European refugee crisis thread

[The Romulan Republic]

We know exactly what you're implying (that all or most of the refugees will be terrorists). Fuck off.

[Purple]

We know exactly what you're implying (that all or most of the refugees will be terrorists). Fuck off.

If you want to be honest about it he does not need to imply anything. You have a large population fleeing miserable living conditions and no prospects for a future who might well end up coming to Europe only to find that their dreams are NOT and I repeat NOT going to come true and that they've went from one quagmire to another. And if that happens and they happen to be human beings they'll turn to the same things other human beings, our own citizens included turn to when they feel betrayed. Good old radicalism.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some may become radicals, or already be radicals, but the notion that anyone in those circumstances will become a radical or terrorist is insulting to those who do not, and when applied to these refugees as an argument against allowing them in, feeds into the stereotype of Middle Easterners as terrorists and of immigrants as a threat to "our" society.

Edit: Its callous, bigoted, and frankly cowardly.

[Purple]

Some may become radicals, or already be radicals, but the notion that anyone in those circumstances will become a radical or terrorist is insulting to those who do not

Human nature is what it is. And people tend to lash out or rally behind radicalism when their hopes and dreams go down the drain. We need only look a few generations back to see how well that worked out for us. Dismissing such things out of hand for the sake of not "insulting" is something we do at our own peril.

This being said I don't really see why you are so fanatically latching on to terrorism. Nobody is saying they are going to spawn ISIS 2.0 in Sweden. That's all you reading things into our posts. And frankly it's a reading that does your intellect a disservice. What we are saying is that if the receiving countries can't handle them (and it seems Sweden can't) they might end up with a permanent refugee crisis. People living in camps, hotels, converted sports halls w/e with no job and no prospect of a life that isn't worse than the one they fled from. Stuff like that.
And stuff like that has the potential of having long term detrimental effects not only for the society in question but the people we are talking about which I hopefully do not need to explain.

and when applied to these refugees as an argument against allowing them in, feeds into the stereotype of Middle Easterners as terrorists and of immigrants as a threat to "our" society.

And that's where we disagree. Personally I think that if ever there was a good argument for not letting them in its that we* can't provide for them once we do. What's the point of allowing them in if they'll only be trading one hell for another? And these people ain't stupid either. That's why they keep insisting on getting to Germany and Sweden in the first place as opposed to staying in the Balkans or where ever on the way. They see these countries as the place that is most likely to be capable of handling them.

* we being the country making the argument.

[Edi]

They won't find their dreams coming true, not in the numbers they are coming in. There is a threshold that a given nation can absorb and integrate in a successful manner, but once you start getting past that, especially significantly past that, then there will be issues. Doesn't mean that they will all become radicals. Some will, some won't.

One of the big problems is that the Middle East is for the most part a collection of tribal/clan societies, with the mentalities involved in those embedded. When places like that go to shit and it erupts in war, there is not going to be any resolution to the issue until those wars are fought to the end.

In this respect, the men who are running from it all and leaving the women and children behind in the refugee camps or in the middle of the war zones to become victims to those who do stay and fight for their own causes are shirking their own duties.

If we had had the same mentality way back in 1939 and all of the able-bodied young men in Finland had fucked off to Sweden, Norway or elsewhere, most of our current generation would never have been born and the few survivors of the Soviet plans for us would have been scattered all over Siberia and we'd all be speaking Russian. There wouldn't even be a Finland. In this respect, the situations in places like Syria are no different.

Mark my words, you will see this argument being made a lot more before this is all settled.

In the Balkans, millions of people were forcibly relocated in the early 20th century precisely to reduce the probability of tensions and conflicts, essentially making for population swaps between different areas. I expect that the Middle East will stay a hotbed of conflict as long as there is no decisive winner and as long as they keep holding on to the tribe/clan mentality and while all the different ethnicities, tribal groups, religious groups and such are merrily mixed together.

There are a lot of things the western nations are willfully ignoring about the history and political situation in the Middle East and other things about Europe's own history that are also being ignored. Some of those things are unpleasant, but more or less, there are practically no good options AT ALL left in the ME. It's all a game of "choose of the lesser evil", no matter what scenarios you are presented with.

[Simon_Jester]

Here is my alarmist question: What do thousands and thousands of primarily young unemployed men (15-40) placed in miserable living conditions with poor future prospects and roots in the words most religious and conservative societies usually do?

Commit petty crimes, mostly against one another, while race-baiting jackasses like you pretend that they're more of a threat to the native-born majority than they are to themselves?

I know this because that is exactly what American politics looks like on racial issues.

Cosmicalstorm is a good example of what happens when the SCARY NEGROES commentator is translated over into Europe to become a SCARY MUSSULMAN commentator.

[Broomstick]

I'm wondering, what with the increasing use of makeshift accommodations for these tens of thousands of people, how well these ME folks are going to cope with northern European winters.

[cosmicalstorm]

It's not racism.
You could do this tuna can-packing thing with only 100 % blue eyed blonde guys and they would also erupt under those conditions.
No girls. No work. No future. All lies. Someone throws food from a chopper at your miserable mud-camp. They are not going to sing songs.
It's the oldest story in the world.
Why do good generals never let soldiers make camp and become restless?

I'm wondering, what with the increasing use of makeshift accommodations for these tens of thousands of people, how well these ME folks are going to cope with northern European winters.

I think people are going to freeze to death in tarptents. And those who don't look forward to that may decide to take actions into their own hands.

Or the government will have to forcibly confiscate property on a large scale, for instance there are a few hundred thousand vacation homes to make use of, but that is not going to be very popular because those homes have owners who love them, and the next winter that option is gone too by the laws of algebra.

[ray245]

It's not racism.
You could do this tuna can-packing thing with only 100 % blue eyed blonde guys and they would also erupt under those conditions.
No girls. No work. No future. All lies. Someone throws food from a chopper at your miserable mud-camp. They are not going to sing songs.
It's the oldest story in the world.
Why do good generals never let soldiers make camp and become restless?

I'm wondering, what with the increasing use of makeshift accommodations for these tens of thousands of people, how well these ME folks are going to cope with northern European winters.

I think people are going to freeze to death in tarptents. And those who don't look forward to that may decide to take actions into their own hands.

Or the government will have to forcibly confiscate property on a large scale, for instance there are a few hundred thousand vacation homes to make use of, but that is not going to be very popular because those homes have owners who love them, and the next winter that option is gone too by the laws of algebra.

It's not strictly racism in the classical sense, but it's still xenophobia. I really wish more people can just use the word xenophobic as opposed to racist.

[The Romulan Republic]

Racist is better known and has more stigma attached to it than xenophobic, so of course people will use the word racist as an accusation rather than xenophobic, regardless of which is technically more accurate.

[ray245]

Racist is better known and has more stigma attached to it than xenophobic, so of course people will use the word racist as an accusation rather than xenophobic, regardless of which is technically more accurate.

The problem is this has make it easy for people to avoid being the "bad guy" simply by stating he or she isn't a racist in the classical sense. It does not help when the accuser and the accused have two different interpretation of the same word that makes any discussion about migration meaningless. At the least in this thread we can avoid using a term that is not useful any longer. It allows people to have a free pass for being xenophobic because no one is telling them why being xenophobic is not helpful for any society.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm pretty much in agreement.

[ray245]

That's just some of my thoughts. I just think that modern society has become increasingly xenophobic because we kept using the words "racism" and "racist" wrongly. There are very few people that are racist in the sense as a 18th-early 20th century person in most modern societies. Or at the very least western societies anyway.

[Purple]

How this forum has fallen. Reading thread it has become very apparent to me that certain individuals care more about shaming the other side and making him feel like "the bad guy" than accomplishing anything meaningful. I have seen such behavior before but newer was it more apparent than in the last two pages. Seriously people, I thought this place had standards.

[The Romulan Republic]

Believe me, when one side is stoking fear or hatred about refugees, I damn well do want to shame them, if I can't persuade them that their position is mistaken. They should be ashamed. A refugee is no different from you or me, fundamentally, except in the sense that we're luckier than them.

And no matter what strain these refugees put on Europe, I doubt Europe will be as bas as the horror these people are fleeing, unless the cowardice and prejudice of Europeans makes it so.

That said, I am not entirely without sympathy for Europeans who are concerned by this. Its no excuse for callousness or bigotry, but they are having to deal with a rather horrendous situation, and it is absolutely shameful that the so-called allies in the US and Canadian government are sitting safely on their asses instead of helping.

I honestly believe that their is nothing happening in Europe regarding refugees that the US couldn't solve, or at least greatly improve, almost at once if it really wanted to. The US is a huge, rich country which can damn well take more people than, say, Germany (except that certain politicians would probably obstruct any attempt to do so). And I can't help thinking that the US Navy could provide a great deal of assistance to search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean.

[Purple]

And there is your problem. You just don't get it. He ain't your audience. I am. You and him are not in this to convince each other but to get onlookers on the sidelines to join your side. And as it stands I am more likely to join him because he presents a reasonable argument whilst all you have is personal attacks and shouting "na na na na! you are racist therefore you are wrong!". That's also the main reason why SJW's get a bad reputation. You are so obsessed with beating the other side that you end up looking like insufferable jerks thus discrediting your cause.

[Metahive]

Heh, just a month ago Cosmical Ali posted links to "news" that falsely claimed refugees from the Middle East were increasing crime rates across Germany by deliberately mistranslating a german magazine article (which was about one specific city and about one part of it that was neglected by the city's administration and also not about middle eastern refugees). He also posted deliberately misinterpreted statistics about growth rates in Africa and acted like that was some sort of huge demographic threat to Europe that everyone needed to be fearful about. His agenda is more than clear, he's a hateful xenophobic racist who wants to make the world a shittier place by inflaming hate and mistrust between people by posting lies and misinformation.

That he isn't getting away with it like on some other boards shows that the standards have fallen...upwards.

[The Romulan Republic]

And there is your problem. You just don't get it. He ain't your audience. I am. You and him are not in this to convince each other but to get onlookers on the sidelines to join your side.

I'd like to convince as many people as possible to join my side.

And as it stands I am more likely to join him because he presents a reasonable argument whilst all you have is personal attacks and shouting "na na na na! you are racist therefore you are wrong!".

If that is all you think I've said on this topic, you haven't been paying attention.

And if you think anti-immigrant arguments are reasonable and are inclined to support them, then I doubt you're really on the sidelines.

That's also the main reason why SJW's get a bad reputation. You are so obsessed with beating the other side that you end up looking like insufferable jerks thus discrediting your cause.

I don't claim the label of Social Justice Warrior, but I fail to see why such a term should be insulting, except that some people have decided to portray it negatively. I should damn well hope that everyone makes a point of fighting for Justice.

And if the other side is the side of xenophobia, I do want to defeat them. That doesn't mean that I think the other side doesn't have a right to their opinion or that I think they are unworthy of basic respect as people, but it does mean that I think they're wrong, I think their agenda needs to be stopped for the good of innocent people, and I'm going to say so unapologetically.

[cosmicalstorm]

I do think it will increase crime rates, the logic is pretty bullet-proof: Lots of young men with no prospects who feel wronged.
Of course, media and politicians and the general left assures us that it wont affect crime-rates.
Just like they have spent twenty years telling us immigration would always be a big economic boon for the country, a must have in the face of demographics.
Not fine with that? Then you are a nazi.

Suddenly they turn around and say it will cause the most profound economic upheaval for the entire country and they say that they literally have no plan for how to deal with it.

Swedens government have no plan
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mats- ... vecklingen


What other things did they lie about?

[Purple]

Heh, just a month ago Cosmical Ali posted links to "news" that falsely claimed refugees from the Middle East were increasing crime rates across Germany by deliberately mistranslating a german magazine article (which was about one specific city and about one part of it that was neglected by the city's administration and also not about middle eastern refugees). He also posted deliberately misinterpreted statistics about growth rates in Africa and acted like that was some sort of huge demographic threat to Europe that everyone needed to be fearful about. His agenda is more than clear, he's a hateful xenophobic racist who wants to make the world a shittier place by inflaming hate and mistrust between people by posting lies and misinformation.

That he isn't getting away with it like on some other boards shows that the standards have fallen...upwards.

So rising standards = legalizing vendettas and transferring beef from other discussions to this one? I ain't seeing it. Like, I ain't a mod and I have not been here for that long. But when I came here it used to be you were supposed to debate the argument and not the person.

Of course, I could be wrong so feel free to correct me. And I might be using this argument we are having now to push a broader point about how your behavior is a general demonstration of just why the term SJW has become a pejorative.

I'd like to convince as many people as possible to join my side.

Than maybe you should consider what I say. I won't say I am right. But you should consider it.

If that is all you think I've said on this topic, you haven't been paying attention.

The page has essentially been a case of several people quoting a vague line of text and reading racism, xenophobia and all sorts of things into it. It's essentially been a case of "this text does not contain an argument, so I'll make one up and debate against it rudely." And the rest has mostly been again you people reading into what he says and jumping to attack him and dismiss his statements outright or making up emotion or morality based arguments to do so.

I ain't saying he is right and you are wrong. I am saying that right now we have one argument and one side shouting names.

-
PS. I ain't saying that everyone has been behaving this way. There have been honest individuals leading a honest discussion here as well. But you know who I am referring to.

And if you think anti-immigrant arguments are reasonable and are inclined to support them, then I doubt you're really on the sidelines.

You can see my argument up near the top of page 25. Basically I feel that a reasonable argument can be made that we should only accept that number of migrants which we can actually support so as to ensure that we don't end up making life miserable for the people we are trying to help. And that in light of this we should carefully review any and every anti immigration argument so as to ensure that we can actually have an accurate count of how many we can help and figure out what to do with the rest.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

I don't claim the label of Social Justice Warrior, but I fail to see why such a term should be insulting, except that some people have decided to portray it negatively. I should damn well hope that everyone makes a point of fighting for Justice.

A SJW is not a person who fights for justice. That's called a human rights activist.
A social justice warrior, emphasis on that word is a person who instead of doing something about a cause takes it up because of an unhealthy emotional investment. The end result of this is that instead of serving to advance the cause through intellectual discourse they drag the cause down by being loud obnoxious windbags. These individuals see the other side not as people with ideas, some of which are genuinely worth considering but as "the enemy" to be "defeated". Sound familiar? They will thus pull no punches and use all sorts of personal attacks, underhanded debating tactics, shaming etc. in order to "win" the argument. And in doing so they discredit the cause they are fighting for and them self.

I think the best way to look at it would be to consider the terminology and the difference between the words "soldier" and "warrior". A soldier is someone who fights for a cause. A warrior is someone who fights for the thrill of fighting. And whilst that might not be how you feel, it is how you end up looking.

And if the other side is the side of xenophobia, I do want to defeat them. That doesn't mean that I think the other side doesn't have a right to their opinion or that I think they are unworthy of basic respect as people, but it does mean that I think they're wrong, I think their agenda needs to be stopped for the good of innocent people, and I'm going to say so unapologetically.

Well you ain't going to stop anyone by making your self look like a person I'd rather not side with.

[The Romulan Republic]

cosmicalstorm, you're generalizing about an awful lot of people their with stuff like "...the general left...".

And while I can't speak for anyone else, I won't call anyone a Nazi for the reasons you say, or for being anti-immigration or anti-refugee. Wrong, callous, prejudiced, and potentially a coward, yes, but not a Nazi.

Regarding my argument, Purple, the essence of it is very simple: If their are people who need help, and we have the ability to help, we are morally obligated to help. Because all people are of fundamentally equal value, and I'd be an utter hypocrite to begrudge the refugees a chance to have a decent life here, because I'd probably be seeking the same if I was in their shoes.

We can then get into all sorts of minutia about how many people a country is capable of taking, and the answer is probably going to be different for each country and fall somewhere between what I'd like and what the anti-immigrant/anti-refugee crowd believes. But I don't think their's a country in the western world right now that's taken as many as it theoretically could, if it was willing to really make the matter a top priority. These are wealthy and diverse nations (at least by the standards of much of the world/human history).

Edited to clarify who I was addressing.

[AniThyng]

That change in Syria sure is rapid alright...

I mean let's not get carried away here, if you fail to assimilate them you will have problems with them falling to change themselves to meet your societies norms as well.

See, this is what I find such a bizarre attitude. Just because a task is not as easy peasy as interfacing with an ipad doesn´t mean it´s absurdly dfficult.

Failing to integrate people means living with a certain amount of marginalized people.
Marginalized people do stuff that is undesirable.
Therefore integration is important.
That should be a no brainer and I doubt anyone besides the dumbest of the dumb would dispute this.

Now, There are problems and challenges connected to integrating a large group of people. But it´s not impossible nor is it necessarily a task of heruclian scale.
Therefore I think that a lot of people who see nothing but trouble, problems and work are nothing but counter productive cowards who are scared by a boogyman.
Unfortunately these people are going to be same ones that make the integration porcess more difficult and longer so they are actually working actively against themselves.

I believe that the default position of allmost every human is to have a desire to live i a society in which they are integrated. Humans being social animals and all that.
So if a society gives new arrivals a good framework to integrate the vast majority of people will do so.

We'll see. It's made me somewhat sad that due to the increasingly reactionary and conservative nature of Islamic discourse in my country compared to a even just a few years ago my appetite for assuring people that Islamic politics and religious principles are compatible with a secularist liberal worldview has dropped dramatically. Your experience with German Muslims might very well be dissonant with mine.

Given my personal experience, I will just say that Merkel is totally right that the new immigrants must learn German. No good will come of them failing to adopt the language of the host nation.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd like to address this:

I do think it will increase crime rates, the logic is pretty bullet-proof: Lots of young men with no prospects who feel wronged.

Are they going to feel any less wronged if we forcibly keep them out or send them back to Syria?

And if its lack of prospects that is the concern...

I'm not sure to what extent it applies to Europe, but I know how I'd address this in America.

We have a ridiculous amount of decrepit infrastructure in this country. We could employ a lot of people for quite a long time fixing that if the political will existed to do it.

Beyond that, I'm skeptical of the whole idea that immigrants means less jobs. Millions of new people means millions of new people who will need homes built for them, stores to buy things at, schools and hospitals to go to, etc. More people=more jobs needed.

[Purple]

Are they going to feel any less wronged if we forcibly keep them out or send them back to Syria?

If I might interject. He newer said what he'd do with them as opposed to taking them in. He presented a problem, not a solution. And than you threw in what you think his solution is and are arguing against it. That's the kind of thing that I was talking about.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are they going to feel any less wronged if we forcibly keep them out or send them back to Syria?

If I might interject. He newer said what he'd do with them as opposed to taking them in. He presented a problem, not a solution. And than you threw in what you think his solution is and are arguing against it. That's the kind of thing that I was talking about.

If he objects to what he believes are the consequences of letting the refugees come, I think its fair to point out what the alternative is.