always the bourgeoisie who is apparently the only group that is capable of supporting internationalism or liberalism? Plenty of working class people around who share the views you consider to be dogmatic for a multitude of reasons. The idea of an evil "elite" of people ruling Europe in undemocratic fashion isn't really based on anything. Because it's reality. Look who vote to gain for pro sovereignty policies, for pro nation policies. There are realities you don't seem to accept : poor people barely leave their home country, go in vacation in another country, clearly see the competition that goes with the opening of borders as a problem. I accept the reality that some people are being screwed over economically by globalization, but those people still are entitled to their own opinion and most of them still support the mainstream European parties, often because the economical situation alone isn't the only thing they base their vote on. It's paternalistic to assume that these people don't have a mind of their own and are somehow being manipulated by the ruling class.
I think you are mistaking my point because you mix many things. Having the deep belief that humanity is one, that we are all facing the same condition, is a positive value possessed by any social class. But this abstract unity of men must dictate an attitude of empathy and respect towards others, not resentment towards ourselves (which is letting go what make our singularity).
But the idea that opening borders, the end of nation state - the mobility/diversity "without any nuance" I wrote, which is "resentment for yourself" - is specific to bourgeoisie, the only real international class.
Also it seems like you're putting aside the reality : the poorest vote for the mainstream parties ? They just don't vote, or when they do they vote extrem right... The people who vote for mainstream european parties are old people, who vote either by respect for their past of because they are of the bourgeoisie. The two governing parties in France represent like 50 % of the population of a country like France, not much more, in any election (look at the last election in France).
|
I'd never vote for Geert Wilders in my life no matter if he'd raise my pension by 200 bucks or not.
Nationalist!=Geert Wilders.
That's a trump-level idiot, nothing more.
edit: or more specific, he's a populist, not nationalist. And a trump-level idiot on top.
|
On January 13 2016 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:
But the idea that opening borders, the end of nation state - the mobility/diversity "without any nuance" I wrote, which is "resentment for yourself" - is specific to bourgeoisie, the only real international class.
But there is more nuance to it in reality then you assert. Like the idea of diversity has been pretty much turned into a meme on the internet but people actually happen to value diversity and you don't need to be a Machiavellian capitalist for that. The working class isn't just one homogeneous entity where everybody is white and poor. This happens all the time in this recent debate about Liberalism. Either you're a business owner or a hippie college student or a Muslim, as if a completely average person can't be a liberal on a continent with a liberal tradition without having some specific agenda or naive worldview.
Nationalist!=Geert Wilders.
That's a trump-level idiot, nothing more.
edit: or more specific, he's a populist, not nationalist. And a trump-level idiot on top.
Well there is a pretty clear split between nationalism and everybody else at the moment. There isn't really that much middle ground between what people have been identified as the 'mainstream' and the 'alternative'. Conservative parties have pretty clearly moved away from nationalism.
|
I don't think that people moved away from nationalism, not even close. At least not by my definition (which is pretty much "patriotism", but viewed negatively, to put it simplified).
I mean, it was never big in germany to begin with after WW2, that's a given - but living in the UK now, or looking at other countries like france, poland etc..
I'm inclined to disagree. As long as our definition of nationalism doesn't differ, in which case i can't really tell.
edit: and it doesn't touch my statement either, i only disagreed with Geert Wilders being a nationalist. He is not. He's a racist and populist, but not a nationalist. He's basically a concentrated Pegida (right wing populistic party, even if they call themselves patriotic).
|
On January 13 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2016 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:
But the idea that opening borders, the end of nation state - the mobility/diversity "without any nuance" I wrote, which is "resentment for yourself" - is specific to bourgeoisie, the only real international class.
But there is more nuance to it in reality then you assert. Like the idea of diversity has been pretty much turned into a meme on the internet but people actually happen to value diversity and you don't need to be a Machiavellian capitalist for that. The working class isn't just one homogeneous entity where everybody is white and poor. This happens all the time in this recent debate about Liberalism. Either you're a business owner or a hippie college student or a Muslim, as if a completely average person can't be a liberal on a continent with a liberal tradition without having some specific agenda or naive worldview. Show nested quote +
Nationalist!=Geert Wilders.
That's a trump-level idiot, nothing more.
edit: or more specific, he's a populist, not nationalist. And a trump-level idiot on top.
Well there is a pretty clear split between nationalism and everybody else at the moment. There isn't really that much middle ground between what people have been identified as the 'mainstream' and the 'alternative'. Conservative parties have pretty clearly moved away from nationalism.
Again diversity without any nuance, which is "exotism", the valorisation of the culture of others without any defence for your own singularity, is the problem, not the valorisation and the discovery of the other in itself.
Even within a country, diversity is not the exception but the norm. The idea that France has a unified culture shakken by the arrival of migrants just makes me laugh.
Every countries are diverse, there are no such things are a unified culture anywhere in the world. But when you don't have anything to unify the diversity, to create cohesion in a society split by different interests and value (which is the role of the state and of the idea of nation, historically constructed) - class also have their own culture - then you let the antagonism structure your politics. The problem is not that muslims are muslims, but that the society does not create a good enough narrative and institutions to value a unified "France" (or Europe) and to add muslims to that unified entity (which would indeed force them to change their practice, in part).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
ack confused texting with posting.
anyway there is really no need to talk about our culture vs their culture. just look at the content of the cultures and discuss the values and beliefs directly.
after all the rise of the reaction is probably the larger concern
|
On January 13 2016 09:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 13 2016 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:
But the idea that opening borders, the end of nation state - the mobility/diversity "without any nuance" I wrote, which is "resentment for yourself" - is specific to bourgeoisie, the only real international class.
But there is more nuance to it in reality then you assert. Like the idea of diversity has been pretty much turned into a meme on the internet but people actually happen to value diversity and you don't need to be a Machiavellian capitalist for that. The working class isn't just one homogeneous entity where everybody is white and poor. This happens all the time in this recent debate about Liberalism. Either you're a business owner or a hippie college student or a Muslim, as if a completely average person can't be a liberal on a continent with a liberal tradition without having some specific agenda or naive worldview.
Nationalist!=Geert Wilders.
That's a trump-level idiot, nothing more.
edit: or more specific, he's a populist, not nationalist. And a trump-level idiot on top.
Well there is a pretty clear split between nationalism and everybody else at the moment. There isn't really that much middle ground between what people have been identified as the 'mainstream' and the 'alternative'. Conservative parties have pretty clearly moved away from nationalism. Again diversity without any nuance, which is "exotism", the valorisation of the culture of others without any defence for your own singularity, is the problem, not the valorisation and the discovery of the other in itself. Even within a country, diversity is not the exception but the norm. The idea that France has a unified culture shakken by the arrival of migrants just makes me laugh. Every countries are diverse, there are no such things are a unified culture anywhere in the world. But when you don't have anything to unify the diversity, to create cohesion in a society split by different interests and value ( which is the role of the state and of the idea of nation, historically constructed) - class also have their own culture - then you let the antagonism structure your politics. The problem is not that muslims are muslims, but that the society does not create a good enough narrative and institutions to value a unified "France" (or Europe) and to add muslims to that unified entity (which would indeed force them to change their practice, in part).
I don't disagree with that I just think we have different ideas about what the current people in power believe. Angela Merkel isn't naive or a relativist and she doesn't want to get rid of Germany as a national entity with the help of a cabal of industrialists. The amount of people who buy into some form of 'exotism' are very few, and the people currently rebelling against the 'mainstream' aren't just realists or pragmatists, they're oldschool "völkisch' nationalists who tie nationality together with ethnicity and explicitly attack minorities.
|
On January 13 2016 08:37 Incognoto wrote:
Sorry that post was a bit short and I edited it to make up for that.
But yeah it's just weird that culture is so important to some people that they'd start killing other people for it. I don't understand how I can get along with all my arab mates in class without a hitch but for some reason this doesn't seem applicable to a lot of others. Of course, it goes both ways.
I think we could to do some anthropological history here. Basically a society is a construct of people that have things in common, inherited traditions and want to forward said traditions to their children (that is just the intrinsic instinct of survival). No matter which society we can consider (Greek cities, Berbers tribes, primordial Celtic clans etc. ...), the idea is to unit with people that are like you as an extension of a family to share, build shit, etc. ... (Btw notice how close the french words rassembler and ressembler are). So it is not surprising that people from completely different parts of the world do not get along. Obviously, this does not mean that one is superior to another, just different. Imagine how boring the world would be if you would meet the same people on all continents.
E.g. if France is, like the General De Gaulle said, a country of white, catholic people with Greek-roman culture, it is obvious that someone that does not share at least one of these attributes will not feel at home here.
Let's take a look at the immigrants we have in France. Since quite a while, people from Spanish, Portuguese, Italian origin. Do you know any neighbourhood where you get beat up for not being of Spanish/Portuguese/Italian origin? Same thing goes for Armenians. Even though they are not as close geographically and culturally, all French-Armenians I know are catholics (thus having already one thing in common), took french names and adapted very well.
Obviously, the answer is more complicated than that, e.g. I am not taking into account the social/economic status which plays an important role.
|
On January 13 2016 00:33 Schmobutzen wrote:
@nitback: No, you don't understand it. Not all of them need to get send back. Just the ones who can't and won't live in the culture that opens their arms towards them to help.
No, you don't understand. But its fine. Have it your way. Enjoy living in a world where there are 2 men for every woman aged 18-35.
|
double post sorry 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
