Yeah, really it's just tribalism masquerading as "nationalism" since true nationalism generally contemplates seeking recognition of an autonomous sovereign state. The appeals to us v. them are transparent as well as promises of tribal/national prosperity. At the end of the day, it's really easy to point at others to lay blame as opposed to formulating real solutions. Preferably others in a relatively weak position so they can't actually do anything about it.
As to finally wising up, not likely. History teaches us that that such rhetoric will always find an audience. And even if they do eventually figure out the con, the damage is done.
Galas wrote: I think that the statisc of the high number of Rapes in north countrys has been very mythified. I think that it has to do with the fact that the legislation about what is legally "rape" has been very expanded and a very insistent social campaing to make people more aware of what constitutes sexual assault in Sweden and similar countrys.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
According to Brå, it is likely that as many as 80 per cent of all rapes are not reported, which was confirmed in a 2001 study of the extent of violence against women, funded by the Government of Sweden and the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority.[39][49]
Long before any Inmigration crisis.
EDIT: Ok, I have noticed now that this is totally offtopic, so I'm not gonna continue to discuss this issue here!
Agreed with all your points. The changing of the legal definition is definitely a factor, but unfortunately that just makes things even more opaque and hard to judge what is actually true. It's good that France does not seem to have this degree of a problem with this one issue.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.
Ok, so no relation to economic success and unemployment rates. That's fine.
Does acceptance of more refugees correlate with increased crime and sexual assault of young women?
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.
Ok, so no relation to economic success and unemployment rates. That's fine.
Does acceptance of more refugees correlate with increased crime and sexual assault of young women?
Meanwhile, Le Pen named Nicolas Dupont-Aignan her prime minister, which could bring along 2 million votes. She continues to see enthusiastic rallies that rail against the likes of Macron, lumping him with Hollande. At this point, she seems to be doing everything right.
Ah, the same fails, again and again. When I was younger, I tought... "Why politicians attack one another? Why they just don't plan all of this so they can have us under control and enjoy the privileges of their position?"
Now that I'm older, I realice why they don't do that. Because they are just as stupid as every other person in the planet. And normally, if they have reached that position, is because they have a total lack of morals, loyalty, and every basic virtue of human nature. Oh, our political class, the best of the best!
Meanwhile, Le Pen named Nicolas Dupont-Aignan her prime minister, which could bring along 2 million votes. She continues to see enthusiastic rallies that rail against the likes of Macron, lumping him with Hollande. At this point, she seems to be doing everything right.
Yep! They're going to take this with a grinding, ground game just like Trump. Throw in some cockiness from an opponent who just doesn't get it and a dash of Russian thumb-on-the-scale help and voila! Wait, is this the US Politics thread...no, we're good.
Humble Guardsman wrote: For the most part, at least in my own experience, people that are genuinely opposed to maintaining current levels of immigration are based on cultural matters. Most people don't care if David Wu and a couple of his mates come over for snags around the BBQ, but they don't like the idea of Hassan and his buddies setting up shop here and keeping to themselves and their own exclusive clique. If an immigrant makes an effort to assimilate into their host nation most people that aren't jerks will give them the time of day. If they stick to themselves or try to impose their views on the non-standard then trouble starts.
I think you are right here in pointing out that the issue is primarily cultural, not economic. The economic stuff actually makes no sense, even on a simple, intuitive level, it is what people add on to bolster their argument, once they've already decided they're resentful of immigrants. After all, the people who are worried about foreign workers coming here are almost always the same people who are also worried about foreign investment, when the latter creates jobs so should be supported by people who are primarily concerned by jobs.
And ask yourself, can anyone name a single person they know who just loves foreign cultures, looks to engage with foreigners to learn about them, their lives and experiences, but then says as much as they love that, they just can't support more immigration.
As to whether the cultural issue is correct... that's a tougher issue. You are right that it is natural for people to resent it when an area they live in or around begins to feel alien. But this has been a concern as long as there's been migration. Here in Australia we hated the Italians and the Greeks because they didn't assimilate, then another generation on their kids were assimilated and we forget that it ever bothered us. By that point we were hostile to the Chinese because they didn't assimilate. But their kids did assimilate, and by then we'd moved on to being hostile at the Somalis and the Lebanese who weren't assimilating. When the history of second generation assimilation is pointed out, people assert this time is different, this group really won't be assimilating. That's almost certainly not true.
So assimilation does happen, but its generational. It is understandable that people don't see, or appreciate, or believe in change at that slow speed. Hence much of the resentment.
You can question if the immigration history of the New World can be compared to current migration to Western European countries like France.
Even if we ignore the larger ethnic homogeneity of the host populations, which might negatively influence assimilation, other factors are involved. In the post war era the migration stream to Western Euope has not been very diverse from an ethnic and socio-economic point of view, mostly guest workers from around the Mediterranean, former colonial citizens and more recently refugees from Africa and the near East. Some countries of origin (for example Turkey, Eritrea) have even started to actively undermine assimilation efforts from economic and political motives.
While the macro economic figures do not support a large impact on the economy as a whole, it is different on the regional and micro level. Wage competition is very real for many forms of unskilled work as real wages among the bottom incomes have not grown with the wider economy in the last three decades. In addition in this period governments have stripped the welfare state bare for budgetary reasons, while non-western (read middle east and Africa) are the largest consumers and this causes much resentment. You can argue that governments have neglected the welfare state on purpose but the Euro stability pact forced austerity in downturns. The high unemployment among this set of migrants is mostly caused by a skill mismatch on the labor market as supply and demand had little to do with the migration decision.
jmurph wrote: That's the thing, though. Facts don't matter; perceptions do. So if people get fired up that they perceive that they have no jerbs and that immigrants are taking their jerbs, the will act on that, no matter how unfounded in reality it is. The problem is that it is a lot easier to scapegoat people who look different and dress and talk funny than to analyze underlying systemic and economic trends. And guess what reactionaries tend to do (Hint: it's not the analysis option!) Worse, there is that primitive part of the brain that all humans have that desires simple actions, safety, and buys into this at some level (threat of the Other) and has to be overridden by knowledge and experience, so it bleeds over into the mainstream, where it can mobilize just enough to swing elections.
Sure, but on a perception level French consumer confidence is the highest its been since before the GFC. So even on a level of feelz the French aren't that bothered.
What there might be is acute issues, either in certain regions, industries or demographic groups. Okayish unemployment can mask acute unemployment under 25, or large numbers of rural unemployment, or manufactuing jobs declines etc. All of which can lead to big changes in votes among certain groups.
I have no idea if that's happening in France, but it is happening in a bunch of other places, so probably France as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, the Jew? Or the Free Mason? Or the bankers? Or the gays? Or anyone the politicians will decide to scapegoat?
The politician is the next scapegoat. Things go wrong, maybe the politician was responsible for some of it or maybe not, but the politician will be blamed either way and dumped. It's a very rare breed who gets past a second term. Politicians who get to a fourth term are generally world famous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Ah, the same fails, again and again. When I was younger, I tought... "Why politicians attack one another? Why they just don't plan all of this so they can have us under control and enjoy the privileges of their position?"
Now that I'm older, I realice why they don't do that. Because they are just as stupid as every other person in the planet. And normally, if they have reached that position, is because they have a total lack of morals, loyalty, and every basic virtue of human nature. Oh, our political class, the best of the best!
There's a dynamic you're missing here. Thing is, politicians do work together, and they do it on almost everything. Because most parts of government, reworking a law, helping grow an industry, these things aren't contraversial or political, they just need general input from everyone involved, and then to get pushed through government with a bi-partisan bill. But that stuff never gets in the media, because there's no story. "Bi-partisan bill modernises process for economic data collection, breaking news live at five" is not going to get anyone watching.
The media covers the 5% where political parties disagree. And politicians play up to that, they know it's the bit the public pays attention to, it's the bit that wins and costs them votes. The public as a result gets this impression that politicians are constantly fighting over everything.
I think you are right here in pointing out that the issue is primarily cultural, not economic. The economic stuff actually makes no sense, even on a simple, intuitive level, it is what people add on to bolster their argument, once they've already decided they're resentful of immigrants. After all, the people who are worried about foreign workers coming here are almost always the same people who are also worried about foreign investment, when the latter creates jobs so should be supported by people who are primarily concerned by jobs.
And ask yourself, can anyone name a single person they know who just loves foreign cultures, looks to engage with foreigners to learn about them, their lives and experiences, but then says as much as they love that, they just can't support more immigration
As to whether the cultural issue is correct... that's a tougher issue. You are right that it is natural for people to resent it when an area they live in or around begins to feel alien. But this has been a concern as long as there's been migration. Here in Australia we hated the Italians and the Greeks because they didn't assimilate, then another generation on their kids were assimilated and we forget that it ever bothered us. By that point we were hostile to the Chinese because they didn't assimilate. But their kids did assimilate, and by then we'd moved on to being hostile at the Somalis and the Lebanese who weren't assimilating. When the history of second generation assimilation is pointed out, people assert this time is different, this group really won't be assimilating. That's almost certainly not true.
So assimilation does happen, but its generational. It is understandable that people don't see, or appreciate, or believe in change at that slow speed. Hence much of the resentment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Humble Guardsman wrote: Of course immigrants with the same background and culture in common will congregate. How would you fix such a thing? You can't, obviously, breaking up a neighbourhood because it's "too black" or "too white" would be ridiculous and like an extreme reverse of segregation.
You can place visa requirements on people to settle in certain areas, and not in others. Typically this isn't done over ghetto concerns, more to address town population issues, but there's no reason it can't be done to restrict ghettos forming.
But such massive enclaves don't remain self-sufficient and isolated enough to retain their foreign cultural identity if they are not allowed to immigrate in such a large number in the first place. Several hundred immigrants in a city would have to be highly uniform in their exclusivity for them to retain a separate identity, however several hundred thousand can easily retain their distinct cultural identity without ever having to assimilate into the nation after successive generations.
Britain's immigration might be very high by British historic standards, but it's nothing compared to the immigration in to countries like Australia and the US. And despite massive waves of immigration, the experience here has shown that ghettos happen, but then they fade. All the various Chinatowns, that were once strong ghettos, are now just novelties for the tourists. The children of the immigrants moved out in to mainstream society.
One solution is to encourage assimilation into the national cultural norm, whatever that may be.
The solution really is time. You have to trust that in time the awesomeness of the 'native' way of life will win people over. If not the first generation, then the second and subsequent generation.
But certainly there are things you can do to help that process along. Free language classes, for instance.
Well said, sebster. I find myself agreeing with you on several points.
I must however disagree with your apparent view that cultural assimilation or amalgamation is essentially inevitable given time. The Jewish People have been a distinct culturally separate entity in almost any host nation for as long as they have existed. There multitude of different diasporias out there, such as the Armenian Diasporia, that retain a distinct identity and community regardless of where they settle down. There are certainly communities, cultures and religious enclaves that by their own code of conduct and practices suppress any chance of successive generations integrating. Most worryingly in the modern day is the matter of Islam, given the stranglehold the religion exhibits on its children.
Even if such exceptions can be dismissed, what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration? Let's set aside the obligation to shelter refugees as a separate issue for now.
Antario wrote: You can question if the immigration history of the New World can be compared to current migration to Western European countries like France.
Even if we ignore the larger ethnic homogeneity of the host populations, which might negatively influence assimilation, other factors are involved. In the post war era the migration stream to Western Euope has not been very diverse from an ethnic and socio-economic point of view, mostly guest workers from around the Mediterranean, former colonial citizens and more recently refugees from Africa and the near East. Some countries of origin (for example Turkey, Eritrea) have even started to actively undermine assimilation efforts from economic and political motives.
Your argument there assumes that because the ‘new world’ countries are ethnically diverse now, they must have always had ethnically diverse immigration. In the middle of the 20th century Australia at least as ethnically homogenous as anywhere in Europe. We were more white and more British than the British. We even had a formalised, overtly racist immigration policy to make sure we stayed that way. It was called “The White Australia” policy because we were in no way subtle.
Then it changed, and it changed very quickly. It started with opening up immigration to Italians & Greeks, then expanded in to the rest of Europe. Later it switched to Asian migration, and now we’re seeing African and ME immigrants.
And yeah, it caused all sorts of ruckus at the time, and it still does. In the last federal election the overtly racist One Nation party won 5% of the vote. But the point is that immigrant groups assimilate in time.
This doesn’t mean any complaints are invalid or automatically racist. And it doesn’t mean things can’t be done to better manage immigration. Hell, in some countries there’s probably a strong case for reducing immigration numbers.
But what I am saying is that almost every immigrant group, ever, will assimilate over two or three generations. You look at the handful of cases where they haven’t, such as the Amish in America, and it gives you an appreciation of how tight the social controls have to get in order to to prevent assimilation, which should tell you how few will do it.
While the macro economic figures do not support a large impact on the economy as a whole, it is different on the regional and micro level. Wage competition is very real for many forms of unskilled work as real wages among the bottom incomes have not grown with the wider economy in the last three decades. In addition in this period governments have stripped the welfare state bare for budgetary reasons, while non-western (read middle east and Africa) are the largest consumers and this causes much resentment. You can argue that governments have neglected the welfare state on purpose but the Euro stability pact forced austerity in downturns. The high unemployment among this set of migrants is mostly caused by a skill mismatch on the labor market as supply and demand had little to do with the migration decision.
Sure, but the issue is that immigration is being used as an explanation for these problems, when it is a minor cause, at best. Wages at the bottom have stagnated because of automation, a decline in industrial bargaining power, and offshoring of jobs. Stripping back the welfare state has exacerbated these problems, definitely. But immigration is marginally involved, at most.
Humble Guardsman wrote: The Jewish People have been a distinct culturally separate entity in almost any host nation for as long as they have existed. There multitude of different diasporias out there, such as the Armenian Diasporia, that retain a distinct identity and community regardless of where they settle down. There are certainly communities, cultures and religious enclaves that by their own code of conduct and practices suppress any chance of successive generations integrating.
What does it matter that Jews have a distinct and long standing identity? Setting the measure of integration to Borg is setting an impossible standard, and demanding that people genocide their own cultural heritage to ever truly join your own. It's a bit absurd. So Benny goes to see a Rabbi instead of a Minister when suffering an existential crisis. What per se is the issue there? I remember a time people said the Irish could never embrace democracy because they'd just take their orders from the Pope and what a crock that was.
Most worryingly in the modern day is the matter of Islam, given the stranglehold the religion exhibits on its children.
Compared to other religions? Most parents are not required to justify as a matter of course raising their children to believe as they do, unless they're different from the perceived norm that is. No one ever told a Christian their religion exhibits a stranglehold on children* dragging them into church and special school every Sunday.
*not without being considered an extremist.
what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration?
What's the moral argument for cutting off immigration? I mean, you literally can't cut it off. Even a puny police state like North Korea fails to completely control it's borders. Immigration policy is a matter of dealing with practical reality. Those policies can be moral or immoral, but their necessity in itself is governed more by physics than philosophy. I'm just curious why this is now a moral argument. Who ever asserted a moral obligation to allow immigration in this thread?
Humble Guardsman wrote: Well said, sebster. I find myself agreeing with you on several points.
Thanks.
I must however disagree with your apparent view that cultural assimilation or amalgamation is essentially inevitable given time. The Jewish People have been a distinct culturally separate entity in almost any host nation for as long as they have existed. There multitude of different diasporias out there, such as the Armenian Diasporia, that retain a distinct identity and community regardless of where they settle down. There are certainly communities, cultures and religious enclaves that by their own code of conduct and practices suppress any chance of successive generations integrating.
Assimilation doesn't mean complete absorption. A person can go to their own church and still be assimilated. A chinese person can open a chinese restaurant, and still be assimilated even though the restaurant has no western menu ingredients. What marks assimilation is inclusion in society, whether their social groups are from the greater population and not mostly their own immigrant group. Where their kids go to school. What nationality they identify with. Whether they look outside their immigrant group when they look to marry.
Fun fact, Jewish inter-marriage is about 50%. That is, about half of Jews marry someone outside of the faith. The culture remains distinct, but the people in the culture freely marry in to greater society.
Most worryingly in the modern day is the matter of Islam, given the stranglehold the religion exhibits on its children.
There's never been a migrant group about whom that wasn't claimed. Another fun fact, the rate of Muslim inter-marriage is 40%. Not far behind Jews, and miles ahead of groups like Mormons. They're assimilating at a faster rate than most previous immigrant groups.
As a note - the marriage figures I gave were US.
Even if such exceptions can be dismissed, what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration? Let's set aside the obligation to shelter refugees as a separate issue for now.
Moral argument? Outside of refugees, who we’re excluding (and who are a small portion of migration anyway), there isn’t a moral argument. A society has no moral obligation to become multi-cultural.
The arguments for immigration are economic and social. It is better for the economy to have an influx of people in their 20s and 30s, especially when demographics in the host countries are seeing a decline in these prime working ages. Although this is less of a problem in France, which has maintained pretty decent birth rates.
And it is better for society to have diversity and choices. It’s perhaps something of a cliché to talk about this only in terms of food, but it’s the most obvious example.
Galas wrote: Ah, the same fails, again and again. When I was younger, I tought... "Why politicians attack one another? Why they just don't plan all of this so they can have us under control and enjoy the privileges of their position?"
Now that I'm older, I realice why they don't do that. Because they are just as stupid as every other person in the planet. And normally, if they have reached that position, is because they have a total lack of morals, loyalty, and every basic virtue of human nature. Oh, our political class, the best of the best!
There's a dynamic you're missing here. Thing is, politicians do work together, and they do it on almost everything. Because most parts of government, reworking a law, helping grow an industry, these things aren't contraversial or political, they just need general input from everyone involved, and then to get pushed through government with a bi-partisan bill. But that stuff never gets in the media, because there's no story. "Bi-partisan bill modernises process for economic data collection, breaking news live at five" is not going to get anyone watching.
The media covers the 5% where political parties disagree. And politicians play up to that, they know it's the bit the public pays attention to, it's the bit that wins and costs them votes. The public as a result gets this impression that politicians are constantly fighting over everything.
Oh, believe me, I'm totally aware of that! Afterall, our political parties, in a hot and boring summer, voted together like the best friends ever to change our constitution, to make paying our external debt the first national priority, before the wellness of the citizens.
But to be honest, I think that I'm biased about politicians, being of one of the most corrupted countrys of Western Europe.
Politicians being what they are is hardly a new development; going back to Rome they were like that. Even the word 'politics' stems from the root 'poly' meaning many, and 'tics' which are bloodsucking parasites.
Galas wrote: Oh, believe me, I'm totally aware of that! Afterall, our political parties, in a hot and boring summer, voted together like the best friends ever to change our constitution, to make paying our external debt the first national priority, before the wellness of the citizens.
But to be honest, I think that I'm biased about politicians, being of one of the most corrupted countrys of Western Europe.
I often make that point about politicians actually working together on most things in government, but that those things rarely make the media. Funnily enough, almost every time I mention it the reply assumes that anytime they work together it is to screw everyone else.
Seems the politicians can't win. If they argue then people complain that they can't work together. If they work together then people assume it's backroom dealing done to screw everyone else.
The only thing I think I can conclude about any of this is that whatever politicians do, people will complain about.
Humble Guardsman wrote: Well said, sebster. I find myself agreeing with you on several points.
Even if such exceptions can be dismissed, what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration? Let's set aside the obligation to shelter refugees as a separate issue for now.
Moral argument? Outside of refugees, who we’re excluding (and who are a small portion of migration anyway), there isn’t a moral argument. A society has no moral obligation to become multi-cultural.
The arguments for immigration are economic and social. It is better for the economy to have an influx of people in their 20s and 30s, especially when demographics in the host countries are seeing a decline in these prime working ages. Although this is less of a problem in France, which has maintained pretty decent birth rates.
And it is better for society to have diversity and choices. It’s perhaps something of a cliché to talk about this only in terms of food, but it’s the most obvious example.
I disagree. It seems to me that there is a basic moral argument that freedom of movement is a human right. People are not cattle to be penned up in whatever field the power elite thinks is best for them.
Unless there is a compelling reason not to allow people to move to particular areas, then they certainly should if they want to. On top of that are the various benefits of migration.
Kilkrazy wrote: I disagree. It seems to me that there is a basic moral argument that freedom of movement is a human right. People are not cattle to be penned up in whatever field the power elite thinks is best for them.
Unless there is a compelling reason not to allow people to move to particular areas, then they certainly should if they want to. On top of that are the various benefits of migration.
Interesting argument, one that didn't occur to me. I think it is fair as a you are right that it is a moral consideration. Although I'll say that with the qualifier that even the most immigration friendly countries maintain migration quotas, so while it does work as a moral argument and answers the question from Humble Guardsman, in the real world the impact is fairly limited.
One of the key points of the EU is free movement of people. There are no immigration quotas between EU member nations. That is something Le Pen and her supporters want to stop.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is, when you look at the rate at which European countries have been accepting refugees, it doesn't bear any relation to economic success and unemployment rates
Given these facts it is obvious that anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feelings are based on ignorance and xenophobia. A politician who goes along with this and takes political advantage is in a very bad moral position.
Ok, so no relation to economic success and unemployment rates. That's fine.
Does acceptance of more refugees correlate with increased crime and sexual assault of young women?
Isn't "correlation does not imply causation" on the Dakka bingo board? Because if it isn't, it totally should be.
Assimilation doesn't mean complete absorption. A person can go to their own church and still be assimilated. A chinese person can open a chinese restaurant, and still be assimilated even though the restaurant has no western menu ingredients. What marks assimilation is inclusion in society, whether their social groups are from the greater population and not mostly their own immigrant group. Where their kids go to school. What nationality they identify with. Whether they look outside their immigrant group when they look to marry.
I agree with all of this.
Fun fact, Jewish inter-marriage is about 50%. That is, about half of Jews marry someone outside of the faith. The culture remains distinct, but the people in the culture freely marry in to greater society.
Most worryingly in the modern day is the matter of Islam, given the stranglehold the religion exhibits on its children.
There's never been a migrant group about whom that wasn't claimed. Another fun fact, the rate of Muslim inter-marriage is 40%. Not far behind Jews, and miles ahead of groups like Mormons. They're assimilating at a faster rate than most previous immigrant groups.
As a note - the marriage figures I gave were US.
You must be including instances of conversion of at least on of the parties, that's the main method of working around the blanket . Some of these conversions are purely platitudes, others more sincere. The important part in both Jewish and Muslim (and in the case of Catholic/Protestants) intermarriages is what faith the children will be brought up in. And in the matter of Islam, only the marriage of a Muslim male to a women 'of the book' (Jewish/Christian) is technically permitted. It is a controversial Imam indeed who broadens that scope to include marrying Muslim women to men of other faiths.
It is wishful thinking however to assume that Islam is not a different kettle of fish to previous waves of immigration. The violence perpetrated by those of that faith, most worryingly by successive generations raised in the host nation, on behalf of some global agenda is something not seen in previous immigration waves. It is certainly not Asian, European, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist immigrants that have been the source of France's woes as of late. It's attempts to assert their own culture and values on this particular category that has resulted in it coming under attack.
Even if such exceptions can be dismissed, what is the moral argument against cutting off immigration? Let's set aside the obligation to shelter refugees as a separate issue for now.
Moral argument? Outside of refugees, who we’re excluding (and who are a small portion of migration anyway), there isn’t a moral argument. A society has no moral obligation to become multi-cultural.
The arguments for immigration are economic and social. It is better for the economy to have an influx of people in their 20s and 30s, especially when demographics in the host countries are seeing a decline in these prime working ages. Although this is less of a problem in France, which has maintained pretty decent birth rates.
And it is better for society to have diversity and choices. It’s perhaps something of a cliché to talk about this only in terms of food, but it’s the most obvious example.
I agree. It'd be boring if everyone became a curly-blonde-surfing, RM-boots-wearing, VB-drinking stereotype the moment they stepped through customs. Killkrazy did address the moral aspect of it anyhow. It's even backed up by international law.* This does not extend to compelling another country to open their borders to you however.
*Article 12 of the ICCPR
What does it matter that Jews have a distinct and long standing identity? Setting the measure of integration to Borg is setting an impossible standard, and demanding that people genocide their own cultural heritage to ever truly join your own. It's a bit absurd. So Benny goes to see a Rabbi instead of a Minister when suffering an existential crisis. What per se is the issue there? I remember a time people said the Irish could never embrace democracy because they'd just take their orders from the Pope and what a crock that was.
The Jewish diasporia was just an example. As sebster pointed out, groups with that level of tight social control necessary for such continued self-separation are few and far between.
Compared to other religions? Most parents are not required to justify as a matter of course raising their children to believe as they do, unless they're different from the perceived norm that is. No one ever told a Christian their religion exhibits a stranglehold on children* dragging them into church and special school every Sunday.
*not without being considered an extremist.
Certainly when compared to other religions, at least in the modern day. A Catholic family might shun a son or daughter that refused to even pay lip service to the faith, but no other religion persecutes those that deny their faith with as much conviction and organisation as Islam.
[/spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8ds53dvd2Y[/spoiler]
A primitive way to put it perhaps, but is he incorrect? It is wishful thinking to dismiss these acts of violence and domestic extremism as merely the birth-pangs of a new wave of immigrants.
What's the moral argument for cutting off immigration? I mean, you literally can't cut it off. Even a puny police state like North Korea fails to completely control it's borders. Immigration policy is a matter of dealing with practical reality. Those policies can be moral or immoral, but their necessity in itself is governed more by physics than philosophy. I'm just curious why this is now a moral argument. Who ever asserted a moral obligation to allow immigration in this thread?
Sure you can. Japan is fairly ethnically homogenous, and Australia's own controversial 'operation sovereign borders' would be considered a success if you discount the fact that most illegal immigrants arrive not by boat but by plane, hopping through customs on a travel visa and deciding to stick around. Certainly it's more difficult for France to control their borders than an island-based UK, but it can be done.
If a moral factor was never considered an issue here, why are people criticising Le Penn's anti-immigration stance as racist and xenophobic? Those are immoral traits.
Spoiler:
In a broad sense, I beg you don't hit me a plethora of ethics philosophers to pick over that.
Antario wrote: You can question if the immigration history of the New World can be compared to current migration to Western European countries like France.
Even if we ignore the larger ethnic homogeneity of the host populations, which might negatively influence assimilation, other factors are involved. In the post war era the migration stream to Western Euope has not been very diverse from an ethnic and socio-economic point of view, mostly guest workers from around the Mediterranean, former colonial citizens and more recently refugees from Africa and the near East. Some countries of origin (for example Turkey, Eritrea) have even started to actively undermine assimilation efforts from economic and political motives.
Your argument there assumes that because the ‘new world’ countries are ethnically diverse now, they must have always had ethnically diverse immigration. In the middle of the 20th century Australia at least as ethnically homogenous as anywhere in Europe. We were more white and more British than the British. We even had a formalised, overtly racist immigration policy to make sure we stayed that way. It was called “The White Australia” policy because we were in no way subtle.
Then it changed, and it changed very quickly. It started with opening up immigration to Italians & Greeks, then expanded in to the rest of Europe. Later it switched to Asian migration, and now we’re seeing African and ME immigrants.
And yeah, it caused all sorts of ruckus at the time, and it still does. In the last federal election the overtly racist One Nation party won 5% of the vote. But the point is that immigrant groups assimilate in time.
This doesn’t mean any complaints are invalid or automatically racist. And it doesn’t mean things can’t be done to better manage immigration. Hell, in some countries there’s probably a strong case for reducing immigration numbers.
But what I am saying is that almost every immigrant group, ever, will assimilate over two or three generations. You look at the handful of cases where they haven’t, such as the Amish in America, and it gives you an appreciation of how tight the social controls have to get in order to to prevent assimilation, which should tell you how few will do it.
No, I said to ignore the diversity of the host country. I'm arguing there are mechanisms in place now in Western Europe which for part of the migrants prevent the normal assimilation process from occurring or even reversing it.
-The elaborate welfare state reduces the incentive to find work and acquire relevant job skills, particular among poor and low educated migrants.
-Modern technology like the cable TV, internet and smartphones allow much more contact with the country of origin. This prevents the acquisition of language skills and reduces the exposure to the local culture even in the third generation.
-Most West European economies are heavily service based, industry and agriculture are mechanized and high minimum wages are the norm. There is little demand for low skilled labor, so there is massive unemployment among non-western migrants.
-The lack of diversity of migrants, mostly from one region in the world and by and large working class, means its harder to prevent clustering to reduce socio-economic disadvantages
-Countries of origin want influence on their diaspora for economic and political advantage, and actively encourage their former citizens not to assimilate.
-EU green(blue) card system is far more restrictive for permanent settlement than refugee regulations.
-Low rates of mixed marriages. Less than 3% among Moroccans and Turks for example.
The basic issue is that specific migrant groups, for example those from the Magreb area in the case of France, live in a parallel society. They behave more like expats than migrants and there are forces at play, both economic and political that prevent integration/assimilation. migration is far more successful when it is based on filling vacancies. We see very little problems with Asians and East Europeans where normal integration does occur. Arguably countries like Australia and the US have far more effective migration policies in place.
Galas wrote: Oh, believe me, I'm totally aware of that! Afterall, our political parties, in a hot and boring summer, voted together like the best friends ever to change our constitution, to make paying our external debt the first national priority, before the wellness of the citizens.
But to be honest, I think that I'm biased about politicians, being of one of the most corrupted countrys of Western Europe.
I often make that point about politicians actually working together on most things in government, but that those things rarely make the media. Funnily enough, almost every time I mention it the reply assumes that anytime they work together it is to screw everyone else.
Seems the politicians can't win. If they argue then people complain that they can't work together. If they work together then people assume it's backroom dealing done to screw everyone else.
The only thing I think I can conclude about any of this is that whatever politicians do, people will complain about.
I have speent some years being a politician of my small city of 20k habitants (Councillor of Sports, Cleaning and Citizen Security) , and yeah, thats basically it. In the low scale, normally politicians are normal citizens that want to make good things to their town/city, but as you go up in the scale, the Realpolitiks hit very very hard on the type of people you encounter in that scale of power. The MAYORITY just see for themself or their group, and thats it.
Obviously, this is a overly generalization, but as I said, my country has very high levels of corruption, so we can argue all day without agreeing about this.
So we just agree to disagree.
But I'll agree in people complaining about everything. You don't want to now how many votes I lost when I make people pay 10€ more a year to pay for a service of a public Crane to collect abandoned vehicles and vehicles badly parked, after years of asking for it. People wan't services, but they don't want to pay for them
If a moral factor was never considered an issue here, why are people criticising Le Penn's anti-immigration stance as racist and xenophobic?
Yeah. People can be anti-inmigration or be pro inmigration control for economical reasons, like Economical Marxism, where the economical job offer of a country is limited, and a constant influx of inmigrants only benefit the ruling bourgeoisie class (Thats why economical libertarians are all about free borders), and one can be anti-inmigration or pro-inmigration control by Xenophofic and Racist reasons. Normally, the people of the second type hide it behind a cover of the first type, but that cover is easy to set appart. And thats the case of Le-Pen.
I don't know how theres a Anti-EU sentiment in France and Germany when they are the most benefited about it.
(I'm not saying other countrys don't receive benefits, but not in the same way and number. Spain received many subventions and many money, but at the same time Bruselas did make us destroy our Industrial capacity. )
Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.
I think that many legitimate reasons exist to be anti-EU. Is not like the European Union is a sacred thing giving to us mere mortals by God. Personally, I'm more in the "Reform" crown that the "Destroy it!" group.
But thats exactly why I don't understand people in France or Germany, the two countrys that most benefit from the current state of the European Union, having a strong anti-EU movement or rethoric. I'm pretty sure there are cultured people that know the reasonable arguments they have to be anti-EU, totally or partially, but I agree that, as basically every issue in the society, the mayority of people don't really understand all the layers of the problems and prefer to remain ignorant and vote based in slogans.
Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.
I think that many legitimate reasons exist to be anti-EU. Is not like the European Union is a sacred thing giving to us mere mortals by God. Personally, I'm more in the "Reform" crown that the "Destroy it!" group.
But thats exactly why I don't understand people in France or Germany, the two countrys that most benefit from the current state of the European Union, having a strong anti-EU movement or rethoric. I'm pretty sure there are cultured people that know the reasonable arguments they have to be anti-EU, totally or partially, but I agree that, as basically every issue in the society, the mayority of people don't really understand all the layers of the problems and prefer to remain ignorant and vote based in slogans.
Because rage and fear can overwhelm any reason or logical argument.
More to the point however, it becomes a path for power to outsiders. If the "in" group is pro-eu, and you want to get into politics or push an agenda, well, adopting an anti-"whatever they're for" stance is a pretty basic way to obtain an instant voting base even if the idea is dumb, and plenty of people are always willing to cut their (or their nation's) nose off to spite their face for a wide variety of reasons, even moeso if they personally will sustain none of the real burden.
Domestic politics often drive otherwise incomprehensible foreign policy.
Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.
I think that many legitimate reasons exist to be anti-EU. Is not like the European Union is a sacred thing giving to us mere mortals by God. Personally, I'm more in the "Reform" crown that the "Destroy it!" group.
But thats exactly why I don't understand people in France or Germany, the two countrys that most benefit from the current state of the European Union, having a strong anti-EU movement or rethoric. I'm pretty sure there are cultured people that know the reasonable arguments they have to be anti-EU, totally or partially, but I agree that, as basically every issue in the society, the mayority of people don't really understand all the layers of the problems and prefer to remain ignorant and vote based in slogans.
Because rage and fear can overwhelm any reason or logical argument.
More to the point however, it becomes a path for power to outsiders. If the "in" group is pro-eu, and you want to get into politics or push an agenda, well, adopting an anti-"whatever they're for" stance is a pretty basic way to obtain an instant voting base even if the idea is dumb, and plenty of people are always willing to cut their (or their nation's) nose off to spite their face for a wide variety of reasons, particularly if they personally will sustain none of the real costs.
So... let's see if my projection powah truly exists:
Kilkrazy wrote: One of the key points of the EU is free movement of people. There are no immigration quotas between EU member nations. That is something Le Pen and her supporters want to stop.
Sorry, I was thinking about permanent migration, EU migration tends to be more transitory, largely because it is easier. But yes, within the EU there is free movement. Man you're really kicking my ass on this one
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Humble Guardsman wrote: You must be including instances of conversion of at least on of the parties, that's the main method of working around the blanket . Some of these conversions are purely platitudes, others more sincere. The important part in both Jewish and Muslim (and in the case of Catholic/Protestants) intermarriages is what faith the children will be brought up in. And in the matter of Islam, only the marriage of a Muslim male to a women 'of the book' (Jewish/Christian) is technically permitted. It is a controversial Imam indeed who broadens that scope to include marrying Muslim women to men of other faiths.
I know of two marriages involving one muslim partner, I don't know either well enough to know all the details, but I do know there was no conversion. In one case I know the woman had no religion at all, but th
To illustrate how this is working, here's another fun fact for you - the Catholic Church maintains a strong stance against contraception. It's just among catholics on the ground in the west almost no-one cares, and they almost universally ignore that nonsense. Modern life has given members the power to pick and choose how they engage with their church. This means various churches can no longer assume the role of passing down dictates and demand their members follow them. Islam in the West will be no different.
Indeed, one of the things that had AQ freaking out, back in the day, was how Islamic churches in the West were modernising.
It is wishful thinking however to assume that Islam is not a different kettle of fish to previous waves of immigration. The violence perpetrated by those of that faith, most worryingly by successive generations raised in the host nation, on behalf of some global agenda is something not seen in previous immigration waves.
You're mixing up the nightly news with actual people. The news looks at the random crazies and the geopolitical players, and when that's people's only exposure they think that's how everyone in the faith is.
But here's the thing - almost all people truly, deeply, just don't give a gak about that nonsense. They just want to have happy, secure families, and a bit of money and time on top of that to have some fun. There isn't a religion on earth that can make people care about geo-political theory more than they care about living a normal life. Of course you can always get a minority to buy in to that nonsense, whether its the IRA, Red Army Faction or ISIS, but that's all, a crazy minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Antario wrote: -The elaborate welfare state reduces the incentive to find work and acquire relevant job skills, particular among poor and low educated migrants.
(snip)
-Most West European economies are heavily service based, industry and agriculture are mechanized and high minimum wages are the norm. There is little demand for low skilled labor, so there is massive unemployment among non-western migrants.-The lack of diversity of migrants, mostly from one region in the world and by and large working class, means its harder to prevent clustering to reduce socio-economic disadvantages
These three points are quite telling, I think. I'm not going to debate how accurate they are, to be honest I couldn't say with any authority. But to the extent they are true, they are failures of immigration policy, not failures of immigration itself. Bringing in migrants with few skills relevant to the economy, with no visa condition that they find gainful employment, and then giving them immediate access to welfare is plainly fething bonkers.
To the extent your claims are true, the answer isn't 'immigration is bad' but 'we need better immigration policy'.
I wonder how many people are making claims like yours above, and then going on to say that existing immigration quotas are fine, but policy need to change on who is accepted?
sebster wrote: Indeed, one of the things that had AQ freaking out, back in the day, was how Islamic churches in the West were modernising.
Too expand on this, one of the early notable things about Al Qaeda's rhetoric (and indeed something that set it apart from earlier extremist groups), was the distinction it drew between "proper muslims" and "all those other people." Al Qaeda was one of the first major groups to make a distinction between what is and is not proper for a muslim in a very direct sense. Long story short, they embraced the "No True Muslim" fallacy all the way to crazy land and used that as a basis to justify violent attacks against other Muslims.
You can see a softer form of this in how Wahabist Saudi Arabia interacts with the Hajj year to year. While Wahabists welcome anyone who claims to be a Muslim, they have a very clear idea of what the Hajj should entail and have suppressed aspects of it they consider deviant. This has involved the destruction of a lot of tombs to stop the age old tradition of Tomb and House visits by Hajjis. As an example a class mate of mine just gave a presentation on the Mali folk hero Hang Tuah. His tale involves the Hajj and visiting the Tomb of Eve. The Saudi government destroyed the Tomb of Eve in 1928 to stop people from visiting it. Except people kept visiting so they just concreted the whole place in 1975.
Point being stop assuming Islam is a monolith with a hive mind. It's as varied as any religion with one billion adherents can be expected to be, which is a lot.
I know of two marriages involving one muslim partner, I don't know either well enough to know all the details, but I do know there was no conversion. In one case I know the woman had no religion at all, but th
I personally know two as well. One female Muslim partner and one male Muslim partner. Both converted, and both had Muslim-style weddings. To be fair my mate is getting married to a Romani-Orthodox chick and he's converting as well despite his deep-seated distaste for religion. I don't doubt he'll roll over and let the missus raise their kids to be proper Romani-Dutch-Gypsies or whatever they are.
To illustrate how this is working, here's another fun fact for you - the Catholic Church maintains a strong stance against contraception. It's just among catholics on the ground in the west almost no-one cares, and they almost universally ignore that nonsense. Modern life has given members the power to pick and choose how they engage with their church. This means various churches can no longer assume the role of passing down dictates and demand their members follow them. Islam in the West will be no different.
Indeed, one of the things that had AQ freaking out, back in the day, was how Islamic churches in the West were modernising.
Fair enough, the majority of folk pick and choose their faith. That doesn't address the fact that status quo in favour killing apostates in Islam doesn't really have an equivalent that is strongly followed in it's counterpart religions in the modern era. You probably heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali's trip was cancelled recently, she is an apostate and a very outspoken critic of Islam.
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/ayaan-hirsi-ali-slams-petition-opposing-her-australian-visit/8414800
It is wishful thinking however to assume that Islam is not a different kettle of fish to previous waves of immigration. The violence perpetrated by those of that faith, most worryingly by successive generations raised in the host nation, on behalf of some global agenda is something not seen in previous immigration waves.
You're mixing up the nightly news with actual people. The news looks at the random crazies and the geopolitical players, and when that's people's only exposure they think that's how everyone in the faith is.
But here's the thing - almost all people truly, deeply, just don't give a gak about that nonsense. They just want to have happy, secure families, and a bit of money and time on top of that to have some fun. There isn't a religion on earth that can make people care about geo-political theory more than they care about living a normal life. Of course you can always get a minority to buy in to that nonsense, whether its the IRA, Red Army Faction or ISIS, but that's all, a crazy minority.
Absolutely. The vast majority of people, religious or not, just want to be left alone and follow their own pursuits. It was not my intention to imply that the extremism stems from the majority. However, are you really going to deny that the systemic violence in Islam is not a far greater issue than that found in it's religious counterparts? According to this article, Jewish zionists carry out more terrorist attacks on US soil than Muslim fundamentalists. http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619 Is this really to be trusted? I can't recall a single incident of severe terrorist actions being attributed to jewish religious nuts outside of Israel, the article also doesn't account for all the failed or prevented plots in their successful national security operations. Meanwhile Sunni Muslims are responsible for the majority terrorist attacks around the world.
Christianity (and it's deriviatives) 2.2 Billion
Islam (Shia and Sunni etc) 1.6 Billion
Secular/Atheist 1.1 Billion
Hinduism 1.0 Billion
Buddhism 364 Million
There are Buddhist terrorists in South East Asia, there are Hindu riots and militarist organisations in India, there are fundamentalist Christian armed forces in Ireland, Eastern Europe and South America. But the scale of violence perpetrated by these religious groups and their own home-grown supporters pales in comparison to the widespread issue that Islam faces. Isolated examples of a similar issue in other religions doesn't mean that the problem with Islam is exaggerated far out of proportion by Western media. To deny that there is some sort of underlying issue in the faith that is perpetuating this is to blindfold oneself.
Sunni Muslims would consider some of Mossad's operations to be terrorist attacks, and they aren't entirely wrong (which is sad but true). Going way back, some of the world first suicide killers were Jews opposing the Roman occupation of Judah. it is even from them that we derive the word zealot.
Just because the west largely only pays attention to Islamic terrorism doesn't mean other forms don't exist. Christian terrorists exist in Africa, and Buddhist terrorists are fairly common in South East Asia. The Han Empire's decline began with a mass rebellion by Daoist extremists. The difference in the scale of violence actually isn't that big. The IRA was pretty fething bloody. The difference is who the violence is directed at and how it is perceived by the victim group. We consider people who blow up abortion clinics "lone nuts" around here and not a sign of a problem with Christians, but when a Islamic "lone nut" does something it's part of the "problem of the faith." It's a double standard we only direct against Islam despite the overwhelming majority of those 1.6 billion people being about as harmless as the rest of us.
Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.
Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?
No, of course not, you only need to look at Boris Johnson to see that some very clever people are anti-EU.
That said, it is true that the average educational attainment of anti-EU people is lower than that of pro-EU people.
To the extent that educational attainment reflects intelligence, this would indicate that considered as a generality, the anti-EU block has somewhat less capability to research and analyse information using objective data such as immigration flows, employment statistics, and the like.
I would argue that this means such people are more prone to being misled into blaming immigrants for economic problems rather than the after-effects for the global economic crisis.
Anti-EU people in the UK and France agree that one reason for leaving the EU is that uncontrolled immigration from EU countries damages the employment prospects of natives, thus, we must regain control of our borders.
When we look into immigration statistics for the UK and France, we find that the UK has experienced proportionately more immigration than France, and both countries have about the same proportion of EU immigration compared with non-EU (namely, that less than half the immigrants are uncontrolled EU citizens.) Despite this, the UK now has a lower unemployment rate.
It is difficult to square these facts with the view that uncontrolled EU immigration is a major driver of unemployment.
Humble Guardsman wrote: I personally know two as well. One female Muslim partner and one male Muslim partner. Both converted, and both had Muslim-style weddings. To be fair my mate is getting married to a Romani-Orthodox chick and he's converting as well despite his deep-seated distaste for religion. I don't doubt he'll roll over and let the missus raise their kids to be proper Romani-Dutch-Gypsies or whatever they are.
My wife is Catholic, and we were married in a Catholic church. I didn't have to convert, and wouldn't have, but the priest asked a few times, always politely. Our kids are going through the whole communion thing. Honestly it seems like a bit of a dick move to refuse that upbringing, the kids will experience it and in time they can choose if it is for them or not.
Fair enough, the majority of folk pick and choose their faith. That doesn't address the fact that status quo in favour killing apostates in Islam doesn't really have an equivalent that is strongly followed in it's counterpart religions in the modern era.
There's a lot of issues in Islam, honestly killing of apostates is way down the list compared to honour killings and sexism. Just as a matter of scale there's a lot more women who's lives are ruined out in the boonies of Pakistan or Iran than who's lives are ruined by terrorism.
However, I think the key part of your answer is 'in the modern era'. I think that shows you acknowledge that other religions were much the same, before modern society drove improvements. But a lot of the world hasn't yet benefited from high levels of education and modern living, and that's where you see most (not all) of the issues with religion.
But if we were take take countries on about the same level of development, but with different religions, I'm not sure we see the same contrast. Take Hinduism in India, Islam in Indonesia and Christianity in, say, the Philippines, and while there are issues in all three, it's pretty hard to make an argument that any one of those countries clearly has bigger issues than the others.
Is this really to be trusted? I can't recall a single incident of severe terrorist actions being attributed to jewish religious nuts outside of Israel, the article also doesn't account for all the failed or prevented plots in their successful national security operations. Meanwhile Sunni Muslims are responsible for the majority terrorist attacks around the world.
One thing about terror attacks is that most attacks are non-violent. It's blowing up a post office box or setting fire to a lab that tests with animals, nonsense like that. Islam is different because its attacks are not just violent, but intended for that violence to have the biggest impact and media appeal. So that gets people's attention far more than anything else.
So on the one hand the reports stating that Islam commits fewer terror attacks is quite misleading, because it treats all terror attacks as equal, when a shooting spree killing a dozen is wildly different to firebombing a clinic at 3 in the morning. But on the other hand, we have to recognise that despite the high profile and often shocking nature of many terror attacks, in a planet of 7 billion it really is very small compared to other problems.
And I don't say that to diminish issues within Islam. I mentioned above about honour killings. In Pakistan alone there's almost 1,000 every year. That dwarfs Islamic terror attacks undertaken in the West.
sebster wrote: I know of two marriages involving one muslim partner, I don't know either well enough to know all the details, but I do know there was no conversion. In one case I know the woman had no religion at all, but th
I have a very good Iranian friend who is officially Muslim (in reality atheist) and her husband had a fake conversion so they could be a fake Muslims couple when they go in Iran.
I have another very good friend whose future wife is Indonesian and he will have a fake conversion too.
I didn't ask but I think his wife doesn't actually believe either .
sebster wrote: There's a lot of issues in Islam, honestly killing of apostates is way down the list compared to honour killings and sexism. Just as a matter of scale there's a lot more women who's lives are ruined out in the boonies of Pakistan or Iran than who's lives are ruined by terrorism.
WTF dude? Killing apostate is pretty much at the top. First because killing people for no crime is always a pretty big deal, second because apostates are the way out of all the other terrible stuff…
Seriously, killing apostates is basically the most extreme cults can become.
sebster wrote: There's a lot of issues in Islam, honestly killing of apostates is way down the list compared to honour killings and sexism. Just as a matter of scale there's a lot more women who's lives are ruined out in the boonies of Pakistan or Iran than who's lives are ruined by terrorism.
WTF dude? Killing apostate is pretty much at the top. First because killing people for no crime is always a pretty big deal, second because apostates are the way out of all the other terrible stuff…
Seriously, killing apostates is basically the most extreme cults can become.
O.o
Killing apostate is practically the justification for jihad.
I'm going to give seb the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think this through...
Sebster was talking about numbers. Theres many many more people that suffer the Sexist aspect of Islam, or the honour killings, that appostates being killed by Islamist.
Or thats how I have interpreted it.
Galas wrote: Sebster was talking about numbers. Theres many many more people that suffer the Sexist aspect of Islam, or the honour killings, that appostates being killed by Islamist.
Yeah, but it still have a great deal of influence on public discourse on many Muslim-majority countries, and it's a huge problem in places like Pakistan or Bangladesh. And it goes beyond just extra-judicial killings and executions, even in place Tunisia when people are jailed for talking about why they became apostate it has a huge influence on which ideas people are exposed to.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is Islamic killing of apostates a serious problem in France?
Automatically Appended Next Post: There was a debate this evening between Macron and Le Pen on TV.
He was much more on the defensive, trying to explain and defend his program and defend his program, while she was much more on the offensive, trying to blame him for basically everything the previous governments did, and attacking him for being supported by some whatever Muslim organization.
Damn lady you have been supported by way worse for way longer why are you bringing this up lol.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: WTF dude? Killing apostate is pretty much at the top. First because killing people for no crime is always a pretty big deal, second because apostates are the way out of all the other terrible stuff…
Seriously, killing apostates is basically the most extreme cults can become.
Just... read what I said dude. The issue is one of scale, how many people are negatively impacted by the issue. A minute percentage of Muslims commit to killing apostates, compared to a much more widely accepted treatment of women*
Think of it this way. A dude who abducts, tortures and kills people is about as evil as a person can be. But that guy is less of an issue than cancer on a basic matter of scale. Even if that dude killed 100 people in his life, he wouldn't impact lives in anything like the scale that cancer does.
*This isn't to say every muslim has issues with women, of course not. And the extreme end, honour killings, is also a small minority view (albeit a much larger minority than that which supports terrorism). But it is an issue with a large enough base that it really impacts the lives of millions of women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'm going to give seb the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think this through...
I'm gonna give everyone no benefit of any doubt. You didn't read what I said. Hybrid didn't read what I said. If you'd read what I said, you'd have seen my argument focused on scale. This doesn't mean you are Hybrid have to agree with it, of course, but it should be pretty clear to see where I'm coming from.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: There was a debate this evening between Macron and Le Pen on TV.
He was much more on the defensive, trying to explain and defend his program and defend his program, while she was much more on the offensive, trying to blame him for basically everything the previous governments did, and attacking him for being supported by some whatever Muslim organization.
Damn lady you have been supported by way worse for way longer why are you bringing this up lol.
Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.
Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?
There is the assumption amongst the Guardian set that anyone voting to leave was a knuckle dragger or far right or both.
Its easier than facing the arguments.
whembly wrote: I'm going to give seb the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think this through...
I'm gonna give everyone no benefit of any doubt. You didn't read what I said. Hybrid didn't read what I said. If you'd read what I said, you'd have seen my argument focused on scale. This doesn't mean you are Hybrid have to agree with it, of course, but it should be pretty clear to see where I'm coming from.
Naw man... I responded after Galas stating I was wrong, but the mod said it wasn't French politics so I edited it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: There was a debate this evening between Macron and Le Pen on TV. He was much more on the defensive, trying to explain and defend his program and defend his program, while she was much more on the offensive, trying to blame him for basically everything the previous governments did, and attacking him for being supported by some whatever Muslim organization. Damn lady you have been supported by way worse for way longer why are you bringing this up lol.
Did her plagiarism come up?
---as my contribution to French elections...
Le Pen did say to Macron something like ”Don’t play the student – teacher game with me. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not my thing.”.
Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.
Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?
There is the assumption amongst the Guardian set that anyone voting to leave was a knuckle dragger or far right or both.
Its easier than facing the arguments.
Just like it's easier to make up strawmen to fight against?
Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.
Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?
There is the assumption amongst the Guardian set that anyone voting to leave was a knuckle dragger or far right or both.
Its easier than facing the arguments.
Kilkrazy wrote:No, of course not, you only need to look at Boris Johnson to see that some very clever people are anti-EU.
That said, it is true that the average educational attainment of anti-EU people is lower than that of pro-EU people.
To the extent that educational attainment reflects intelligence, this would indicate that considered as a generality, the anti-EU block has somewhat less capability to research and analyse information using objective data such as immigration flows, employment statistics, and the like.
I would argue that this means such people are more prone to being misled into blaming immigrants for economic problems rather than the after-effects for the global economic crisis.
Anti-EU people in the UK and France agree that one reason for leaving the EU is that uncontrolled immigration from EU countries damages the employment prospects of natives, thus, we must regain control of our borders.
When we look into immigration statistics for the UK and France, we find that the UK has experienced proportionately more immigration than France, and both countries have about the same proportion of EU immigration compared with non-EU (namely, that less than half the immigrants are uncontrolled EU citizens.) Despite this, the UK now has a lower unemployment rate.
It is difficult to square these facts with the view that uncontrolled EU immigration is a major driver of unemployment.
sebster wrote: The issue is one of scale, how many people are negatively impacted by the issue. A minute percentage of Muslims commit to killing apostates, compared to a much more widely accepted treatment of women*
But the consequences of Muslim willing to kill apostates, or other, less extreme acts in the same vein, does impact a LOT more people than just open apostates, or even closed apostates, in how it frames the whole public debate around matters of religion and society.
No, I don't remember anything about it. His main attack was that she had no real project to speak of, and no idea how to do things beside making empty promises.
sebster wrote: The issue is one of scale, how many people are negatively impacted by the issue. A minute percentage of Muslims commit to killing apostates, compared to a much more widely accepted treatment of women*
But the consequences of Muslim willing to kill apostates, or other, less extreme acts in the same vein, does impact a LOT more people than just open apostates, or even closed apostates, in how it frames the whole public debate around matters of religion and society.
There has been some initiative for people who hate Macron but hate Le Pen even more, to all vote only after 5PM, because abstention is measured at 5PM and then at the closure of the polls. I don't care about it, but my brother, who charge me to vote on his behalf because he won't be in France on Sunday, wants me to do it ^^.
There has been some initiative for people who hate Macron but hate Le Pen even more, to all vote only after 5PM, because abstention is measured at 5PM and then at the closure of the polls. I don't care about it, but my brother, who charge me to vote on his behalf because he won't be in France on Sunday, wants me to do it ^^.
I continue to be puzzled at this idea that Le Pen has a chance because the polls showing her 20 points down don't matter. The argument seems to be that the pollsters got Brexit and the US presidential elections 'wrong', therefore we should ignore the polls. Except the polling error in Brexit was about 4%, in the US it was somewhere between 0 and 1% (the issue there was false confidence among some analysts, who failed to consider that a lot of the marginal states might move to Trump in a correlated fashion).
So the argument ends up being 'the pollsters were wrong by a couple of points in a couple of elections, therefore they might be wrong by 20 points in this one'. Which is a pretty silly argument, to be frank. Polls frequently miss the final result by 1, 2 or even 3 points. Any election within 3 points really can go either way. But outside of that results start getting exceedingly rare, the number of results were polling aggregates were wrong by 10 points is extremely rare, the number that were wrong by 20 points is much more rare. And when such extreme outliers happen, they are typically in smaller elections, where the smaller number of voters and smaller number of polls makes estimating even harder. Seeing such a result on a national stage would be amazing.
So while it might happen, it would be a once in a lifetime kind of thing. The idea that people are saying it is reasonably probable, or even that Le Pen is favoured, seems very foolish to me.
whembly wrote: Naw man... I responded after Galas stating I was wrong, but the mod said it wasn't French politics so I edited it out.
Cool.
---as my contribution to French elections...
Le Pen did say to Macron something like ”Don’t play the student – teacher game with me. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not my thing.”.
It is an interesting political puzzle, what to do when your political opponent is saying stuff that makes no sense, once you know the most basic parts of the issue? If you stop to explain the things they don't know, then you likely end up sounding like you're patronising the candidate, which in turn makes you sound elitist and antagonises your opponent's base. The Remain team in the UK struggled with this. Al Gore famously struggled with this. Funnily enough I'd say it's the one thing that Clinton did well in her campaign, in the debates she really hammered Trump on that nonsense. Of course, Trump was a much easier target because his nonsense was much more lazily constructed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But the consequences of Muslim willing to kill apostates, or other, less extreme acts in the same vein, does impact a LOT more people than just open apostates, or even closed apostates, in how it frames the whole public debate around matters of religion and society.
Having a geo-political debate reframed by single acts of highly public violence is bad, but it is nothing at all like women being unable to leave the house unattended, or afraid to speak out about being raped out of fear they'll get the blame.
No, I don't remember anything about it. His main attack was that she had no real project to speak of, and no idea how to do things beside making empty promises.
There has been some initiative for people who hate Macron but hate Le Pen even more, to all vote only after 5PM, because abstention is measured at 5PM and then at the closure of the polls. I don't care about it, but my brother, who charge me to vote on his behalf because he won't be in France on Sunday, wants me to do it ^^.
What I mean is that Islamic murders of apostates is a minor issue even in hardcore Muslim countries such as Pakistan, compared with the general run of murders for other reasons. Therefore, to pick it out as a special feature of Islam that should be of particular concern to French people is framing the debate.
There has been some initiative for people who hate Macron but hate Le Pen even more, to all vote only after 5PM, because abstention is measured at 5PM and then at the closure of the polls. I don't care about it, but my brother, who charge me to vote on his behalf because he won't be in France on Sunday, wants me to do it ^^.
What I mean is that Islamic murders of apostates is a minor issue even in hardcore Muslim countries such as Pakistan, compared with the general run of murders for other reasons. Therefore, to pick it out as a special feature of Islam that should be of particular concern to French people is framing the debate.
The victims of mass slaughter in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan and the states plagued by Al Shabob would like to have a word with you.
Kilkrazy wrote: The victims of mass slaughter in Europe, the Balkans, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc etc ad nauseum, would like to have a word with you.
False equivalence. You typed "in those countries." Who do you think ISIL, the Taliban, and Al Shabob are?
Brutal groups but not respective of the whole of Islam any more than the groups who carried out the Rwandan genocide are of Africans.
I never said they were, but the whole point of their murder is to put a more enlightened regeme in place by killing or converting everyone they view as a postates - aka everyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.
Apostate killing is not limited to religion. Communist states and Nazis had no problem killing millions who did get with the program. Pol Pot wacke d1/4 of the population to get them in line with the new vision.
Kilkrazy wrote: The victims of mass slaughter in Europe, the Balkans, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc etc ad nauseum, would like to have a word with you.
False equivalence. You typed "in those countries." Who do you think ISIL, the Taliban, and Al Shabob are?
It is not a false equivalence. The framing of the debate is that Islam is uniquely nasty because Muslims like to go about murdering people for "apostasy".
My list of the vile crimes of humanity shows that all sort of races and religions have enthusiastically murdered large numbers of people for all sorts of reasons.
I don't believe anyone has framed "the debate" in that matter except you actually. The French may be saying its more of an issue for them, because Rwanda, Bosnia etc don't mean gak to them,but weekly islamofascist attacks IN FRANCE are.
EDIT: Its the same reason Mexican cartels are a big deal to me, while Islamic terrorism isn't nearly as much. Someone from France would think I am out of my mind (and they would be right...)
Kilkrazy wrote: The victims of mass slaughter in Europe, the Balkans, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc etc ad nauseum, would like to have a word with you.
False equivalence. You typed "in those countries." Who do you think ISIL, the Taliban, and Al Shabob are?
It is not a false equivalence. The framing of the debate is that Islam is uniquely nasty because Muslims like to go about murdering people for "apostasy".
My list of the vile crimes of humanity shows that all sort of races and religions have enthusiastically murdered large numbers of people for all sorts of reasons.
Murdering people is wrong for any reason.
Rwanda was based on ethnicity.
Cambodia based on drug cartels and corruption.
Balkans based on different religious bases (ie Christian vs Islam, not Christian vs ex-Christians).
So yes, you've demonstrated that killing on a widespread scale occurs across the whole world, unfortunately. However, that is not the point being raised by the persecution of apostates. No other religious group (aside from a few select minor cults I imagine) engages in such virulent persecution of those that denounce their own religion.
Christianity has historically been ambivalent on the matter, most notably dating back to how to handle apostates as a result of Roman persecution. For the most part then they were welcomed back to the fold or not actively hunted down. Hinduism is no more aggressive in this area (the faith lacking any widespread consensus on the particulars like that, even the sacredness of cows is not agreed upon in Hindu sects). I couldn't begin to tell you about Buddhism but I assume it is much the same. I'm not saying persecution of apostates didn't occur for these other faiths, it most certainly did, but it is not practised to any noticeable degree in the modern age. Islam remains to date the only major religion where the execution of apostates is not only a clear-cut tenet of the faith, it is one that is acted upon all too frequently.
The scale of these killings may be minor, as sebster points out, the harm is less immediately apparent than the widespread oppression women on the religion face. However, the harm goes deeper than that. The threat of death, not excommunication or being socially shunned, compels even the most half-hearted follower to continue to follow and (where they cannot get away with it) adhere to the tenets of this inherently aggressive faith. For the most part, people are generally free to leave such relics of the past if they feel that it conflicts with their own good nature or liberal values. Not so with Islam.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I don't believe anyone has framed "the debate" in that matter except you actually. The French may be saying its more of an issue for them, because Rwanda, Bosnia etc don't mean gak to them,but weekly islamofascist attacks IN FRANCE are.
EDIT: Its the same reason Mexican cartels are a big deal to me, while Islamic terrorism isn't nearly as much. Someone from France would think I am out of my mind (and they would be right...)
Rwanda might be an exception actually. Didn't the French and Belgium kind of the duck on that one? I have no idea whether that's still a concern of the populace though, I imagine it's largely forgotten by the average Frenchie.
The scale of these killings may be minor, as sebster points out, the harm is less immediately apparent than the widespread oppression women on the religion face. However, the harm goes deeper than that. The threat of death, not excommunication or being socially shunned, compels even the most half-hearted follower to continue to follow and (where they cannot get away with it) adhere to the tenets of this inherently aggressive faith. For the most part, people are generally free to leave such relics of the past if they feel that it conflicts with their own good nature or liberal values. Not so with Islam.
I would argue the ISIL/AlQaeda/Al Shabob wars are actually apostate wars, one group seeking to enforce its vision of its faith on everyone else.
Much like the Coke/New Coke wars in the US.
I thought Rwanda was Belgium but I could be wrong.
The scale of these killings may be minor, as sebster points out, the harm is less immediately apparent than the widespread oppression women on the religion face. However, the harm goes deeper than that. The threat of death, not excommunication or being socially shunned, compels even the most half-hearted follower to continue to follow and (where they cannot get away with it) adhere to the tenets of this inherently aggressive faith. For the most part, people are generally free to leave such relics of the past if they feel that it conflicts with their own good nature or liberal values. Not so with Islam.
I would argue the ISIL/AlQaeda/Al Shabob wars are actually apostate wars, one group seeking to enforce its vision of its faith on everyone else.
Much like the Coke/New Coke wars in the US.
I thought Rwanda was Belgium but I could be wrong.
what about those of us that buy generic Kroger/Safeway brands?
@Frazzled: Apostate refers to a Muslim that has stopped being a Muslim, not just anyone who is not a Muslim. For example, if I'm not wrong, a Hindu that has practiced Hinduism his whole life would be an infidel, but not an apostate. Whereas a Muslim that announced he was an atheist would be both an infidel and an apostate.
I thought Pepsi led a peaceful protest and the war ended in sunshine and rainbows?
I just double-checked and France actively supported the Hutu regime, being implicated in supply weapons and material in the days leading up to the massacre. They even established a 'safe-zone' for Hutus (both civilians and genocidiares) to seek refuge from the Tutsi retaliation.
Humble Guardsman wrote: @Frazzled: Apostate refers to a Muslim that has stopped being a Muslim, not just anyone who is not a Muslim. For example, if I'm not wrong, a Hindu that has practiced Hinduism his whole life would be an infidel, but not an apostate. Whereas a Muslim that announced he was an atheist would be both an infidel and an apostate.
Yes and no. An apostate is indeed someone who quits his/her religion but it is not limited to just muslims. A christian who stops being a christian is also an apostate.
Apostate killing is not limited to religion. Communist states and Nazis had no problem killing millions who did get with the program. Pol Pot wacke d1/4 of the population to get them in line with the new vision.
Indeed, our respective countries were founded on the back of the genocide of the First Nations.
Humble Guardsman wrote:[
So yes, you've demonstrated that killing on a widespread scale occurs across the whole world, unfortunately. However, that is not the point being raised by the persecution of apostates. No other religious group (aside from a few select minor cults I imagine) engages in such virulent persecution of those that denounce their own religion.
Christianity has historically been ambivalent on the matter, most notably dating back to how to handle apostates as a result of Roman persecution.
Historically, Christians have murdered the everloving feth out of each other over who was really Jeebus's number one fan.
If you thought Islamic terrorism is about Islam, you'd be wrong. If it was about Islam, we'd all be dead as the billion or so Muslims everywhere drowned the world in an orgy of Koran-dictated violence.
Kilkrazy wrote: What I mean is that Islamic murders of apostates is a minor issue even in hardcore Muslim countries such as Pakistan, compared with the general run of murders for other reasons.
It is part of a dynamic that is a HUGE issue.
Kilkrazy wrote: Therefore, to pick it out as a special feature of Islam that should be of particular concern to French people is framing the debate.
What French people? While I think everyone should care about it, it doesn't have any specific link with France.
Beside, there is no candidate that has any policy on the subject anyway. Marine Le Pen is firmly in the “I don't give a damn what happens in other countries”, and none of the others ever raised that subject, so…
Humble Guardsman wrote: @Frazzled: Apostate refers to a Muslim that has stopped being a Muslim, not just anyone who is not a Muslim.
I believe that ISIL believes that Msulsims who don't follow their way have stopped being true Muslims.
No, they believe that those muslims have never been true muslims in the first place. They are not apostates but infidels (kuffar) as far as ISIS is concerned. ISIS, being the Islamic State, views itself as having the authority to decide which muslims are true believers and which ones aren't through the process called takfir (excommunication).
Humble Guardsman wrote: @Frazzled: Apostate refers to a Muslim that has stopped being a Muslim, not just anyone who is not a Muslim.
I believe that ISIL believes that Msulsims who don't follow their way have stopped being true Muslims.
No, they believe that those muslims have never been true muslims in the first place. They are not apostates but infidels (kuffar) as far as ISIS is concerned. ISIS, being the Islamic State, views itself as having the authority to decide which muslims are true believers and which ones aren't through the process called takfir (excommunication).
Humble Guardsman wrote: Balkans based on different religious bases (ie Christian vs Islam, not Christian vs ex-Christians).
While the battle lines eventually broke down in to religious/ethnic lines (and even then not so cleanly), the primary cause of the Balkans war was the exploitation of nationalist tensions to bolster failing political regimes If Milosevic hadn't swung to the hard right to stabilise his government in the post-communist era, it's hard to see how much of the violence would have still happened.
So yes, you've demonstrated that killing on a widespread scale occurs across the whole world, unfortunately. However, that is not the point being raised by the persecution of apostates. No other religious group (aside from a few select minor cults I imagine) engages in such virulent persecution of those that denounce their own religion.
I'm not saying persecution of apostates didn't occur for these other faiths, it most certainly did, but it is not practised to any noticeable degree in the modern age.
There it is again, 'modern age'. It just fething staggers me that people can't see the real relationship. People know that all religions were brutal through history. They know that brutality declined as the host nations transformed in to modern, liberal democracies. And they can see that the countries in which Islam is still frequently brutal are countries that do not have modern, liberal democracies. They see all that and then conclude 'well it's clearly Islam is just more violent'.
It's kind of amazing, really.
That said, I do think you make a good point that the threat of apostate killing has a chilling effect where it occurs, much like the example I gave of women. I still don't think it is on the same scale, but you make a good point all the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I would argue the ISIL/AlQaeda/Al Shabob wars are actually apostate wars, one group seeking to enforce its vision of its faith on everyone else.
That doesn't make any sense. None of the muslim crazies you mention are fighting for the specific reason of punishing people who used to believe but don't any more, and only for that reason. As they capture areas that is certainly one of the atrocities they are committing, but they're also committing a whole lot more, and fighting the war for a whole bunch of other reasons as well. It's like saying 'I would argue that freeways are for 1994 Toyota Landcruisers'... I mean yeah, that's a thing the freeway is for, but it's also for a whole bunch of other stuff too.
We have a perfectly good term for what ISIS etc have attempted, it's a word we've used so much it's kind of a cliche now, jihad.
Kilkrazy wrote: The victims of mass slaughter in Europe, the Balkans, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc etc ad nauseum, would like to have a word with you.
False equivalence. You typed "in those countries." Who do you think ISIL, the Taliban, and Al Shabob are?
Brutal groups but not respective of the whole of Islam any more than the groups who carried out the Rwandan genocide are of Africans.
False analogy. Comparing Islamic terrorism to Islam is fairer than to compare the Rwandan genocide to africans. That would be like saying that ISIS is a problem within 'religion' in general.
There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.
As for the Rwandan genocide there is a corporate responsibility from the Hutu people, there was too much complicity and rabble inflamed killing that a blanket accusation hold some logic, but not all Africans are Hutus.
Notice the difference.
As for the relevance to the French election, there is an argument that the Islamic community doesn't do enough to proactively root out extremism. They need to be very clear that ISIS doesnt act for them and doesnt act for Allah in their theological opinion, any Moslem who doesn't agree with that is part of the problem.
I find it difficult to argue against that logic.
Orlanth wrote: There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.
That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing) to bring together all the Muslim Cardinals (there is no such a thing) for a Muslim Conclave (there is no such a thing) before deciding that formal excommunication?
Orlanth wrote: As for the relevance to the French election, there is an argument that the Islamic community doesn't do enough to proactively root out extremism.
That makes no damn sense either. If you are talking about terrorism, then it's the counter-intelligence agencies job to work on this problem, not the average french muslim. If you are talking about extremism, well, I have a friend who comes from a pretty extremist Christian family, I never saw any christians trying to root out that extremism, or anyone saying they should.
Orlanth wrote: They need to be very clear that ISIS doesnt act for them
So you mean that they should insist that ISIS doesn't kill act for them when they kill them? Maybe they should wear, under their normal clothes, a tshirt that says “I do not approve of ISIS killing me”, and in case they are hit by an ISIS terrorist attack, they just remove/tear out their clothes to show their tshirt as they die?
Who would that be important for? For ISIS? So that ISIS know that the people they kill don't approve of being killed? Yeah that seems important. For people that are completely thick on the issue? Maybe those people should stop being so dense instead.
Orlanth wrote: and doesnt act for Allah in their theological opinion
Who the feth cares about theology? spankers I guess.
Orlanth wrote: I find it difficult to argue against that logic.
I don't even find any logic here so yeah it's hard to argue.
Yeah, the "Muslims should condemm ISIS every time they do a terrorist attack" isn't really an logical argument to me.
How many people of the left ideologies you see excusing or just shruging away from people like Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, etc... or the same in the right with their respectives extremist?
Obviously they shoudln't let that extremism root in their communities, but people that expect to see all muslim people whiping their backs like martyrs, praying for the forgiveness of their religion, every time a muslim extremist commits a terrorist attack seems very unreasonable to me, and they apply a double standard that don't apply to other ideologies.
And I say this as a anti religious and anti-Islam guy, but things are fighted with reasonable arguments, not with fallacies.
Orlanth wrote: There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.
That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing) to bring together all the Muslim Cardinals (there is no such a thing) for a Muslim Conclave (there is no such a thing) before deciding that formal excommunication?
Where did I say pope, where did I say cardinals?
It is quite normal for religious people to stand up and be counted, and to formally disown an errent section claiming to be of that religious community. It doesn't require phantom catholicism.
There is already a form of Islamic excommunication, but it isn't used against ISIS, its abused by Isis. Iron Captain gave the name for it takfir, which I didn't know, thanks Iron Captain.
Orlanth wrote: As for the relevance to the French election, there is an argument that the Islamic community doesn't do enough to proactively root out extremism.
That makes no damn sense either. If you are talking about terrorism, then it's the counter-intelligence agencies job to work on this problem, not the average french muslim. If you are talking about extremism, well, I have a friend who comes from a pretty extremist Christian family, I never saw any Christians trying to root out that extremism, or anyone saying they should.
it makes perfect sense outside complacency ridden France.
France is riddled with Islamic extremists because there is insufficient action to engage the Moslem population as a whole.
The UK had had plenty of scum join ISIS, but the curreent government has placed great emphasis in encouraging the Mosques to preach for peace and against sectarianism
After the 7/7 bombings the silence of the UK's Moslem community leaders was heavily criticised, now the Imams largely very heavily criticise jihadism, and those that do not are likely watched. #There are radical Mosques still in the UK, but the problem is not what it was, and plenty of UK passport holders go off to fight the jihad, but many more are persuaded out of it and integration is slowly occurring.
How are things going in France... yeah right.... and you want your overstretched hole riddled security forces to wetnurse potential ISIS converts as well as try to 'protect' France.
If you are talking about extremism, well, I have a friend who comes from a pretty extremist Christian family, I never saw any Christians trying to root out that extremism, or anyone saying they should.
Actually that happens a lot. Westboro Baptists are as unpopular in the Christian community as they are elsewhere, and are pretty much entirely isolated. Also Christianity in the west doesnt have that type of dynamic. 'Extreme' churches tend to raise placards that the LGBT community don't like, rather than conduct suicide bombings. Yes individual murderous nutcases exist, but in reality that is due to individual isolated crime, people like Anders Brevic and abortion centre bombers are lone nutcases that claim to be Christian rather than part of Christian movements.
Also when isolated cases do occur the church is expected to take responsibility, and does so quickly. Though uneven handling and politically motivated uneven handling has much to do with that.
Orlanth wrote: They need to be very clear that ISIS doesnt act for them
So you mean that they should insist that ISIS doesn't kill act for them when they kill them? Maybe they should wear, under their normal clothes, a tshirt that says “I do not approve of ISIS killing me”, and in case they are hit by an ISIS terrorist attack, they just remove/tear out their clothes to show their tshirt as they die?
Who would that be important for? For ISIS? So that ISIS know that the people they kill don't approve of being killed? Yeah that seems important. For people that are completely thick on the issue? Maybe those people should stop being so dense instead.
I will assume you are being facetious rather than mind bogglingly stupid.
It is not to do with anti ISIS T-shirts, though visible solidarity does help break down barriers of mistrust so that is important in its own way.
It works best when Moslem parents are encouraged raise their kids to understand a rational compassionate Islam, which can certainly be found in passages of the Koran, jihad begins at home at least indirectly. Most converts who go fight for ISIS are bored ignorant teenagers who have few prospects, disinterested teachers, parents and community leaders; but are taken interest of by radical preachers.
A large number of UK jihadists returned home because they could not get Facebook, or had to do their share of medial work. This indicates a shallow adherence to jihad (though still dangerous and potentially murderous) of the majority. This highlights just how easy it could be to dissuade jihadism to begin with.
The bottom line is that if you starve ISIS of recruits by educating western Moslems you cut a portion of their reinforcements (though westerners are only a tiny fraction of the whole) and more importantly for western nations it cuts back on the number of problem cases that the security services have to watch, cuts cost of such operations and minimises the number of atrocities that are planned and executed. Even the best security cannot stop them all, so it pays to minimise the number of threats.
Orlanth wrote: and doesnt act for Allah in their theological opinion
Who the feth cares about theology? spankers I guess.
Intelligent rational people do, because many of the problems disappear if the scriptures excused for hateful purpose by evil men were not willfully misread and taught to gullible angry people.
Taken from either a religious or secular point of view there is much to be gained by challenging extremist ideology itself. Most extremist ideology is unscriptural. For example anti-Semitic doctrines are warned against in the Koran, but that bit is glossed over by radical clerics. What would happen if it were not?
Islamic teaching says that Christians and Jews are 'peoples of the book' and are not to be persecuted, what do you think happens when this teaching is adhered to and when it is omitted?
Many Islamic countries had better human and religious rights in the middle ages than they do today, because the Koran was properly read and its theology was properly taught. This isn't entirely the fault of radical Islam either, the relatively peaceful caliphates of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were hardened by the atrocities caused by the Crusades and the Mongols.
So yes, you've demonstrated that killing on a widespread scale occurs across the whole world, unfortunately. However, that is not the point being raised by the persecution of apostates. No other religious group (aside from a few select minor cults I imagine) engages in such virulent persecution of those that denounce their own religion.
I'm not saying persecution of apostates didn't occur for these other faiths, it most certainly did, but it is not practised to any noticeable degree in the modern age.
There it is again, 'modern age'. It just fething staggers me that people can't see the real relationship. People know that all religions were brutal through history. They know that brutality declined as the host nations transformed in to modern, liberal democracies. And they can see that the countries in which Islam is still frequently brutal are countries that do not have modern, liberal democracies. They see all that and then conclude 'well it's clearly Islam is just more violent'.
It's kind of amazing, really.
That said, I do think you make a good point that the threat of apostate killing has a chilling effect where it occurs, much like the example I gave of women. I still don't think it is on the same scale, but you make a good point all the same.
Just so I understand this correctly, you are asserting that the lack of a modern, liberal democracy is the cause for the more brutal features of the Islamic faith being featured and that the faith itself is not a contributing factor, or at least no more so than any other religion.
Clearly that is not the case, France and many unfortunate others would not have been experiencing the similar acts of violence from members of their own Muslim population if it was merely a matter of how modern or liberal any particular society is. If we look at Australia's history of immigration we can see that race riots, discrimination and distrust have been a similar feature in each wave of immigrants from the Chinese to the Greeks and Italians. Pre-meditated, indiscriminate attacks with international collaboration against members of the host nation have not been a serious concern in those immigration waves.
It's important to remember that France and the UK are not "host nations" to the bulk of their Muslim populations, who are lawfully settled citizens of the second and third generation.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's important to remember that France and the UK are not "host nations" to the bulk of their Muslim populations, who are lawfully settled citizens of the second and third generation.
If anything that makes the issue more alarming if it continues to be a pervasive threat throughout concurrent generations.
Orlanth wrote: Where did I say pope, where did I say cardinals?
Nowhere. I was just highlighting why that was stupid. Which authority do you want to declare that formal excomunication? I can find you tens of thousands of random Muslim that will happily tell you about how “ISIS are not true muslims” though. Which isn't worth a rat's ass, still.
Orlanth wrote: Iron Captain gave the name for it takfir, which I didn't know, thanks Iron Captain.
I see that you have been forging your opinion on top-notch knowledge of the subject at hand .
Orlanth wrote: it makes perfect sense outside complacency ridden France.
Complacency-ridden France? As opposed to where, the UK ?
It's funny because you have sharia courts and we have bans of the hijab at school and the burka in the street.
Please tell me more about complacency-ridden France lol.
Orlanth wrote: France is riddled with Islamic extremists because there is insufficient action to engage the Moslem population as a whole.
The UK had had plenty of scum join ISIS, but the curreent government has placed great emphasis in encouraging the Mosques to preach for peace and against sectarianism
After the 7/7 bombings the silence of the UK's Moslem community leaders was heavily criticised, now the Imams largely very heavily criticise jihadism, and those that do not are likely watched. #There are radical Mosques still in the UK, but the problem is not what it was, and plenty of UK passport holders go off to fight the jihad, but many more are persuaded out of it and integration is slowly occurring.
So basically, what you are saying is “There were people in the UK that joined ISIS, there still are, I have no idea of the numbers involved, but I am going to say it's less. Also there are people in France that join ISIS. This is proof that France is doing a worse job. Also noone in France shares my stupid idea and ask all and every French muslim to explicitly condemn ISIS even when said disapproval is bloody obvious for anyone with half a brain (this one is of course completely false, there are plenty of people doing that in France too, but hey, it was just obviously false so no problem here).
Nice argument!
Orlanth wrote: Also when isolated cases do occur the church is expected to take responsibility, and does so quickly.
Sure. I have seen the Church take responsibility for the LRA every time! They can't even properly take responsibility for pedophile priests lol.
Orlanth wrote: It is not to do with anti ISIS T-shirts, though visible solidarity does help break down barriers of mistrust so that is important in its own way.
Do you wear an anti-ISIS tshirt? If not, how are people going to trust you? That definitely seem to imply that you are an ISIS partisan, right?
Orlanth wrote: A large number of UK jihadists returned home because they could not get Facebook, or had to do their share of medial work. This indicates a shallow adherence to jihad (though still dangerous and potentially murderous) of the majority. This highlights just how easy it could be to dissuade jihadism to begin with.
Yeah, I am sure that you have educated yourself deeply on the subject .
Orlanth wrote: Intelligent rational people do, because many of the problems disappear if the scriptures excused for hateful purpose by evil men were not willfully misread and taught to gullible angry people.
Oh I see that you are a great Islamic exegete! You know the scriptures better than all those hate preachers from Saudi Arabia that basically dedicated their life to studying them and therefore you are totally going to win arguments by showing how they misread them! I will totally bet all my money on you winning those kinds of debate, what could possibly go wrong! I'm sure that's the best possible approach to convince people not to blow themselves up. I mean, what other reasons than “Islam tell you not to do it” could possibly work to convince people not to do that?
Orlanth wrote: Islamic teaching says that Christians and Jews are 'peoples of the book' and are not to be persecuted, what do you think happens when this teaching is adhered to
Well, the IRI. Jews, Zoroastrians and Christian have reserved seats in the Majliss (the parliament). Bahais are horribly discriminated against. Apostates are killed. SUCH A JOLLY GOOD TIME REALLY!
Orlanth wrote: Many Islamic countries had better human and religious rights in the middle ages than they do today, because the Koran was properly read and its theology was properly taught.
1. Is this ongoing situations proven that the French Constitution of 1958 (One that proclaims the Fifth Republic of France) is coming to the dead end as claimed by the La France Insoumise faction (Which means the 'Sixth Republic' is needed).
2. Did Brigitte Bardot still backs the Front Nationale after the change of leadership (and softer policy towards the LGBT... which the classic Rightwing antagonizes). What influences her Fascist point of view ?
3. It's a sad news that JLM didn't make it to the second round. Only the Neolib and the Neofascist/Nationalist remains (and the debates between these 2nd round candidates are nothing but a strong, 'generic' attacks against each other sans policy and lack of phillisophy.
4. What percentages of a likelihood that the FN will emerge triumphant in the next election campaign five years from now on? (Dunno if Bardot will live to see that day)
Orlanth wrote: Where did I say pope, where did I say cardinals?
Nowhere. I was just highlighting why that was stupid. Which authority do you want to declare that formal excomunication? I can find you tens of thousands of random Muslim that will happily tell you about how “ISIS are not true muslims” though. Which isn't worth a rat's ass, still.
Ok. This was explained, it is worth something if done properly. You arent going to stop a terrorist with a bomb by telljng him most Moslems think ISIS is theologically wrong. What may work is telling the teenager who people are trying to radicalised the same information and there is a good chance he doesnt devolve into a terrorist with a bomb.
Orlanth wrote: France is riddled with Islamic extremists because there is insufficient action to engage the Moslem population as a whole.
The UK had had plenty of scum join ISIS, but the curreent government has placed great emphasis in encouraging the Mosques to preach for peace and against sectarianism
After the 7/7 bombings the silence of the UK's Moslem community leaders was heavily criticised, now the Imams largely very heavily criticise jihadism, and those that do not are likely watched. #There are radical Mosques still in the UK, but the problem is not what it was, and plenty of UK passport holders go off to fight the jihad, but many more are persuaded out of it and integration is slowly occurring.
So basically, what you are saying is “There were people in the UK that joined ISIS, there still are, I have no idea of the numbers involved, but I am going to say it's less. Also there are people in France that join ISIS. This is proof that France is doing a worse job. Also noone in France shares my stupid idea and ask all and every French muslim to explicitly condemn ISIS even when said disapproval is bloody obvious for anyone with half a brain (this one is of course completely false, there are plenty of people doing that in France too, but hey, it was just obviously false so no problem here).
Of course I don't know how many ISIS members there are in the UK. First because ISIS don't carry membership cards and second because the people watching them, GCHQ and MI5 are part of the security services and their operations are secret.
However we do have rough figures, 3000 high risk Islamists is a figure quoted in the press recently, and it is believed that France has more. French jihadists are certainly successfully executing far more attacks and the UK is seeing far more arrests and convictions.
Orlanth wrote: Also when isolated cases do occur the church is expected to take responsibility, and does so quickly.
Sure. I have seen the Church take responsibility for the LRA every time! They can't even properly take responsibility for pedophile priests lol.
The LRA doesnt however get recruirts from Europe, ISIS does so the church must be doing something right there.
As for paedo priests, that is mostly a catholic thing, not all Christians are catholics, blaming all Christian denominations on that is just ignorant.
Orlanth wrote: A large number of UK jihadists returned home because they could not get Facebook, or had to do their share of medial work. This indicates a shallow adherence to jihad (though still dangerous and potentially murderous) of the majority. This highlights just how easy it could be to dissuade jihadism to begin with.
Yeah, I am sure that you have educated yourself deeply on the subject .
Yes I have kept myself aware on this issue, as far as one can through the open media.
Oh I see that you are a great Islamic exegete! You know the scriptures better than all those hate preachers from Saudi Arabia that basically dedicated their life to studying them and therefore you are totally going to win arguments by showing how they misread them!
I explained what I meant clearly enough, but here it is again.
1. It won't be me doing the deprogramming and deradicalisation, so my own level of knowledge of Islam is not relevant.
2. It doesnt involve discussion with hate prechers from Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. It involves discussion with the young people the hate preachers are trying to radicalise, to get to them first, or debunk the hate theology before it bears fruit.
3. Once someone is already a terrorist work can still occur, it involves the state rather than the local community, and works mostly on threat by chosing prison or reeducation to returning jihadis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11068878/British-jihadists-to-be-forced-to-attend-deradicalisation-programmes-says-Cameron.html
Orlanth wrote: Many Islamic countries had better human and religious rights in the middle ages than they do today, because the Koran was properly read and its theology was properly taught.
Properly read and taught .
Laughing again, why do you make it sound like you have run out of meds.
Serious though look at Cordoba and Baghdad, amongst others, civilised advanced places for their time. Considerably better than Christendom at the same time period.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's important to remember that France and the UK are not "host nations" to the bulk of their Muslim populations, who are lawfully settled citizens of the second and third generation.
If anything that makes the issue more alarming if it continues to be a pervasive threat throughout concurrent generations.
Turns out when you treat people like terrorists due to their religion despite every indication to the contrary, it makes them angry.
If anything that makes the issue more alarming if it continues to be a pervasive threat throughout concurrent generations.
Now you're just being obtuse and willfully bigoted.
There are over 3,000,000 Muslims in France. If even a few thousand constituted a "pervasive threat" then France would look like Iraq right now. Throughout the western world this is this absurd demand to deal with a particular kind of violence that on the whole constitutes less of a thread than a typical work day commute. More people are killed by non-Muslims than Muslims daily in Europe and the US, but for some baffling reason people are obsessed with how dangerous Islam is (well not the Free Masons, they're pretty harmless except for the whole New World Order thing )
If anything that makes the issue more alarming if it continues to be a pervasive threat throughout concurrent generations.
Now you're just being obtuse and willfully bigoted.
There are over 3,000,000 Muslims in France. If even a few thousand constituted a "pervasive threat" then France would look like Iraq right now.
No not really. A few thousand is roughly equivalent to the current threat level in the UK according to released sources. Last time I checked I was not living in a warzone.
And two and half years later and Britain has only suffered the misfortune of two major attacks related to Islam whose fatalities don't even amount to 1% of the annual murder rate of the country.
Dear god. Could it be that the government is as paranoid and reactionary as the people who put it in power, and both are in desperate need of some actual perspective? Could it be that if we're so concerned about people killing other people, we should be mass banning and imprisoning doctors, who kill more people daily in the western world by accident than Muslims kill on purpose? Maybe we should just start sending tobacco growers to jail. They've killed more people in a year than Islamic terrorists will kill a lifetime (which is understandably short).
And if this post about people dying upsets anyone reading it, imagine how a typical Muslim in a western country feels constantly having to hear about how "dangerous" they are and how the government should do something about it. I'm sure those feelings of alienation are incredibly conductive to their assimilation into the country, and not a blatant catch-22 built by the moronic aspects of the human mind rearing their head to build a realm of circular logic to justify bigotry under the guise of rationality.
And two and half years later and Britain has only suffered the misfortune of two major attacks related to Islam whose fatalities don't even amount to 1% of the annual murder rate of the country.
Dear god. Could it be that the government is as paranoid and reactionary as the people who put it in power, and both are in desperate need of some actual perspective? Could it be that if we're so concerned about people killing other people, we should be mass banning and imprisoning doctors, who kill more people daily in the western world by accident than Muslims kill on purpose? Maybe we should just start sending tobacco growers to jail. They've killed more people in a year than Islamic terrorists will kill a lifetime (which is understandably short).
And if this post about people dying upsets anyone reading it, imagine how a typical Muslim in a western country feels constantly having to hear about how "dangerous" they are and how the government should do something about it. I'm sure those feelings of alienation are incredibly conductive to their assimilation into the country, and not a blatant catch-22 built by the moronic aspects of the human mind rearing their head to build a realm of circular logic to justify bigotry under the guise of rationality.
Where to begin with this. Islamic terrorists are a clear and present danger, they need to be watched to gather evidence for trial, and also to prevent atrocity.
They dont add up to 1% BECAUSE the security services are on the ball, not in spite.
The US has a murder rate of about 17k persons a year, they lost about 2-3 months 'quota' on one day on 9/11. Yep preventing this is important. ISIS would love to do a mas attack, they would also like to use WMDs if they got access to them.
We spent a lot of effort to find scum like Mohammed Emwazi, yes he killed half a dozen people on video with a knife. There are people out there would would dearly love to spread radiologicals over western cities like, Paris London and Washington. I think that is enough of a problem to say we are not overegging this.
The small percentage of terrorist incident casualties compared to the murder rate is not relevant. The average house panicked house burglar, thug or even rapist-murderer is not trying to fly jets into skyscrapers or poison the water supply with radiologicals or bioweapons.
Islamic terrorists are a clear and present danger, they need to be watched to gather evidence for trial, and also to prevent atrocity.
Terrorists of all colors are a clear and present danger, but most people seem to enjoy the luxury of not being lumped in with them on account of sharing the same broad religious denomination.
But no really. It's always endearing how nonchalantly certain people merrily transition from talking about all Muslims being dangerous to the specificity to "Islamic terrorists" being dangerous. So which are we talking about? I'm responding to the former, not the later but I do enjoy the goal post shift people pull every time this topic comes up.
They dont add up to 1% BECAUSE the security services are on the ball, not in spite.
You literally just claimed above that the people investigating this keep things secret, so is this just convenient speculation or do you have inside knowledge? I'm betting the former.
ISIS would love to do a mas attack, they would also like to use WMDs if they got access to them.
They would also love for the conflict to become Islam vs the world. For some baffling reason right wing politics the world over love demanding "we can't let the terrorists win" while letting the terrorists win.
The small percentage of terrorist incident casualties compared to the murder rate is not relevant. The average house panicked house burglar, thug or even rapist-murderer is not trying to fly jets into skyscrapers or poison the water supply with radiologicals or bioweapons.
It's completely relevant. Killing people is considered a negative, and we react extremely to extremist attacks because they kill a lot of people, but the degree to which we direct focus on those attacks is completely out of proportion with how many people are dying relative to other causes. I literally just got finished reading a bunch of newspapers from 1850, and we were saying the same gak about the Irish and Ireland actually spent nearly a solid century in constant domestic violence, but outside the UK I never saw anyone saying we should consider the Irish a pervasive threat (well not after 1890 ). If we're going to take extreme positions on an entire group of people on account of how many people specific extreme elements of that group can, have, or want to kill, why the feth aren't we all throwing every Christian in jail right now? There's plenty of Christian extremists in the world. They talk about final solutions all the time. Obviously Christians are a pervasive threat and we must resolve them. Except we're not going to do that because it's patently absurd. Only Muslims get that kind of nonsense thrown at them these days.
NinthMusketeer wrote:[Turns out when you treat people like terrorists due to their religion despite every indication to the contrary, it makes them angry.
Because Islamic extremism isn't a serious issue in nations where Islam is the majority of the population or even the law of the land, right?
LordofHats wrote:
Now you're just being obtuse and willfully bigoted.
This is uncalled for.
There are over 3,000,000 Muslims in France. If even a few thousand constituted a "pervasive threat" then France would look like Iraq right now. Throughout the western world this is this absurd demand to deal with a particular kind of violence that on the whole constitutes less of a thread than a typical work day commute. More people are killed by non-Muslims than Muslims daily in Europe and the US, but for some baffling reason people are obsessed with how dangerous Islam is (well not the Free Masons, they're pretty harmless except for the whole New World Order thing )
The UK and US, when compared to France, has been extremely successful in preventing these attacks. In part due to somewhat draconian anti-terror laws. If you honestly think that these laws exist completely without justification or that the threat they purport to prevent is completely imaginary... well that's just a foolish line of thought. Certainly these governments come to like this increasing power they enjoy, but they are not fabricating an Islamic-terrorist threat from scratch to justify it.
Orlanth wrote: What may work is telling the teenager who people are trying to radicalised the same information
Who are you asking to tell him this?
His parents? Most of them do, you know. Really people that go full terrorist often comes from family that totally disapprove all this.
Orlanth wrote: We are on the same page it seems, but Iron Captain knows the Arabic words.
We are not on the same page. I know Arabic words too, you know.
Orlanth wrote: The LRA doesnt however get recruirts from Europe
So what? Is the Pope somehow only concerned by Europe?
Orlanth wrote: As for paedo priests, that is mostly a catholic thing, not all Christians are catholics, blaming all Christian denominations on that is just ignorant.
.
ISIS are Sunni. That never stopped you from saying “Muslims” . Denominations somehow didn't count at that time .
Oh how things change when the table are turned . Oh the double standards !
Why have those pedo priests not been formally excommunicated? Not only didn't Catholicism do that, but neither did Protestants, as far as I can tell. Why so, do you think?
Orlanth wrote: That was so random I don't know what you are talkjng about, and evidently you dont either. Are you trying to crack a joke?
I am trying to show how you are basically considering all Muslims as ISIS supporters by default, unless they explicitly show they are not. But somehow you don't think you should be held to the same standard. You don't have to show that you don't support ISIS. They do.
Orlanth wrote: Yes I have kept myself aware on this issue, as far as one can through the open media.
That's one way to say “I have read sensationalist headlines and distorted them (none of those even speak of Facebook)”.
What I'm reading is “Some people that went to a war-torn country to fight a war are facing terrible conditions that goes way, way farther than “No facebook” and they therefore want to leave”. Not “Spoiled brats are throwing a tantrum because they are so soft”, despite the eye-catching (and a bit dishonest) headlines.
Orlanth wrote: 1. It won't be me doing the deprogramming and deradicalisation, so my own level of knowledge of Islam is not relevant.
Then don't tell me which interpretation is the right, good-faith, accurate one and which is the wrong, dishonest, misleading one.
Just say “The one I like” and “The one I don't like”.
Orlanth wrote: 2. It doesnt involve discussion with hate prechers from Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. It involves discussion with the young people the hate preachers are trying to radicalise, to get to them first, or debunk the hate theology before it bears fruit.
So it still involves being more convincing than those guys, which was my point.
Orlanth wrote: Serious though look at Cordoba and Baghdad, amongst others, civilised advanced places for their time. Considerably better than Christendom at the same time period.
I'm not arguing otherwise. Just laughing at the good old, quite comfortable, very unsubstantiated idea that “read in a way that I like more” is synonymous with “properly read and taught”.
It's completely called for, and if you don't like it then do some introspection. You entire posting history in this thread reads like a long series of "I'm not racist, but" comments and its reached the point where there is no point in indulging you.
The UK and US, when compared to France, has been extremely successful in preventing these attacks. In part due to somewhat draconian anti-terror laws. If you honestly think that these laws exist completely without justification or that the threat they purport to prevent is completely imaginary... well that's just a foolish line of thought. Certainly these governments come to like this increasing power they enjoy, but they are not fabricating an Islamic-terrorist threat from scratch to justify it.
And there's that goal post shift, where you seamlessly transition from attacking all Muslims as a pervasive multi-generation threat to only talking about terrorists so as to maintain the veil of rational credibility.
Orlanth wrote: What may work is telling the teenager who people are trying to radicalised the same information
Who are you asking to tell him this?
His parents? Most of them do, you know. Really people that go full terrorist often comes from family that totally disapprove all this.
Community. Familes might disapprove, or otherwise claim to disapprove because they openly live there, still many current parents are uninterested in social discipline.
secondly we need to de-radicalise student unions, which is where a lot of jihadism is expoused, we must stamp on the head Trojan horse schools (look it up), the Tories did this, Labour ignored it for reasons of PC dogma. Above all extremist mosques should be ostracised and moderate social Imams encouraged, and ushered to take stwardship of disaffected youth. ?there is room for improvement in secondary education too.
Orlanth wrote: We are on the same page it seems, but Iron Captain knows the Arabic words.
We are not on the same page. I know Arabic words too, you know.
look at the context, I was talking abut Iron Captain, who has his head screwed on preoperly when it comes to understanding Ismalic radicalism and its dangers.
I was certainly not talking about you.
Anyway you missed or were unable to understand the point. Christian communities in European countries do not send fanatics to join the LRA. No churches preachs holy war on behalf of the LRA, and it any isolated sect were to do so, the condemnation by the churches would be immedate and vocal, and the sect would likely be shut down.
Orlanth wrote: As for paedo priests, that is mostly a catholic thing, not all Christians are catholics, blaming all Christian denominations on that is just ignorant.
.
ISIS are Sunni. That never stopped you from saying “Muslims” . Denominations somehow didn't count at that time
ISIS are not Sunni, remember that they condemn and categorise actual Sunnis as unbelievers.
Why have those pedo priests not been formally excommunicated? Not only didn't Catholicism do that, but neither did Protestants, as far as I can tell. Why so, do you think?
Because crimes of a sexual nature should be followed by repentance. In Catholic teaching excommunication equals damnation. Outside of poltical usage in the middle ages it is not formally used much.
Protestants don't have a doctrine of excommunication as under most Protestant teachings salvation and damnation are judged by God alone.
However most churches have a civic equivalent, expulsion and a rejection of action. This does happen, though in the cases of Protestants, especially in the UK there isnt much evidence for child molestation. There is some, but its not endemic, more like the standard % of criminals in the education system that can be found in any demographic, it was also decisively dealt with. The CoE especially has avoided culpability by not turning a blind eye to any paedo they found anyway, CoE paedos have been uncovered, but not CoE cover ups. This doesnt cover them from ignorant people who lump all denominations in together.
Orlanth wrote: That was so random I don't know what you are talkjng about, and evidently you dont either. Are you trying to crack a joke?
I am trying to show how you are basically considering all Muslims as ISIS supporters by default, unless they explicitly show they are not. But somehow you don't think you should be held to the same standard. You don't have to show that you don't support ISIS. They do.
Ok, i was right then, you really don't have a clue what you are saying.
There is nothing remotely close in anything I have said that would imply I consider all Moslems ISIS sympathisers.
Orlanth wrote: Yes I have kept myself aware on this issue, as far as one can through the open media.
That's one way to say “I have read sensationalist headlines and distorted them (none of those even speak of Facebook)”.
Couldnt find the Facebook reference at short notice, it was a case several years ago. Instead if a jihadist who wanted to return home because they couldn't get Facebook, I gave to links to one who returned because his ipod broke, and another who yearned for fish and chips.
Point was well established, many jihadis have a shallow commitment and thus are ripe for deradicalisation.
I even used media with different slants.
Then don't tell me which interpretation is the right, good-faith, accurate one and which is the wrong, dishonest, misleading one.
Just say “The one I like” and “The one I don't like”.
You should be able to work this out for yourself. Islam considers itself a religion of peace, and many Moslems apply that teaching.
Now if a group like ISIS that wants t get hold of radiological materials to duild a dirty bomb, to explode in a western city to cause thousands maybe tens of thousands of random people to die of radiation poisoning, and want to do this in the name of God. Can you find something incompatible with peace in that action.
Orlanth wrote: 2. It doesnt involve discussion with hate prechers from Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. It involves discussion with the young people the hate preachers are trying to radicalise, to get to them first, or debunk the hate theology before it bears fruit.
So it still involves being more convincing than those guys, which was my point.
Your point is that you need to match the theology of the hate preachers, its easier than that, you need to replace the theology of the hate preachers. People have too go a fair way to find a hate preacher in a western country, there is time and opportunity to educate impressionable Moslems before they get radicalised.
Orlanth wrote: Serious though look at Cordoba and Baghdad, amongst others, civilised advanced places for their time. Considerably better than Christendom at the same time period.
I'm not arguing otherwise. Just laughing at the good old, quite comfortable, very unsubstantiated idea that “read in a way that I like more” is synonymous with “properly read and taught”.
Where do you possibly get the excuse to make such an assumption.
Also you flit about with words like 'unsubstantiated' like you dont know what they mean. You don't post links to evidence, you don't post examples we can Google, you just post baseless objections and then handwave to claim my multiple sourced arguments are somehow 'unsubstantiated'.
You know what the the yellow lines of text are for, they links to news articles or other evidence to back up a point, and I always like to post at least two links or seperate examples to multiple source.
Orlanth wrote: ISIS are not Sunni, remember that they condemn and categorise actual Sunnis as unbelievers
Okay, completely ignoring that Hybrid's point was that you're just "no true scottsman-ing" your way to a circular logic where you will always be right no matter how you choose to approach Islam, ISIS is Sunni. They're Salafi's and they're favorite poster child for fake Muslims are Shiites, then "no true Muslim" Sunnis who are not also Salafis.
You've come full circle on the road of unintentional irony.
Orlanth wrote: There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.
That makes no damn sense. Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing)
Actually, there is. He is called the Caliph. Only problem... the guy is the leader of ISIS... Another problem would be that he is not recognised by much of the muslim community.
So I do agree with you that calling on the muslim community to formally excommunicate ISIS doesn't make much sense. Only a legitimate Caliph that enjoys support of both Sunni and Shia could do something like that, and there hasn't been a Caliph like that since Muhammad died and Abu Bakr and Ali started fighting each other. At most we could ask muslim communities to openly condemn and speak out against ISIS and islamic terrorism and to actively fight it, and call upon the muftis to issue fatwas against ISIS. Many muslim communities have already done so, and it is muslims who are doing most of the fighting already. I am not sure what we could ask more of them. Many muslims of course have not spoken out against ISIS, but that unfortenately is because many of them do actually have a degree of sympathy for ISIS, most of which is a result of gak the West has been pulling of in the Middle East. For many muslims, ISIS and other radical groups are like resistance movements against the West. If we want to fix that, we will not just have to point fingers at the muslims, but we need to work together with them and also look at our own part as Westerners in the situation in the Middle East. We are far from blameless. But of course, what exactly is to be done is the big question of 21st century politics. I do honestly not know the answer.
Orlanth wrote: There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.
That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing)
Actually, there is. He is called the Caliph. Only problem... the guy is the leader of ISIS...
"self proclaimed" Pope.
And that's if he still even alive. They have come close to killing him at least twice I believe.
Given IS... It could all be a fake and he was killed. O
Orlanth wrote: secondly we need to de-radicalise student unions, which is where a lot of jihadism is expoused
Are you still talking about France ?
Orlanth wrote: ISIS are not Sunni, remember that they condemn and categorise actual Sunnis as unbelievers.
. Let me put this inside a spoiler tag
Spoiler:
DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!!
I wish there were blinking tags too, you deserve them.
Orlanth wrote: Because crimes of a sexual nature should be followed by repentance.
Oooohh, I see! What about the nazis? I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for them not being formally and explicitly excommunicated by the church, but one that somehow, for reasons that I will disclose below, don't apply to muslims and ISIS :
Spoiler:
DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!!
Orlanth wrote: There is nothing remotely close in anything I have said that would imply I consider all Moslems ISIS sympathisers.
But there is, really. The double standard that you impart on them and only them to explicitly denounce ISIS does.
Orlanth wrote: Couldnt find the Facebook reference at short notice, it was a case several years ago. Instead if a jihadist who wanted to return home because they couldn't get Facebook, I gave to links to one who returned because his ipod broke, and another who yearned for fish and chips.
And it's obviously the main reason for them to want to go home, and definitely not a tiny detail that was mounted up by journo for sensationalism . You know, living in a war-torn country on the losing side of a war fought in terrible conditions doesn't even begin to factor into their decision. If only they had facebook then having no running water, no bed, no heating, risking your life every day, and so on, wouldn't matter one bit to them! How naive.
Orlanth wrote: You should be able to work this out for yourself. Islam considers itself a religion of peace, and many Moslems apply that teaching.
. Sure, man, sure .
Orlanth wrote: Now if a group like ISIS that wants t get hold of radiological materials to duild a dirty bomb, to explode in a western city to cause thousands maybe tens of thousands of random people to die of radiation poisoning, and want to do this in the name of God. Can you find something incompatible with peace in that action.
Nope. What I can find, by looking it up, is tons of material to support their action in Islamic scripture.
Orlanth wrote: You don't post links to evidence, you don't post examples we can Google, you just post baseless objections and then handwave to claim my multiple sourced arguments are somehow 'unsubstantiated'.
Yeah I'm a lazy bum. I can't find the courage to go dig a few links for you about nice quotations from the Quran, or the Sunnah, to show you what “religion of peace” means. Just go google Banu Qurayza or something. Go by yourself look at the justification actual jihadi use for their actions and check them against the texts by yourself, instead of relying on the convenient assumption that they are the one distorting the texts or something.
Orlanth wrote: There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.
That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing)
Actually, there is. He is called the Caliph. Only problem... the guy is the leader of ISIS...
"self proclaimed" Pope.
And that's if he still even alive. They have come close to killing him at least twice I believe.
Given IS... It could all be a fake and he was killed. O
Orlanth wrote: There is a case to answer for, Islam has a duty as a religion to disavow the theology of ISIS, a formal excommunication or equivalent is due.
That makes no damn sense.
Like, do you expect the Muslim Pope (there is no such a thing)
Actually, there is. He is called the Caliph. Only problem... the guy is the leader of ISIS...
"self proclaimed" Pope.
And that's if he still even alive. They have come close to killing him at least twice I believe.
Given IS... It could all be a fake and he was killed. O
So like Aun'va?
Lol.. Why not at this point!
Local field command will run day to day combat, half thr original senior figures are killed it seems.
There losing badly. His death, might be symbolic. He not a man. He a caliph... He a Pope...
Far as I'm awhere there's not a second I command take over system for this unlike other roles.
Orlanth wrote: Because crimes of a sexual nature should be followed by repentance.
Oooohh, I see! What about the nazis? I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for them not being formally and explicitly excommunicated by the church, but one that somehow, for reasons that I will disclose below, don't apply to muslims and ISIS :
Spoiler:
DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!!
Ok. I will explain it to you. Nazis are not seen as holy.
ISIS consider themelves holy, and people are being hoodwinked into thinking that joining ISIS is holy. How about having the Moslem community proactively disown ISIS and educting Moslems in Europe so they don't sign up.
Orlanth wrote: There is nothing remotely close in anything I have said that would imply I consider all Moslems ISIS sympathisers.
But there is, really. The double standard that you impart on them and only them to explicitly denounce ISIS does.
There is no double standard. You keep on deliberately misrepresenting what I have posted, despite repeated and different methods of clarification.
Do you have learning difficulties, it would explain a lot.
And it's obviously the main reason for them to want to go home, and definitely not a tiny detail that was mounted up by journo for sensationalism .
Do you have evidence for that? you cant just take a link and handwave and say senstalionalist press without applying a reason. Also the press chosen are not particularly known for senstatlioanalism. Guardia, Daily Mail, Sun, Star or Mirror are often sensationalist. Telepgraph, Times and Independent are usually fairly good sources. All press embellish to some extent or other, but not the the extent you can call 'fake news'.
You know, living in a war-torn country on the losing side of a war fought in terrible conditions doesn't even begin to factor into their decision. If only they had facebook then having no running water, no bed, no heating, risking your life every day, and so on, wouldn't matter one bit to them!
How naive.
I didn't bother to quote inks to the comments of jihadis wanting out for those reasons there are rather a lot of them. Also you forget the point being made: some jihadis have a shallow adherence to jihad, I think I have said this three times now.
Orlanth wrote: You should be able to work this out for yourself. Islam considers itself a religion of peace, and many Moslems apply that teaching.
.
Sure, man, sure .
Ok so you are a screaming bigot. Nice to get that out of the way. I will stop wasting time on you.
Last comment, not bothering with answering the rest of your post now.
Yes I AM SURE, so is any other rationally minded person.
Islam is a religion and many types of people believe in its teachings with different mindsets. There are PLENTY of Moslems who believe Islam is intended by God to be a peaceful religion, AND LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY.
You might not think this is true, educate yourself; you might instead want to laugh that off, I suggest you stop labeling an entire people group and show some shame.
It is far from impossible for a Moslem to be a man of peace.
Put your blinkered prejudice aside and grow up.
Yes I AM SURE, so is any other rationally minded person. Islam is a religion and many types of people believe in its teachings with different mindsets. There are PLENTY of Moslems who believe Islam is intended by God to be a peaceful religion, AND LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY. You might not think this is true, educate yourself; you might instead want to laugh that off, I suggest you stop labeling an entire people group and show some shame. It is far from impossible for a Moslem to be a man of peace. Put your blinkered prejudice aside and grow up.
Aye, this is a message that should be heard more often. Too often people just blame all muslims for terrorism. This feeds into a vicious cycle where young muslims become disillusioned with the West and become vulnerable to radicalism, eventually being lured into terrorist groups which then reinforces the association of muslims with terrorists in the West. If we ever want to put a stop to islamic terrorism, this cycle is the first thing that needs to be broken. And that will take some serious change of mind and attitude in the West.
Yes I AM SURE, so is any other rationally minded person.
Islam is a religion and many types of people believe in its teachings with different mindsets. There are PLENTY of Moslems who believe Islam is intended by God to be a peaceful religion, AND LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY.
You might not think this is true, educate yourself; you might instead want to laugh that off, I suggest you stop labeling an entire people group and show some shame.
It is far from impossible for a Moslem to be a man of peace.
Put your blinkered prejudice aside and grow up.
Aye, this is a message that should be heard more often. Too often people just blame all muslims for terrorism. This feeds into a vicious cycle where young muslims become disillusioned with the West and become vulnerable to radicalism, eventually being lured into terrorist groups which then reinforces the association of muslims with terrorists in the West.
If we ever want to put a stop to islamic terrorism, this cycle is the first thing that needs to be broken. And that will take some serious change of mind and attitude in the West.
Aye. The ones behind its rise are a few evil men, there's always gonna be someone who financed, or enabled radicals to exists and grow.
Not every muslim but there's some very bad eggs in the basket.
Those eggs are a real danger as they infect others.
While they may be few they are vocal, they are prominent.
They are what we see most of. Not the shop keeper who just wants to mind own business.
Yes I AM SURE, so is any other rationally minded person.
Islam is a religion and many types of people believe in its teachings with different mindsets. There are PLENTY of Moslems who believe Islam is intended by God to be a peaceful religion, AND LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY.
You might not think this is true, educate yourself; you might instead want to laugh that off, I suggest you stop labeling an entire people group and show some shame.
It is far from impossible for a Moslem to be a man of peace.
Put your blinkered prejudice aside and grow up.
Aye, this is a message that should be heard more often. Too often people just blame all muslims for terrorism. This feeds into a vicious cycle where young muslims become disillusioned with the West and become vulnerable to radicalism, eventually being lured into terrorist groups which then reinforces the association of muslims with terrorists in the West.
If we ever want to put a stop to islamic terrorism, this cycle is the first thing that needs to be broken. And that will take some serious change of mind and attitude in the West.
Aye. The ones behind its rise are a few evil men, there's always gonna be someone who financed, or enabled radicals to exists and grow.
Not every muslim but there's some very bad eggs in the basket.
Those eggs are a real danger as they infect others.
While they may be few they are vocal, they are prominent.
They are what we see most of. Not the shop keeper who just wants to mind own business.
You are correct. The problem is when looking for those rotten eggs we shake the basket and don't mind broking half of them and just say "Nah, they were rotten for the beginning"
Terrorism, as all the complicated problems, don't has a simple solution. Theres no magical spell that many politicians today say they have to make it disappear. Not theres only one way to solve this problem too, so people that think otherwise are pretty blind to how thinks works in the world. Obviously, the way you find more apropiate to fix this problem will vary with your ideary or ideology or vision of the world. But thats how all works, no?
If people, in general (Myself included), were more humble to recognise that is more probably for us to be in the wrong that in the correct answer to everything, we could work better as a society.
The UK and US, when compared to France, has been extremely successful in preventing these attacks. In part due to somewhat draconian anti-terror laws. If you honestly think that these laws exist completely without justification or that the threat they purport to prevent is completely imaginary... well that's just a foolish line of thought. Certainly these governments come to like this increasing power they enjoy, but they are not fabricating an Islamic-terrorist threat from scratch to justify it.
The issue with that is, there is very little evidence that those draconian anti-terror laws have had any effect in reducing the number of attacks in the UK (and maybe the USA), rather than normal laws we already had. For example there hasn't been any Islamic shootings in the UK, not because of anti-terrorism laws but just because there are very few guns in the UK, the guns we do have are not ideal for carrying out a massacre (Low calibre rimfire self loading rifles, bolt action, lever action and martini action centre-fire rifle and Shotguns (with limits on their ammo capacity of 3 shells, 1 in the chamber and 2 ready to load) and trying to get better suited guns in is a huge pain. Hell, basically the only handguns you are allowed in the UK are muzzle-loaded Black Powder weapons. Which means you typically have a maximum shot count of 6 before you need to reload a muzzle loaded weapon. And then armed response arrive armed with MP5s and G36s.
Now, consider how quickly it was that the UK suffered a terrorism incident involving a motor vehicle after it began to be seen on the continent. It happened quite quickly because there is basically nothing any country can do to stop a person with a driving licence deciding to drive into a load of people. And those kinds of attacks, ones which require little organisation or planning (get driving licence, buy or rent car, kill) are basically impossible to stop as they don't require the huge amounts of contacts which are necessary to smuggle in weapons and ammunition, especially into an island like the UK. Mainland Europe is connected by road to Turkey (bordering Syria) and by sea to North Africa (Egypt, Libya). Transporting the goods necessary for carrying out an attack is massively easier to do if you're just trying to get into Europe as opposed to the UK.
NinthMusketeer wrote:Turns out when you treat people like terrorists due to their religion despite every indication to the contrary, it makes them angry.
Because Islamic extremism isn't a serious issue in nations where Islam is the majority of the population or even the law of the land, right?
Yes that is quite right. If Islam were the root of the problem we would expect unstable countries with a different religion to have less violence, however we see repeatedly that unstable countries have violence regardless of the majority religion present. Therefore, a judgement that Islam is the cause is not only irrational but based on bigotry rather than fact.
These last few pages have turned into an absolute gakshow at times, let's try and keep it clean going ahead so we don't have to lock this politics thread as well.
Remember, the topic is the French Presidential Election. Not whether or not the Muslim population of France/Europe/anywhere is able to properly integrate/whether their faith is inherently violent/any of the other tangents you guys keep trying to head down.
Rich coming from the guy who said “Muslims don't do enough to distance themselves from ISIS”, directed at the guy who said “Nah that's scapegoating them” . Seem you lost the big picture at some point.
If you still can't understand why trying to fight Islamism on theological ground is a very stupid idea, especially for a non-Muslim, I'd be happy to explain you all that by PM.
Difficult to tell from the huge amount of emails published if anything particularly damning has been revealed. Macron's team is claiming that the real emails have been dotted with fake documents to confuse readers.
I doubt it's enough to break his lead at this late hour. We shall see soon enough.
@A Town Called Mallus and @NinthMusketeer, happy to continue this discussion via PM, gents.
According to France 24 Live election turnout is approx 74%. This looked reasonably high to me, by UK standarfds.
Though this was counted as 26% abstention so far, turnout by progress in election day is actually LESS than in th 2012 election, even though the final two candidates were less contentious than this current ballot (Le Pen had third place vote).
It would be expected that fear would cause a higher than usual turnout rather than less.
Well at least one country managed to dodge the stupidity bullet.
Now watch the polls completely switch at the last moment just to spite me
Hey give us Dutch some credit, we rejected Wilders first. Like Americans have claimed credit for the Netherlands so shall I claim credit for France in the name of the Netherlands. No need to thank us citizens, be on your merry day
Orlanth wrote: The TV debate finished her, she tried to rile Macron and he proved he had self control.
It would have been hard to catch up on a 20% deficit anyway, unless he literally revealed himself to be a pedophile or Nazi on stage it was going to be insurmountable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I guess we should congratulate Jean-Claude Junker and Angela Merkel on their winning of the French presidency.
Damnit where's the violin orkmoticon when I need it XD
I am considering making an avatar out of it, just not sure if against the rules ^^.
It would be, like, a US flag with a picture of Trump under it, and a French flag with a picture of Le Pen under it with a big red cross over it. Would that be allowed ^^'?
As opposed to a career politician who left her family-built party, the one she spent years rebuilding, after making the runoff because it was too toxic a brand for a general election, and who's economic policies would, by just about every independent evaluation, be disastrous?
Like...really? That's the rhetoric we're going to go with?
As opposed to a career politician who left her family-built party, the one she spent years rebuilding, after making the runoff because it was too toxic a brand for a general election, and who's economic policies would, by just about every independent evaluation, be disastrous?
Like...really? That's the rhetoric we're going to go with?
A party that was supported by and partially funded by Russia. A party that was established by collaborators and ex SSers. Rich pedigree.
As opposed to a career politician who left her family-built party, the one she spent years rebuilding, after making the runoff because it was too toxic a brand for a general election, and who's economic policies would, by just about every independent evaluation, be disastrous?
Like...really? That's the rhetoric we're going to go with?
A party that was supported by and partially funded by Russia. A party that was established by collaborators and ex SSers. Rich pedigree.
You don't understand it. ALL GOES in the race for destroying the EU! You only need to say "Screw you EU!" to gain support, nothing more about your political past, present or future matters.
Hopefully with this, maybe the EU can have a little change in mentality and began the reform that it really needs. As I said, I'm in the "Reform it" more than the "Destroy it!".
A lot of the EU's problems honestly seem to me like they could be resolved with structural changes that give voters in member countries a bit more agency in the choices being made. I'm not really up to speed completely on how the EU is internally arranged, but the problem seems to come from how insulated the ruling body of the Union is from the electorate.
LordofHats wrote: A lot of the EU's problems honestly seem to me like they could be resolved with structural changes that give voters in member countries a bit more agency in the choices being made. I'm not really up to speed completely on how the EU is internally arranged, but the problem seems to come from how insulated the ruling body of the Union is from the electorate.
One huge part of the problem is that people are fething lazy and won't vote in EU elections.
The EU won't change. They aren't interested in introspection. And if you think France is going to allow reform of the CAP or to stop that pointless moving to Strasbourg then think again.
The EU won't change. They aren't interested in introspection. And if you think France is going to allow reform of the CAP or to stop that pointless moving to Strasbourg then think again.
Oh, I think you are probably correct. But what can I say? All my money is in Euros and I live in one of the PIGS of the EU, so...
LordofHats wrote: A lot of the EU's problems honestly seem to me like they could be resolved with structural changes that give voters in member countries a bit more agency in the choices being made. I'm not really up to speed completely on how the EU is internally arranged, but the problem seems to come from how insulated the ruling body of the Union is from the electorate.
One huge part of the problem is that people are fething lazy and won't vote in EU elections.
They aren't exactly isolated like AlmightyWalrus mentioned. Its mainly down to lazy voters. Turnout is abysmal while all the organs of the EU are either directly or indirectly chosen by the voters or their respective national governments. Its only insulated because people don't care and start complaining its undemocratic.
The EU won't change. They aren't interested in introspection. And if you think France is going to allow reform of the CAP or to stop that pointless moving to Strasbourg then think again.
They even get upset when not ernough important votes are held at there parliment.
France would sooner convert there language to English, fly thr union jacknover Paris and return under ainciant claims of queen of England and France than give up thr CAP money!
The EU won't change. They aren't interested in introspection. And if you think France is going to allow reform of the CAP or to stop that pointless moving to Strasbourg then think again.
Oh, I think you are probably correct. But what can I say? All my money is in Euros and I live in one of the PIGS of the EU, so...
You have my sympathies. There's a prime example. You have zero control over your own currency. You can't elect representatives to change it because it's controlled by unaccountable appointees. And it won't ever be reformed because at present it suits one certain member very well by keeping their currency artificially low. Good for exports. I'm all right jack, the rest of you.
@ jhe90
You have to give it to them. France knew how to make it work for them in places.
Spain has as much control in electing their representatives as the rest of us. Just because you don't understand how every part of the EU is elected doesn't mean its unaccountable.
The EU won't change. They aren't interested in introspection. And if you think France is going to allow reform of the CAP or to stop that pointless moving to Strasbourg then think again.
Oh, I think you are probably correct. But what can I say? All my money is in Euros and I live in one of the PIGS of the EU, so...
You have my sympathies. There's a prime example. You have zero control over your own currency. You can't elect representatives to change it because it's controlled by unaccountable appointees. And it won't ever be reformed because at present it suits one certain member very well by keeping their currency artificially low. Good for exports. I'm all right jack, the rest of you.
@ jhe90
You have to give it to them. France knew how to make it work for them in places.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Spain has as much control in electing their representatives as the rest of us. Just because you don't understand how every part of the EU is elected doesn't mean its unaccountable.
Our representatives vote against Spain interest in the parlament of Europe, so we are screwed one way or the other Like when they voted in favour to eliminate the tax of oranges imported from Morocco, that protected our national production, when the production of orange is like the 15% of the PIB* of Andalucia
*Number totally inaccurate, but it was needed to make a point
Disciple of Fate wrote: Spain has as much control in electing their representatives as the rest of us. Just because you don't understand how every part of the EU is elected doesn't mean its unaccountable.
Our representatives vote against Spain interest in the parlament of Europe, so we are screwed one way or the other Like when they voted in favour to eliminate the tax of oranges imported from Morocco, that protected our national production, when the production of orange is like the 15% of the PIB* of Andalucia
*Number totally inaccurate, but it was needed to make a point
Yeah its not like your own representatives or government are that accountable sadly, though that is nothing unique to Spain.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance.
Anyway it's france's choice. Hopefully at least people can stop complaining about the supposed shift towards the political right now.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance.
You and I remember June and November of 2016 very differently.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance.
You and I remember June and November of 2016 very differently.
Yeah hundreds of thousands of protestors many of which were breaking crap all over much of the western usa. Yeah you guys are can lose with some dignity for sure *rolls eyes*. Not saying Trump was good either but sheesh i never saw protests during the obama elections.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance.
Anyway it's france's choice. Hopefully at least people can stop complaining about the supposed shift towards the political right now.
So we aren't allowed to celebrate France keeping a fascist and racist out of office? You're attitude about 'attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose' is really bizarre. You would have rather have Le Pen win to teach the left a lesson. I'm assuming you didn't read up on her background and platform?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yeah hundreds of thousands of protestors many of which were breaking crap all over much of the western usa. Yeah you guys are can lose with some dignity for sure *rolls eyes*. Not saying Trump was good either but sheesh i never saw protests during the obama elections.
I'm talking about what was being said here on the forums, but who am I to stop you from rage posting about a derailing topic?
Fascist...that word is thrown around so much these days it's losing all meaning. And so many who are quick to use it are also quick to physically attack the people who they don't agree with. How ironic.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance.
Anyway it's france's choice. Hopefully at least people can stop complaining about the supposed shift towards the political right now.
So we aren't allowed to celebrate France keeping a fascist and racist out of office? You're attitude about 'attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose' is really bizarre. You would have rather have Le Pen win to teach the left a lesson. I'm assuming you didn't read up on her background and platform?
Not so much but i'm sure you'd be willing to share it.
Even a mod in this thread called a political party's voters idiots. Course it was the same mod that called a woman a misogynist once before she revealed herself as a woman if i recall correctly.
Provide some decent examples of her being fascist and racist. I need to be convinced more.
In some sense yes maybe you guys should learn to respect voters of all parties not just your own. Realize even if the candidate is bad perhaps there are stances they have that resound with a lot of people like getting people back to work. I mean if you hate a candidate fine but insulting all the people that want to vote for a person isn't a good way to convince them the candidate is bad. You're just shaming people rather than giving them good reasons not to vote for their candidate. If a candidate doesn't really solve some issues in any sort of decent way or worse not resolving the issue at all then they can expect their stance to become entirely irrelevant.
Co'tor Shas wrote: God, now we have to look at France as the one sane nation. I'm not sure we can survive this.
They are going to lord it over you so hard.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Ahah my smug sense of superiority toward the USA is once again vindicated! Take that Trumpites .
It has begun...
Damnit where's the violin orkmoticon when I need it XD
They can crow all they like about getting one over the US and UK. When all is said and done they are still, well .... only French.
Is it weird that this seems to demand to be attached to an image of a very stereotypical french person (black and white shirt with, curly mustache, and one of those cigerette extender thingies), with a french flag and the Arc de Triomphe in the background with the caption reading "when all is said and done, they are still only french." EDIT: maybe go a little Nietzsche with "French, all too French"?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yeah hundreds of thousands of protestors many of which were breaking crap all over much of the western usa. Yeah you guys are can lose with some dignity for sure *rolls eyes*. Not saying Trump was good either but sheesh i never saw protests during the obama elections.
I'm talking about what was being said here on the forums, but who am I to stop you from rage posting about a derailing topic?
Not really rage posting as it's france's decision. I tend to be low on rage and wish to keep it that way which is why i stay out of off-topic.
Co'tor Shas wrote: God, now we have to look at France as the one sane nation. I'm not sure we can survive this.
They are going to lord it over you so hard.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Ahah my smug sense of superiority toward the USA is once again vindicated! Take that Trumpites .
It has begun...
Damnit where's the violin orkmoticon when I need it XD
They can crow all they like about getting one over the US and UK. When all is said and done they are still, well .... only French.
Is it weird that this seems to demand to be attached to an image of a very stereotypical french person (black and white shirt with, curly mustache, and one of those cigerette extender thingies), with a french flag and the Arc de Triomphe in the background with the caption reading "when all is said and done, they are still only french." EDIT: maybe go a little Nietzsche with "French, all too French"?
Weird yes/no XD
No!!!! You forgot the beret, the baguette, the bicycle and at least one string of onions.
Terms like "racist" and "fascist" are thrown around so casually and carelessly on this forum that they've lost all meaning and significance. And note I don't mean regarding Le Penn. Maybe she is racist and fascists I don't know, i m not familiar enough with her policies. I mean people on this forum use it against each other.
Seriously, the easiest way to get away with breaking rule #1 is to simply call people a racist.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance.
Anyway it's france's choice. Hopefully at least people can stop complaining about the supposed shift towards the political right now.
So we aren't allowed to celebrate France keeping a fascist and racist out of office? You're attitude about 'attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose' is really bizarre. You would have rather have Le Pen win to teach the left a lesson. I'm assuming you didn't read up on her background and platform?
Not so much but i'm sure you'd be willing to share it.
Even a mod in this thread called a political party's voters idiots. Course it was the same mod that called a woman a misogynist once before she revealed herself as a woman if i recall correctly.
Provide some decent examples of her being fascist and racist. I need to be convinced more.
In some sense yes maybe you guys should learn to respect voters of all parties not just your own. Realize even if the candidate is bad perhaps there are stances they have that resound with a lot of people like getting people back to work. I mean if you hate a candidate fine but insulting all the people that want to vote for a person isn't a good way to convince them the candidate is bad. You're just shaming people rather than giving them good reasons not to vote for their candidate. If a candidate doesn't really solve some issues in any sort of decent way or worse not resolving the issue at all then they can expect their stance to become entirely irrelevant.
The problem is that I personally don't want to respect those that are racist or identify with racist parties. The candidate being a populist with pie in the sky dreams doesn't seem to deter her voters as they don't want to see the truth that her program is economically impossible. Her voters and those of Trump went into full denial instead of trying to reason why they voted for their policies. Which basically boiled down to "I will get your jobs back cuz magic."
The party she has led has proven itself time and again to be full of fascists and racists who only get fired once the uncomfortable truth comes out. You mean to tell me the party doesn't run more thorough background checks on its leaders than the media? Maybe I expected too much from a party founded by collaborators and ex SSers.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
I honestly can't be bothered to go over French media reporting on the horrible things she says, because I can't be bothered wasting more of my time on something so obvious.
I think we can sum this up by saying that the French people are very concerned about Islamic integration issues, but while FN are the most vocal in highlighting the problem, and can be relied upon not to sweep the issue under the carpet, people don't want them to be left in charge of finding answers.
Future War Cultist wrote: Fascist...that word is thrown around so much these days it's losing all meaning. And so many who are quick to use it are also quick to physically attack the people who they don't agree with. How ironic.
Political violence has never been exclusive to fascism. I mean, even anarchism has done so. And anarchism is basically the polar opposite of fascism. Or do you consider anarchism to be the same as fascism ^^?
Anyway I'm pretty glad that some people are unwilling to stay silent and inactive when others preach genocide…
Wait, Jules Verne is French? *looks it up* Holy crap all these years I thought he was British
No joke, my friend who is an English major literally thought Jules Verne was an English writer
Wait whaaaaat? That name sounds like 100% totally French! I'm not even sure how English people pronounce it .
For me he is pretty emblematic of France ^^.
The earliest models of anarchy were completely predicated on violence to boot! The whole reason Guy Fawkes is a symbol of anarchy in the first place is because of how he planned to overthrow the government, not what he planned to replace it with.
Wait whaaaaat? That name sounds like 100% totally French! I'm not even sure how English people pronounce it .
For me he is pretty emblematic of France ^^.
Wait, Jules Verne is French? *looks it up* Holy crap all these years I thought he was British
No joke, my friend who is an English major literally thought Jules Verne was an English writer
Wait whaaaaat? That name sounds like 100% totally French! I'm not even sure how English people pronounce it .
For me he is pretty emblematic of France ^^.
I don't know if we all pronounce it the same, but in the Netherlands it sounds like Julez Vern-e. I can imagine it sounds similar in English?
I just hope now that France can overcome all the problems facing it. I don't think Macron is the right person for the job, but he was voted in so that must be respected.
LordofHats wrote: In English its just pronounced "vern" (like "fern" or "burn" but with the "v") with the e at the end silent. Least that's how I've always heard it.
Yeah this is close to how Dutch people pronounce it, the E is mostly (some say it but it doesn't sound right) silent for us too.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Terms like "racist" and "fascist" are thrown around so casually and carelessly on this forum that they've lost all meaning and significance. And note I don't mean regarding Le Penn. Maybe she is racist and fascists I don't know, i m not familiar enough with her policies. I mean people on this forum use it against each other.
Seriously, the easiest way to get away with breaking rule #1 is to simply call people a racist.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't know if we all pronounce it the same, but in the Netherlands it sounds like Julez Vern-e. I can imagine it sounds similar in English?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't know if we all pronounce it the same, but in the Netherlands it sounds like Julez Vern-e. I can imagine it sounds similar in English?
Both the e and the s are silent in French.
Technically we know the S should be silent because we all get French class in school, but damn logic and start zzzzzzing.
Eh the election is already over so not much other than bitterness and some people partying i guess. Probably just gonna lead to a bad place since the results are out.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance.
Anyway it's france's choice. Hopefully at least people can stop complaining about the supposed shift towards the political right now.
So we aren't allowed to celebrate France keeping a fascist and racist out of office? You're attitude about 'attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose' is really bizarre. You would have rather have Le Pen win to teach the left a lesson. I'm assuming you didn't read up on her background and platform?
Not so much but i'm sure you'd be willing to share it.
Even a mod in this thread called a political party's voters idiots. Course it was the same mod that called a woman a misogynist once before she revealed herself as a woman if i recall correctly.
Provide some decent examples of her being fascist and racist. I need to be convinced more.
In some sense yes maybe you guys should learn to respect voters of all parties not just your own. Realize even if the candidate is bad perhaps there are stances they have that resound with a lot of people like getting people back to work. I mean if you hate a candidate fine but insulting all the people that want to vote for a person isn't a good way to convince them the candidate is bad. You're just shaming people rather than giving them good reasons not to vote for their candidate. If a candidate doesn't really solve some issues in any sort of decent way or worse not resolving the issue at all then they can expect their stance to become entirely irrelevant.
The problem is that I personally don't want to respect those that are racist or identify with racist parties. The candidate being a populist with pie in the sky dreams doesn't seem to deter her voters as they don't want to see the truth that her program is economically impossible. Her voters and those of Trump went into full denial instead of trying to reason why they voted for their policies. Which basically boiled down to "I will get your jobs back cuz magic."
The party she has led has proven itself time and again to be full of fascists and racists who only get fired once the uncomfortable truth comes out. You mean to tell me the party doesn't run more thorough background checks on its leaders than the media? Maybe I expected too much from a party founded by collaborators and ex SSers.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
I honestly can't be bothered to go over French media reporting on the horrible things she says, because I can't be bothered wasting more of my time on something so obvious.
Dude let me sum this up for you for a second. I have a roommate downstairs that i entered into a roommate agreement with without getting to know him well in part because of my half sister. He talks casually about hating jews or insulting them. He sometimes wears a nazi uniform around the house or in the yard as well as wearing the german cross around his neck. We all have aspbergers but his seems very severe. He's a moron and an awful person even with the nazi stuff not mentioned. Anything Le pen could say in comparison to him is like comparing dennis the menace to the anti-christ. The dude just some days ago was sharpening knives that i think he fashioned himself. Seriously is much like those skinny white kids that goes crazy and shoots up a public place. Le pen's mildly insensitive comments are nothing as compared to that.
I don't casually throw around words like racist but he is one and has admitted to being one.
Thank you both for demonstrating that frenchmen look better . We have magnificent beards!
flamingkillamajig wrote: Dude let me sum this up for you for a second. I have a roommate downstairs that i entered into a roommate agreement with without getting to know him well in part because of my half sister. He talks casually about hating jews or insulting them. He sometimes wears a nazi uniform around the house or in the yard as well as wearing the german cross around his neck. We all have aspbergers but his seems very severe. He's a moron and an awful person even with the nazi stuff not mentioned. Anything Le pen could say in comparison to him is like comparing dennis the menace to the anti-christ. The dude just some days ago was sharpening knives that i think he fashioned himself. Seriously is much like those skinny white kids that goes crazy and shoots up a public place. Le pen's mildly insensitive comments are nothing as compared to that.
I don't casually throw around words like racist but he is one and has admitted to being one.
Well, you'll make of this what you want, but these kind of guys, in France, vote for the Front National.
Well that is sad but sometimes the most extreme people of a group vote for the most extreme political party that will get elected. I find it disgusting people like that exist but unless they hurt somebody they are sadly completely in their right to live as they please. As said before you don't have to associate with those people and you are most certainly allowed to hate them. I hate that roommate and i don't wish to be around him much less be associated with him. As i write this he's going around the house with a creepy clown face mask a person should only really wear during halloween.
I'm not entirely sure how far right the french go but i imagine the usa is much farther right in most cases than france which makes me think they might not even register as far right as conservatives by our metrics.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Eh the election is already over so not much other than bitterness and some people partying i guess. Probably just gonna lead to a bad place since the results are out.
Future War Cultist wrote: Despite my disappointment in the result it is what it is, and I wish the people of France all the best for the future.
Is it me or are the left just really sore winners and losers? Seriously win and lose with some grace like this guy please. Also it's not like we said the whole left was stupid which is what you're doing to the right wing. Sheesh. Gotta say if nothing else it's the condescending attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose and even when they do they don't realize the error of their arrogance. Anyway it's france's choice. Hopefully at least people can stop complaining about the supposed shift towards the political right now.
So we aren't allowed to celebrate France keeping a fascist and racist out of office? You're attitude about 'attitude of the left that really makes me want them to lose' is really bizarre. You would have rather have Le Pen win to teach the left a lesson. I'm assuming you didn't read up on her background and platform?
Not so much but i'm sure you'd be willing to share it.
Even a mod in this thread called a political party's voters idiots. Course it was the same mod that called a woman a misogynist once before she revealed herself as a woman if i recall correctly.
Provide some decent examples of her being fascist and racist. I need to be convinced more.
In some sense yes maybe you guys should learn to respect voters of all parties not just your own. Realize even if the candidate is bad perhaps there are stances they have that resound with a lot of people like getting people back to work. I mean if you hate a candidate fine but insulting all the people that want to vote for a person isn't a good way to convince them the candidate is bad. You're just shaming people rather than giving them good reasons not to vote for their candidate. If a candidate doesn't really solve some issues in any sort of decent way or worse not resolving the issue at all then they can expect their stance to become entirely irrelevant.
The problem is that I personally don't want to respect those that are racist or identify with racist parties. The candidate being a populist with pie in the sky dreams doesn't seem to deter her voters as they don't want to see the truth that her program is economically impossible. Her voters and those of Trump went into full denial instead of trying to reason why they voted for their policies. Which basically boiled down to "I will get your jobs back cuz magic."
The party she has led has proven itself time and again to be full of fascists and racists who only get fired once the uncomfortable truth comes out. You mean to tell me the party doesn't run more thorough background checks on its leaders than the media? Maybe I expected too much from a party founded by collaborators and ex SSers.
The French authorities opened a case against Mrs Le Pen in 2011 after she likened the sight of Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of France.
The French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews at a Paris cycling track who were then sent to Nazi death camps.
The former president Jacques Chirac and the current leader, François Hollande, have both apologised for the role French police played in the corralling of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel d’Hiv cycling track, which was ordered by Nazi officers in 1942. But Le Pen told the LCI television channel on Sunday: “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”
I honestly can't be bothered to go over French media reporting on the horrible things she says, because I can't be bothered wasting more of my time on something so obvious.
Dude let me sum this up for you for a second. I have a roommate downstairs that i entered into a roommate agreement with without getting to know him well in part because of my half sister. He talks casually about hating jews or insulting them. He sometimes wears a nazi uniform around the house or in the yard as well as wearing the german cross around his neck. We all have aspbergers but his seems very severe. He's a moron and an awful person even with the nazi stuff not mentioned. Anything Le pen could say in comparison to him is like comparing dennis the menace to the anti-christ. The dude just some days ago was sharpening knives that i think he fashioned himself. Seriously is much like those skinny white kids that goes crazy and shoots up a public place. Le pen's mildly insensitive comments are nothing as compared to that.
I don't casually throw around words like racist but he is one and has admitted to being one.
Just because Hitler exists doesn't mean that other people can't be racist or fascist. Le Pen is still a horrible person who has said things that are completely unacceptable. Her party is full of closet Nazis, facists and anti semites that she must know about, seeing as those are the same people who founded it. Its completely disingenuous to state that because you can find a really bad person, others can't be bad. Comparing Muslims to Nazis is in no way mild, do you know what the Nazis did? You compare peaceful Muslims praying to genocidal maniacs goosestepping down the Champs-Élysées? Thats what Le Pen did.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I'll admit that statement was an out of touch and idiotic statement. Politicians are full of those types of statements though.
The normal ones aren't though, only the racists like Trump, Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD. To say that this is normal for politicians is disingenuous.
So Macron's winning margin looks to be north of 30%. That's actually a significant polling miss, about 6 points give or take, depending on how you aggregate polls. It's much bigger than the miss in Brexit, and much, much bigger than the US presidential election. It's actually a bigger miss than you see on average in French presidential elections (about 3.5 to 4% since the late 1960s). Despite this, you'll now see a lot of nonsense talking about how French pollsters got everything right.
This mistake comes from two things. The first is that this was not a hard race to call, and the eventual polling miss didn't matter. Whether Macron got bang on 25%, or was 5% less at 20% or 5% more at 30%, all people really see is a landslide like the polls predicted.
The second part is that the polling error went in favour of the winning candidate. For whatever reason, when a candidate wins by even more than was predicted, people tend to ignore the polling miss. All they hear is 'they said X would win and he did'. This was quite a thing in 2012, where polling aggregates missed Obama's win by 3 to 4 points, but everyone hailed the polls as amazingly accurate because they said Obama would be comfortably returned to office and he was.
End of the day, the sensible way to look at polls will be to understand they regularly miss by 1 to 3 points, and sometimes miss by 4-5, and occasionally miss by 6-8 (with the last miss being extremely rare when there's extensive polling). Just sometimes you will get a miss bigger than that, but it's incredibly rare and normally is at least partially due to major issues with polling, some really odd events in the electorate, or some combination of the two. But this is not how people look at or understand polls at all. What they see is 'they got it right/wrong last time, therefore they are good/bad at predicting, so they will be right/wrong this time'. But it really, really doesn't work like that.
Humble Guardsman wrote: Just so I understand this correctly, you are asserting that the lack of a modern, liberal democracy is the cause for the more brutal features of the Islamic faith being featured and that the faith itself is not a contributing factor, or at least no more so than any other religion.
Clearly that is not the case, France and many unfortunate others would not have been experiencing the similar acts of violence from members of their own Muslim population if it was merely a matter of how modern or liberal any particular society is.
You are assuming there is a total disconnect between the populations, that issues in Saudi, Iranian or whatever ME society have no impact on ex-pat communities. This argument makes little to no sense. For instance, ex-pat and Irish heritage groups in the US funded much of the IRA's activities. By your argument we would have to believe that the decision by people in the US to send that money to the IRA is independent of the political troubles in Ireland at the time, which is obviously a very silly thing to believe.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Well that is sad but sometimes the most extreme people of a group vote for the most extreme political party that will get elected. I find it disgusting people like that exist but unless they hurt somebody they are sadly completely in their right to live as they please. As said before you don't have to associate with those people and you are most certainly allowed to hate them. I hate that roommate and i don't wish to be around him much less be associated with him. As i write this he's going around the house with a creepy clown face mask a person should only really wear during halloween.
I'm not entirely sure how far right the french go but i imagine the usa is much farther right in most cases than france which makes me think they might not even register as far right as conservatives by our metrics.
I'm not gonna be sarcastic here. I think you should move. I'm worried by your integrity with that roommate.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I'll admit that statement was an out of touch and idiotic statement. Politicians are full of those types of statements though.
The normal ones aren't though, only the racists like Trump, Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD. To say that this is normal for politicians is disingenuous.
Yeah but i feel every politician has made an out of touch statement at least once. I will admit i stayed out of the election this year because i didn't like the choices.
@Galas: Thank you for your concern and i honestly wish to move. The only thing preventing me is how much money i make and the fact i haven't found a roommate i'd wish to be around yet and just a hard time finding roommates in general. Honestly there's a guy i know at work that'd be a perfect roommate (nice guy and a genuine type of person) however he doesn't wish to live on his own yet.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I'll admit that statement was an out of touch and idiotic statement. Politicians are full of those types of statements though.
The normal ones aren't though, only the racists like Trump, Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD. To say that this is normal for politicians is disingenuous.
Maybe. And maybe plenty of U.S. politicians just generally suck.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I'll admit that statement was an out of touch and idiotic statement. Politicians are full of those types of statements though.
The normal ones aren't though, only the racists like Trump, Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD. To say that this is normal for politicians is disingenuous.
Yeah but i feel every politician has made an out of touch statement at least once. I will admit i stayed out of the election this year because i didn't like the choices.
Sure every politician makes out of touch statements. But this is not out of touch, this is plain over the line, that's the difference. And with her family and party history its hard not to wonder what other opinions she keeps to herself.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I'll admit that statement was an out of touch and idiotic statement. Politicians are full of those types of statements though.
The normal ones aren't though, only the racists like Trump, Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD. To say that this is normal for politicians is disingenuous.
Yeah but i feel every politician has made an out of touch statement at least once. I will admit i stayed out of the election this year because i didn't like the choices.
Sure every politician makes out of touch statements. But this is not out of touch, this is plain over the line, that's the difference. And with her family and party history its hard not to wonder what other opinions she keeps to herself.
Well that's fair. However perhaps some people were willing to look passed some of this and into other of her more positive policies. Many will tell you they supported trump anti-establishment policies, getting jobs and to an extent some of the muslim ones. Personally there are things he wants i wouldn't support. As i said though i didn't vote.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Well that's fair. However perhaps some people were willing to look passed some of this and into other of her more positive policies. Many will tell you they supported trump anti-establishment policies, getting jobs and to an extent some of the muslim ones. Personally there are things he wants i wouldn't support. As i said though i didn't vote.
Problem is though, Le Pen's policies are completely unrealistic and would only appeal to the very desperate, delusional or the 'burn it down' crowd. Her 'solutions' would have made the economic problems even worse as France is in no way able to close itself off to the outside market or the EU without experiencing economic collapse. The view on Muslims is just racist, its the idea populists give that radical Islam is very scary and dangerous and therefore Muslims are too. It might be very scary, but in amount of casualties it makes in the West it certainly ranks very low on the dangerous list, more people drown in their bathtubs each year on average in Europe than die to terrorism (no joke!). Le Pen and her politics only make the Muslim-non Muslim divide wider and that will exacerbate the radical Islam problem, which is of course exactly what she wants to get more votes. The right and radical Islam feed of each other in a weird symbiotic relationship. Le Pen is very much part of the political establishment as they have three generations in politics.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I'll admit that statement was an out of touch and idiotic statement. Politicians are full of those types of statements though.
That's a pretty classic example of trying to deflect a political reality that you don't want to own up to. By your argument no-one ever needs to be accountable for anything, ever, because someone somewhere else also said something bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: Well that's fair. However perhaps some people were willing to look passed some of this and into other of her more positive policies. Many will tell you they supported trump anti-establishment policies, getting jobs and to an extent some of the muslim ones. Personally there are things he wants i wouldn't support. As i said though i didn't vote.
But there's a bigger thing at play here. Outside of the racism most of the stuff promised by Le Pen and Trump was pretty obviously empty promises. Both of them gave a lot of promises that were even more obvious bs than you get on average, but that's really besides the point. The real issue at play here is that a lot of people believed Trump and Le Pen where they didn't believe promises from other politicians. The question is why, and affinity probably is a big part of the answer.
Affinity is just thinking someone else is like you. Affinity fraud is the technique of making someone think you are like them, and so they are more willing to fall for your con. Do this well enough and you can even get people defending you after you've completed the con and made off with the money.
And that's where the racism comes in. By saying racist stuff (or in Le Pen's case, stuff that isn't explicitly, plainly racist but only makes sense or is believable when you have racist beliefs), both Trump and Le Pen showed affinity with a lot of voters who hold similar beliefs. That primed those voters to go along with all the other stuff. This doesn't even have to be a conscious process, in fact it works better when it isn't.
Consider, for instance, how much of a big deal people made about Trump breaking with Republican orthodoxy. On foreign policy he said the US shouldn't involve itself in messes like Syria. On social services he said he wasn't going to touch medicaid. He's since broken both of those claims about as obviously as any politician is ever going to to brake a promise. Despite this just 3% of Trump voters say they regret their vote. Once you con them in to believing you're just like they are, then they'll believe all your bs, even after you've shown it was nothing but bs. Meanwhile, look at the promise Trump is doing everything he can to keep - that stupid wall and the idea that Mexico will pay for it. That idea, the won that starts with overt hostility to Mexicans, and then adds in a promise of humiliating Mexico, that's the core thing on which almost all the rest of the bs hangs.
Le Pen, like Trump, hasn't somehow managed to sell people on some populist promises, and also happens to be racist. The racism is key to making people believe the populist promises.
But there's a bigger thing at play here. Outside of the racism most of the stuff promised by Le Pen and Trump was pretty obviously empty promises. Both of them gave a lot of promises that were even more obvious bs than you get on average, but that's really besides the point. The real issue at play here is that a lot of people believed Trump and Le Pen where they didn't believe promises from other politicians. The question is why, and affinity probably is a big part of the answer..
A simpler explantation would be that the populist promise them SOMETHING, in contrast to the radical centrist that pretty much tell them to feth off. It might be empty and stupid promises the populists give, but they at the least offer a solution to these people problems, which is more then the radical centrist offer them.
But there's a bigger thing at play here. Outside of the racism most of the stuff promised by Le Pen and Trump was pretty obviously empty promises. Both of them gave a lot of promises that were even more obvious bs than you get on average, but that's really besides the point. The real issue at play here is that a lot of people believed Trump and Le Pen where they didn't believe promises from other politicians. The question is why, and affinity probably is a big part of the answer..
A simpler explantation would be that the populist promise them SOMETHING, in contrast to the radical centrist that pretty much tell them to feth off. It might be empty and stupid promises the populists give, but they at the least offer a solution to these people problems, which is more then the radical centrist offer them.
"Radical centrist"? Wha...? How the...? Huh?
I think you're going to have to explain how one can be a radical centrist.
sebster wrote: You are assuming there is a total disconnect between the populations, that issues in Saudi, Iranian or whatever ME society have no impact on ex-pat communities.
I am not sure what you mean. If you mean that immigrants from Iran would be influenced by Iranian society still after leaving Iran, I'll just tell you to have a good look at Iranian immigrants and how they fare in western society, and you'll see a lot of usually secular and usually thriving people, and you would be very hard pressed to see any of them committing a terror attack. If you mean that the Iranian government is trying to influence western muslims to make terror attacks, there isn't much truth to it either, they are content of merely funding terrorist groups with actual political power, inside the middle east, as a way to extend their sphere of influence.
But there's a bigger thing at play here. Outside of the racism most of the stuff promised by Le Pen and Trump was pretty obviously empty promises. Both of them gave a lot of promises that were even more obvious bs than you get on average, but that's really besides the point. The real issue at play here is that a lot of people believed Trump and Le Pen where they didn't believe promises from other politicians. The question is why, and affinity probably is a big part of the answer..
A simpler explantation would be that the populist promise them SOMETHING, in contrast to the radical centrist that pretty much tell them to feth off. It might be empty and stupid promises the populists give, but they at the least offer a solution to these people problems, which is more then the radical centrist offer them.
"Radical centrist"? Wha...? How the...? Huh?
I think you're going to have to explain how one can be a radical centrist.
In practical terms you could call them the neoliberal status-quo parties in the west, who all have the same essential stances regardless if they call themselves left- or rightwing.
Is the French system automated or something? They had announced Macron had won like two hours after the polls closed and he was already in a car on his way to the palace or a bistro or something. Thats fast.
Frazzled wrote: Is the French system automated or something?
No. It's just that even counting just the first ballots, while not completely accurate to show the exact final percentage of vote for each candidate, made it real clear that Macron had won by a huge margin.
It was listed as presumed rather than confirmed. It's ok to call by eye if the piles of ballot papers are notably of different size in most counting areas, and Macron's vote pile was twice that of Le Pen.
Wow, a win by a tremendous margin. I wonder what this means in terms of policy. It certainly seems to shut down some of the more radical argument.
The polling is very interesting, given that the margins were blown, yet it is a non-story whereas Brexit and Trump, well within expectations, were all about how polls "failed".
jmurph wrote: Wow, a win by a tremendous margin. I wonder what this means in terms of policy. It certainly seems to shut down some of the more radical argument.
The polling is very interesting, given that the margins were blown, yet it is a non-story whereas Brexit and Trump, well within expectations, were all about how polls "failed".
The win does not shut down the arguments. Macron cannot ignore the fact that so many people voted for Le Pen, and a large number of people abstained or spoiled their ballot. If he is to bring the country back together, he must find some way of satisfying these peoples' needs and concerns.
By which I mean if he does not want to pull France out of the EU, he must push for some kind of reforms of the EU that allay the worry about lack of accountability, and so on.
There is also the important consideration that the En Marche party is only a year old and doesn't hold a single seat in parliament.
A freak'n mandate dude. Seems to me, that "more of the same" got a huge affirmation.
Yeah, Le Pen got a "lot" of votes, but Macron got double that, despite being in a brand new party.
It's definitely a mandate for change, but seemingly reasonable change, instead of the usual "change everything and whine when it all breaks" of normal populism.
People saying it's a huge victory for Macron should wait for the legislatives. A lot of people voted "against" Le Pen, rather than voting "for" Macron.
You shouldn't forget Macron got "just" a fourth of the votes in the first turn. That's not really a plebiscite.
The real question now is; will he get the majority so that his mandate will work? Because for parlament, it's not just to know who will be the president.
One thing is sure; people will be in the street. Macron isn't a "no left nor right". He's clearly leaning on the right. People from "the Left" don't want him as a president. They won't let him do as he pleases.
Sarouan wrote: People saying it's a huge victory for Macron should wait for the legislatives. A lot of people voted "against" Le Pen, rather than voting "for" Macron.
You shouldn't forget Macron got "just" a fourth of the votes in the first turn. That's not really a plebiscite.
The real question now is; will he get the majority so that his mandate will work? Because for parlament, it's not just to know who will be the president.
One thing is sure; people will be in the street. Macron isn't a "no left nor right". He's clearly leaning on the right. People from "the Left" don't want him as a president. They won't let him do as he pleases.
this is largely my estimation. Macron won an "anti Le Pen" vote, not a "Pro Macron" vote. That's only going to play for so long before Le Pen's immediate relevancy fades, and Macron's core support is nowhere near as wide as it would appear given this latest vote.
Lets hope he can use what he was lucky enough to fall into wisely, otherwise he's in for a rough time.
Macron won an "anti Le Pen" vote, not a "Pro Macron" vote. That's only going to play for so long before Le Pen's immediate relevancy fades, and Macron's core support is nowhere near as wide as it would appear given this latest vote.
A thing to know : for the young people who voted Left, Le Pen isn't really that terrible as a lot of traditonnal media were painting her. Because for them, it was really choosing between two Evils, two Rights - in fact, some see Macron as a "sane Trump", since both are business men and clearly see things from an employers perspective. This time, it worked - some chose to vote "against Le Pen" and voted Macron, others were just voting nul or didn't vote. Next time...I'm not sure the same trick will.
Future War Cultist wrote: Fascist...that word is thrown around so much these days it's losing all meaning. And so many who are quick to use it are also quick to physically attack the people who they don't agree with. How ironic.
Political violence has never been exclusive to fascism. I mean, even anarchism has done so. And anarchism is basically the polar opposite of fascism. Or do you consider anarchism to be the same as fascism ^^?
Anyway I'm pretty glad that some people are unwilling to stay silent and inactive when others preach genocide…
Yes but be sure they preach it rather than a slighter form of xenophobia. I say this as a technically jewish person (jewish mom makes you jewish). I think people are exaggerating the extremism on most of the sides. Also to my knowledge the Jews didn't attack anybody before they were discriminated against. Maybe i just don't know the full history but what sort of jewish terrorist attacks could there have been before WWII?
Far as muslims here i don't think i'd mind them but i'm not sure about ones coming from other countries. As i've said myself i imagine people coming from other countries grew up in that culture. Even if they didn't entirely fit there's probably something they're used to that they won't be here. There may very well be mostly good ones coming but to deny the threat from the terrorists would be a great folly. I mean i don't think we can forget the massive terrorist attacks. At least some form of strictly regulated immigration, background checks and observation into the people coming from lands which produce terrorists would be a good idea.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Ahah my smug sense of superiority toward the USA is once again vindicated! Take that Trumpites .
I almost wonder if that was why Macron won. The french were like well we could elect Le Pen but then we couldn't be smug french citizens so let's vote macron to rub it in the faces of the UK and USA. France snobby and smug as ever ;P. Hon hon hon *snobby french laughter*. That's me teasing btw.
ulgurstasta wrote: A simpler explantation would be that the populist promise them SOMETHING, in contrast to the radical centrist that pretty much tell them to feth off. It might be empty and stupid promises the populists give, but they at the least offer a solution to these people problems, which is more then the radical centrist offer them.
That makes no sense. Hearing one set of promises and being unimpressed doesn't make a person more willing to believe the con artist who comes along afterward. If you see a street vendor selling a chocolates, but then see the price is twice what you'd want to pay, you don't then get all excited when you see a van labelled 'free candy' and just jump right in.
No, there has to be a reason for people to suspend disbelief when someone makes wild, implausible promises. Maybe it isn't that they've already bought in to that candidate because of her racism, maybe it's something else. But it sure as gak isn't because they don't like some other candidate's promises.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am not sure what you mean. If you mean that immigrants from Iran would be influenced by Iranian society still after leaving Iran, I'll just tell you to have a good look at Iranian immigrants and how they fare in western society, and you'll see a lot of usually secular and usually thriving people, and you would be very hard pressed to see any of them committing a terror attack. If you mean that the Iranian government is trying to influence western muslims to make terror attacks, there isn't much truth to it either, they are content of merely funding terrorist groups with actual political power, inside the middle east, as a way to extend their sphere of influence.
No, I don't mean the Iranian government influencing people to make terror attacks. That's a pretty strange interpretation of my post, to be honest.
Yes, I did mean immigrants continuing to be influenced by conditions back home. Thing is, your claim that such people are unlikely to commit a terror attack isn't correct. And not necessarily immigrants themselves, but often their kids. Quite a lot of the foreign fighters heading off to join ISIS are kids from middle class families. Some aren't second or third gen immigrants, aren't even Muslim, but a large majority are.
What I'm saying, basically, is that while the violence in Islam is pretty clearly caused by political and social issues in particular Muslim nations, it isn't as simple as just taking some people out of those countries and watching them, and their children and all subsequent generations just naturally, automatically naturalise.
A freak'n mandate dude. Seems to me, that "more of the same" got a huge affirmation.
Yeah, Le Pen got a "lot" of votes, but Macron got double that, despite being in a brand new party.
Yep. It says something about the panic among the mainstream that their guy can win by 35 points and people are still freaking out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: People saying it's a huge victory for Macron should wait for the legislatives.
It was a huge victory. 35 points is massive in any election. Sure, Macron beat an historically weak candidate, but the margin still remains as it was.
A lot of people voted "against" Le Pen, rather than voting "for" Macron.
You shouldn't forget Macron got "just" a fourth of the votes in the first turn. That's not really a plebiscite.
Mandates are a nonsense. The winner always claims one, the loser always denies it. But I do agree with your overall point that Macron can hardly claim his vision is the clear will of the people. He's going to have to start working the political scene to build a coalition very quickly, and it will be harder than usual because his own party is tiny.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also to my knowledge the Jews didn't attack anybody before they were discriminated against. Maybe i just don't know the full history but what sort of jewish terrorist attacks could there have been before WWII?
I failed to understand how you went there .
And no, the Jews didn't do anything.
flamingkillamajig wrote: At least some form of strictly regulated immigration, background checks and observation into the people coming from lands which produce terrorists would be a good idea.
Background checks have always been here and make sense.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I almost wonder if that was why Macron won. The french were like well we could elect Le Pen but then we couldn't be smug french citizens so let's vote macron to rub it in the faces of the UK and USA. France snobby and smug as ever ;P. Hon hon hon *snobby french laughter*. That's me teasing btw.
Us French people, acknowledging that what other strange people from barbarous land think matters? Let alone change our behavior because of it? Oh come on, that's science-fiction .
sebster wrote: Thing is, your claim that such people are unlikely to commit a terror attack isn't correct. And not necessarily immigrants themselves, but often their kids.
Iranians immigrants are unlikely to commit a terror attack. Arguably Saudi, Pakistani, Afghani are, but for a combination of cultural and political reasons Iranians are not.
sebster wrote: What I'm saying, basically, is that while the violence in Islam is pretty clearly caused by political and social issues in particular Muslim nations, it isn't as simple as just taking some people out of those countries and watching them, and their children and all subsequent generations just naturally, automatically naturalise.
While I generally agree with your point I think Iran was a pretty poor choice of an example to illustrate it.
It was a huge victory. 35 points is massive in any election. Sure, Macron beat an historically weak candidate, but the margin still remains as it was.
It's not massive when you know how France's presidential election works. Second turn is basically a duel between the two first, but what you should take into accounts are actually the voting polls in the first turn.
We know Macron got about 25% of the votes, while knowing there were people who got into the "scare train" with the spooky possibility of having Fillon vs Le Pen, a lot of people decided to "not waste their vote", by voting for the candidate who seemed to have the best chances not to lose in front of Le Pen while not having a Full Right result. Fillon's program wasn't that far from Le Pen's, actually.
25% in the first turn, in these conditions, it's not that huge. Second turn was basically giving a false choice to the voters - and the media played their part by making sure to see the worst of the two was Le Pen. There was absolutely nothing about the debate of the actual programs of both candidates - it was more personnal attacks and spreading rumors about the other candidate. Second turn was actually a struggle to motivate voters to go and vote "against Le Pen", but like I said a lot of Left people really don't like what Macron said he would do. Eventually, a part of them voted for him - you should also note the high numbers of nul vote and abstention. Actual supporters of Macron weren't 65%. It's was no more no less than being sure Front National won't be on presidence this year.
Does it sound familiar? Yes, yes it does.
35 points in any election isn't massive. You have to see the context and where the numbers were taken from. When you see at the "Big Picture" about what actually happened to have this result, you understand it's not that big a victory. It's more about the Elite reassuring themselves about blocking the path to the Front National, this time again. But it's really gaining time, and nothing else. If Macron shows he's as empty as he sounded during the election, then you can be sure everything will start again - with people learning and not being tricked with the same song.
Front National is gaining some ground bit by bit. This time, it was still too soon. Meanwhile, the "Insoumis" are still doing their quiet work underground. A lot of liberal-right leaning elites may have a harsh surprise in a not so far future.
Nice deflection, she has also said some horribly racist things about migrants. The correct term, Islamophobia, doesn't begin to describe the vileness of her statements which is why I use the much more powerful term of racist. Do you have anything to say about her comparing French Muslims praying to genocidal Nazi occupation or did you just want to pick words?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also to my knowledge the Jews didn't attack anybody before they were discriminated against. Maybe i just don't know the full history but what sort of jewish terrorist attacks could there have been before WWII?
I failed to understand how you went there .
And no, the Jews didn't do anything.
It was more the comparison of islamaphobia vs anti-semitism. Muslim people sometimes do terrorist attacks while the jewish people before ww2 did not. It's a bit more justified to at least be cautious around muslims whereas with the jews before ww2 it was not. Of course judaism is very old and we've had a long history of getting our asses kicked around by everybody so we don't really blame anybody anymore or at least nobody in specific. To be fair there are legit reasons not to like some of the teachings as they fully support loaning money (which causes debt slaves) and well the old testament god is a jerk to put it bluntly. Also jews persecuted jesus so yeah that was a thing. We're not a blameless group. We've been through a lot but that's what happens when the religion's been around so long.
All that said this is coming from somebody that's only jewish by blood so it's more a technicality thing.
Sarouan wrote: It's not massive when you know how France's presidential election works.
It is a big win if you look at the actual history of French elections.
1974 2 point win
1981 4 point win
1988 8 point win
1995 5 point win
2002 64 point win
2007 6 point win
2012 3 point win
2017 33 point win
What you see is a range of 2 to 8 points across six elections, average winning margin of 4 to 5 points. Macron's margin of victory was 8 times bigger than the average, and 4 times bigger than any election other than the one where her Dad got smashed by even more.
Second turn is basically a duel between the two first, but what you should take into accounts are actually the voting polls in the first turn.
You probably should have read my answer before you started your reply. I note the challenges Macron has, and yes, the base of supporters he has for his agenda is small (for that you shouldn't look at the first round of polling but at his party's current presence in parliament, where it is tiny). But all of that doesn't change the basic math of the election result - it was 33 points and that is a very big number by the history of French presidential races.
Oh look, this old line. Yes, you are right that Islam isn't a race, and so it can't be technically racist. People often use racist when what they actually mean is bigoted. If your point is that the wrong term was used by the previous poster, then you are correct. I trust then we can all agree that Le Pen's views on Islam could be more accurately described as bigoted, small minded, xenophobic or some similar term like that.
In any event, best of luck to France with their new President. And don't forget, Sunday is Mother's Day.
Oh look, this old line. Yes, you are right that Islam isn't a race, and so it can't be technically racist. People often use racist when what they actually mean is bigoted. If your point is that the wrong term was used by the previous poster, then you are correct. I trust then we can all agree that Le Pen's views on Islam could be more accurately described as bigoted, small minded, xenophobic or some similar term like that.
I thought we weren't talking about that anymore. I'm always up for a PM if you want to continue this talk, you seem civil enough about it.
bigoted
ˈbɪɡətɪd/
adjective
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.
By that definition, someone that unironically says "Better Dead than Red" is bigoted against communists. That doesn't do anything to address the very real failings of communism or the well-founded fear of communist agendas being pushed on several fronts across the world.
Humble Guardsman wrote: That doesn't do anything to address the very real failings of communism or the well-founded fear of communist agendas being pushed on several fronts across the world.
Neither does anything you've been saying on that particular topic. Just because there exist well founded concerns doesn't mean you can't be bigoted in how you confront them. I mean Jesus. Is the threat to French wall papers such a real concern? It's kind of childish really. I've always thought people from Muslim countries had excellent taste in visual design;
I mean sure it can be a little baroque but come on. Look at the intricacy! Just wait till you see their cabinets. A little foreign design work can only make things more fabulous.
Humble Guardsman wrote: That doesn't do anything to address the very real failings of communism or the well-founded fear of communist agendas being pushed on several fronts across the world.
Neither does anything you've been saying on that particular topic. Just because there exist well founded concerns doesn't mean you can't be bigoted in how you confront them. I mean Jesus. Is the threat to French wall papers such a real concern? It's kind of childish really. I've always thought people from Muslim countries had excellent taste in visual design;
I mean sure it can be a little baroque but come on. Look at the intricacy! Just wait till you see their cabinets. A little foreign design work can only make things more fabulous.
I lived in the Emirates for 6 years, mate.
My argument would never be with the culture or art of the arab people. But, as the mods have already said, this isn't the place to discuss the things I do have issue with.
Sarouan wrote: There was absolutely nothing about the debate of the actual programs of both candidates - it was more personnal attacks and spreading rumors about the other candidate.
Frankly based on the debate that was much much more Le Pen's doing that Macron's. He focused on his program and his main attack against Le Pen was that she had no actual program and focused on attacking him to hide it. Meanwhile, she attacked him on being a banker, and… basically every thing that has been done by any politician from the last 10 governments or something .
Doesn't have to be a race for people to be racist. Jews aren't a race either. Still the nazi considered them one.
Now of course Marine Le Pen don't literally consider Muslims a race. But frankly, the opposition against Islam from many far-right people is way closer to hatred toward a race than opposition to a religion…
Oh this comparison is usually total bs. Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous when I make something a bit similar just above but really, the situation of Jews in the 30's and before is incredibly different from the situation of Muslims now. I don't know why you thought of that comparison though. I was more referring to stuff like this actually. The guy doing the punching is not the bad one among those two.
ulgurstasta wrote: A simpler explantation would be that the populist promise them SOMETHING, in contrast to the radical centrist that pretty much tell them to feth off. It might be empty and stupid promises the populists give, but they at the least offer a solution to these people problems, which is more then the radical centrist offer them.
That makes no sense. Hearing one set of promises and being unimpressed doesn't make a person more willing to believe the con artist who comes along afterward. If you see a street vendor selling a chocolates, but then see the price is twice what you'd want to pay, you don't then get all excited when you see a van labelled 'free candy' and just jump right in.
It´s pretty simple logic, you have one side that openly dont give a crap about you and you have one side that speaks to you about your concerns, or rather claims to do it . Guess which side those people are going start listening more and more to when their situation keeps getting worse?
No, there has to be a reason for people to suspend disbelief when someone makes wild, implausible promises. Maybe it isn't that they've already bought in to that candidate because of her racism, maybe it's something else. But it sure as gak isn't because they don't like some other candidate's promises.
And where does the racism comes from? If you blame this on racism you have to explain where it comes from, otherwise you have only sidestepped the issue rather then explained it.
It is a big win if you look at the actual history of French elections.
1974 2 point win
1981 4 point win
1988 8 point win
1995 5 point win
2002 64 point win
2007 6 point win
2012 3 point win
2017 33 point win
What you see is a range of 2 to 8 points across six elections, average winning margin of 4 to 5 points. Macron's margin of victory was 8 times bigger than the average, and 4 times bigger than any election other than the one where her Dad got smashed by even more.
And you don't take into account the abstention and nul votes, without them these numbers mean nothing. Abstention was 25 %, nul votes was 8% - which mean the difference between the two scores has to be relative.
By using numbers without context, you're doing the exact same thing than dictators using their "100% votes" for justifying their own place. It is not relevant.
For the Elites wanting to reassure themselves, yes, it is a victory. They were much too afraid of having Le Pen as President. So they take comfort in these numbers, and quickly put the rest aside.
But nothing is solved. The same causes leading to this situation are still there. That's why I'm saying you should wait for the legislatives to really see how much support Macron will really get, and if the presidence will not become a really poisonous apple.
Frankly based on the debate that was much much more Le Pen's doing that Macron's. He focused on his program and his main attack against Le Pen was that she had no actual program and focused on attacking him to hide it. Meanwhile, she attacked him on being a banker, and… basically every thing that has been done by any politician from the last 10 governments or something .
Did you listen to what Macron was saying about his intentions? The guy didn't hesitate to say the opposite of what he was saying before, just to gain more votes from the side he was talking to. Listen to the interview on Mediapart and then read what he said to the Figaro. Journalists didn't really underline this point, because they were quite focused on beating Le Pen, and Macron wasn't that attacked in the first turn on his own contradictions. A lot of people were confused by what Macron says.
Macron was lucky he wasn't attacked on his program. Because there were a lot of confusing points, or even contradictions that are completely ridiculous. But I think these "vague areas" will quickly show themselves when the presidence will really start...
And you don't take into account the abstention and nul votes, without them these numbers mean nothing. Abstention was 25 %, nul votes was 8% - which mean the difference between the two scores has to be relative.
In 2012 Abstention was 19.65% and null votes 5.8%. In 2002 when the margin was more than half the voters those numbers were much the same. 20% and 5% (rounded down) pretty much.
Forgive us if a respective 5+ and ~2+ rise in those stats is taken as an insufficient explanation for a 30 point swing in a given year.
And I think you're right overall that the underlying groundwork that got Le Penn that far to begin with is still there, and that this could easily go all over again, but come on.
And I think you're right overall that the underlying groundwork that got Le Penn that far to begin with is still there, and that this could easily go all over again, but come on.
I would go even farther and say that the politics of Macron and his predecessors creates the groundwork for the likes of Le Pen. So after five years of Macron odds are we gonna get someone even worse then Le Pen, I reckon.
And I think you're right overall that the underlying groundwork that got Le Penn that far to begin with is still there, and that this could easily go all over again, but come on.
I would go even farther and say that the politics of Macron and his predecessors creates the groundwork for the likes of Le Pen. So after five years of Macron odds are we gonna get someone even worse then Le Pen, I reckon.
That's what been said before. Did Le Pen jr make much better than last time?
Aren't we? Was there a mod thing or did people agree to stop talking about it? I didn't see anything. All I saw was nuggz repeat that tired old line and so I responded.
bigoted
ˈbɪɡətɪd/
adjective
obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.
By that definition, someone that unironically says "Better Dead than Red" is bigoted against communists. That doesn't do anything to address the very real failings of communism or the well-founded fear of communist agendas being pushed on several fronts across the world.
If a person's opinion is based on very real failings or well founded fear, then it isn't an opinion they are obstinately or unreasonably attached to', by the definition you provided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ulgurstasta wrote: It´s pretty simple logic, you have one side that openly dont give a crap about you and you have one side that speaks to you about your concerns, or rather claims to do it . Guess which side those people are going start listening more and more to when their situation keeps getting worse?
It's not logic at all. Once again, you have a person who offers you candy that's way more than you want to pay, and you have a van with "free candy" spraypainted on the side, and a guy gesturing you to get in. It doesn't matter how much you're sick of the first guy charging too much for candy, you don't get in that van. You either buy no candy, or you grumpily buy the expensive stuff, but you never get in the van because humans are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.
So it becomes a question of why some people decided the 'free candy' van was believable enough. Affinity through racism isn't necessarily all of the answer, but we can't deny it likely played a significant role.
And where does the racism comes from? If you blame this on racism you have to explain where it comes from, otherwise you have only sidestepped the issue rather then explained it.
Where does racism come from? That's a fairly big question, but to give a very quick answer... humans have natural tribal instincts, they trust people 'like them' more than groups with differentiating features. From this, people have a tendency to blame outside groups for their own issues. There are also economic tensions tied in to this, both people finding reasons why they don't have as much as they feel entitled to, and also people trying to explain why they might have a lot more than some other people.
Aren't we? Was there a mod thing or did people agree to stop talking about it? I didn't see anything. All I saw was nuggz repeat that tired old line and so I responded.
The last UK politics thread got locked over the issue, I think.
Sarouan wrote: And you don't take into account the abstention and nul votes, without them these numbers mean nothing. Abstention was 25 %, nul votes was 8% - which mean the difference between the two scores has to be relative.
No, it means one candidate beat the other candidate by a lot. That's just fething there in the vote count. When one pile of votes is a lot bigger than the other pile of votes, it really is okay to say 'that pile of votes is a lot bigger than that other pile of votes'.
What you are trying to argue is what authority this gives Macron to govern. You have a point that it isn't actually all that much, because his win was in large part due to the weakness of his opponent and a bunch of other factors... but you'll notice I've never tried to argue against you on any of those points - I think Macron has no electoral authority and will have to do a lot of work building a coalition to get any work done. But you just aren't actually reading what I'm saying, it's more than a bit frustrating.
By using numbers without context, you're doing the exact same thing than dictators using their "100% votes" for justifying their own place. It is not relevant.
Well that came out of nowhere. Wow.
For the Elites wanting to reassure themselves, yes, it is a victory. They were much too afraid of having Le Pen as President. So they take comfort in these numbers, and quickly put the rest aside.
Except what you've said is nothing like what we've actually seen. Actually what we've seen is a candidate win by more than 30 points, and still most of the nattering liberal class flagellates themselves, asking how Le Pen got as many votes as she did, while still others claim that next time around she'll totally close that 30 point gap unless socialism.
That's why I'm saying you should wait for the legislatives to really see how much support Macron will really get
Go back and read my posts please. Go read my points about Macron's tiny presence in the current legislative. Go on, I'll wait. Then come back and we can have a conversation in which you've actually fething read my argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ulgurstasta wrote: I would go even farther and say that the politics of Macron and his predecessors creates the groundwork for the likes of Le Pen. So after five years of Macron odds are we gonna get someone even worse then Le Pen, I reckon.
I think your analysis is quite crude, it basically lumps every liberal poltician together. It is possible to believe that open markets are a key driver of prosperity, without holding to some kind of laissez faire position regardless of stability or social impact. Macron has shown, particularly with his attempts to get Greece a fair deal, that he understands the social impact and how that impacts on politics.
Not saying he's the saviour, or that any one person could be. Truth is much of France's fate in the next five years is outside the control of their own country, never mind the powers of the president. But this idea that he's just the same as the worst of the neo-liberals is really simplistic politics.
ulgurstasta wrote: It´s pretty simple logic, you have one side that openly dont give a crap about you and you have one side that speaks to you about your concerns, or rather claims to do it . Guess which side those people are going start listening more and more to when their situation keeps getting worse?
It's not logic at all. Once again, you have a person who offers you candy that's way more than you want to pay, and you have a van with "free candy" spraypainted on the side, and a guy gesturing you to get in. It doesn't matter how much you're sick of the first guy charging too much for candy, you don't get in that van. You either buy no candy, or you grumpily buy the expensive stuff, but you never get in the van because humans are stupid, but they aren't that stupid.
If we are keeping the candy metaphor, I would rather say you have one side that sells you candy that you cant afford and another side with the aforementioned van. You cant afford candy from the first side and you aren´t thrilled about the other sides creepy van, but as the hunger starts growing that van looks more and more acceptable...
I think your analysis is quite crude, it basically lumps every liberal poltician together. It is possible to believe that open markets are a key driver of prosperity, without holding to some kind of laissez faire position regardless of stability or social impact. Macron has shown, particularly with his attempts to get Greece a fair deal, that he understands the social impact and how that impacts on politics.
Not saying he's the saviour, or that any one person could be. Truth is much of France's fate in the next five years is outside the control of their own country, never mind the powers of the president. But this idea that he's just the same as the worst of the neo-liberals is really simplistic politics.
The status-quo (which many liberals are a part of) is clearly ideology neoliberal in nature. Now I cant say that I'm an expert on French politics, but from what I have seen of Macron he seem to fit that status-quo mould. An ex-banker that was part of the former government that implemented the austerity measures and instituted the now 2 year long state of emergency. I could be wrong be about him, but thats how it looks to me.
And of course you are right that in a global world much of a countries future is outside of it´s control, but in the context of the presidential election I think Macron will continue the processes that give leverage for types like Le Pen.
Those are immoral traits. 
.
the duck on that one? 
