• Discussion
    The War Room II: "You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

    Heads up!

    You must be registered to post in this board. If you don't have a ZU account, you can create one for free!

    • linkthezora wrote:

      And to be honest, I can see where he's coming from in terms of preserving cultural identity. Unlike countries such as America, his country (I'm not sure which) can consider themselves ethnic. Their people, their history can literally be traced back centuries. They are ethnic, and not only that but they have a history of foreigners coming in and ripping them apart (he didn't convey where in Europe he' s from, but still...)

      This is something America and Australia will never understand: the fear that yet again your very survival as a country, a culture, and a people are at stake due to foreign people coming in by the hundreds of thousands. If I were Polish, Estonian, or any of the other European countries that had been torn apart by various foriegn factions, you bet your little paycheck I would be very sensitive to this new turn of events and very worried.
      Finland is my home country. Some of my family are of Estonian heritage (a brother culture of finnish). I love both of them with patriotic pride. Estonia already has a significant Russian population, thanks to the wonderful Soviet tyranny that only ended just before I was born. Finland managed to maintain freedom earlier in Winter war, but lost big portion of land, including our second largest city at the time. The era of cold war was us wiping the soviet backside. Now the European Union demands us to take part of responsibility for what some americans or russians caused in some oily lands far away.. We pretty much see Sweden as a warning example with the immigrant policy. Most of our immigrants are stacked in the capital city so I indeed have not seen nearly any muslims, as I don't live there. Some of my family live there, and they believe most of the muslims who came all the way up here are just here for our welfare money.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by jalo ().

    • @linkthezora I'd say there's a fundamental difference between foreigners arriving on your doorstep pointing lots of big weapons at you and telling you your lands are no longer yours, and foreigners arriving on your doorstep in the hopes of a better future in your lands.

      Many thanks to Zarah and Astarael for the sig.
      BA charries: Phantasmo - Mad Marie

      The post was edited 1 time, last by SacredSturgeon ().

    • DoLeo wrote:

      Oh good grief

      This is obviously a thread of its own now

      @Bill: what did you google? Because I googled "Syrian refugee literacy" and the first four results I got were:

      1. An ad (it's Google after all)
      2. Australian figures which completely disagree with your "most": Election FactCheck: are many refugees illiterate and innumerate?
      3. A Canadian primary school initiative in which Syrian children are happy and eager to learn:…l-camp-for-newcomers.html
      4. Your German economist: 65 Percent Of Syrian Refugees Can't Read And Write | The Daily Caller

      So from this I'm going to draw a few conclusions:
      1. You have a knack for finding and citing only data which agrees with you
      2. You will listen to economists when they tell you what you want to hear but when they warn of dire consequences for Brexit it's "Project Fear"
      3. These statistics are far from being clear and there is much disagreement on what Syrian literacy rates actually are (surprise surprise! Statistics not giving a clear picture! Wow!)

      Now admittedly, despite being better than the statistics you cherry-picked, the Australian rates aren't what I'd call great. Then again, if I google "American literacy", the first result I find refers to 21-23% of Americans being unable to find "easily identifiable" information in text and facing reduced employment prospects. So maybe instead of treating people as lost causes we could simply educate them, hmmm?

      Most importantly:

      To be honest I can't tell whether you think Muslims were fine until "the welfare state" came in or if you think Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western society. You seem to hold both these opinions despite one of them basically discrediting the other.

      So which is it? Are Muslims all fundamentally incapable of ever integrating, or not? Be careful what answer you choose as at least one of them is pathetically easy to debunk.


      I believe I typed in something along the lines of "literacy of refugees" and the Daily Caller was indeed one of the first sites that came up. Daily Caller is, of course, a right-wing populist site, but they are not the direct source of the information.

      In fact, this is a good example of how any kind of media (whether mainstream or alternative) bias works in practice. While the Daily Caller is not the direct source for the numbers or the interview, they chose to report the story because it fits with their narrative. Conversely, this is the type of story that the mainstream media will more often than not choose to ignore.

      I've never come across the site you referenced, so I decided to check out their home page to get a feel. I figured I'd check their economy + business section. Here are some headlines:

      "How ride-hailing apps like Uber continue cab industry’s history of racial discrimination"
      "Trump’s business conflicts show it’s not always plain sailing for family firms

      "How Trump’s deportation plan threatens America’s food and wine supply"
      "Why Donald Trump’s China policy is a trade war in the making"
      "Trump’s Carrier coup reveals credibility gap between Twitter rhetoric and economic reality"
      "Why Trump is right, and wrong, about killing off the TPP"
      "Trump’s immigration policy would push legal US workers down the occupational ladder"
      "Why Trump’s vow to kill Obama’s sustainability agenda will lead business to step in and save it"

      My impression of this website is that while it is not necessarily progressive, it is clearly anti-populist, pro-immigration and pro-diversity, and their content should be interpreted accordingly.

      I am short on time at the moment, but in this case, it just looks like it's a matter of which data you believe. I think it is interesting that the leaked German government document admits that 80% of refugees have no formal qualifications at all. Is this something they'd be willing to admit to the German public?
    • I'm not sure any of those headlines indicate any bias greater than "a new president is about to be inaugurated so let's examine his proposed policies". That headline about a trade war is pretty much exactly what Trump himself has indicated: he wants to play hardball with China. This is not anti-Trump spin; it's his stated platform. Additionally, a card-carrying protectionist like Trump being in charge will naturally lead to disruptions in foreign trade, so the "food and wine supply" headline is not a far-fetched conclusion to reach.

      "Balance" in journalism doesn't mean that you need to give two opposing viewpoints exactly equal coverage. If there were a headline on that site about Jeffrey Dahmer calling him a criminal, the site doesn't need to counterpoint that by quoting Billy Connolly's comedy routine calling Dahmer a "visionary" with a solution to overpopulation. I mean, it COULD and that would be hilarious but I wouldn't consider it a journalistic or ethical obligation.

      Trump's about to upend the apple cart on most of Obama's policies of the last eight years. This is going to start a mere twelve days from now. Heavy analysis of same and predicting a lot of upheaval isn't what I would call unreasonable.

      However thats not a hill I care to die on so let's just agree with your point that "the media has an agenda and focuses on stories that support it". This is not a new idea; I believe it was even a major theme of Citizen Kane. So what? At what point does that justify racial/ethnic/sectarian discrimination? This is the logical leap that I can't wrap my head around: "the media is biased therefore it's a proven fact that Muslims are backward savages and should be banned". What?

      When did you start finding it acceptable to not only prosecute criminals but persecute people that look like them too? How many different ways does it need to be said that everybody agrees that ACTUAL terrorists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but innocent people should be treated like normal people? I understand your frustration when people here talk like "white people are all basically racists" and I've also castigated people for that kind of talk, but how do you reconcile that frustration with talking like "Muslims are all basically backward savages" and not see any hypocrisy? Two wrongs don't make a right, remember? Show a little consistency, intellectual honesty, and integrity, man.

      I don't wanna get personal but I really get the impression that you have had a negative personal experience (or several) with Muslims and I'm not sure we can move past this without discussing it. Are you OK with that? Or am I way off? We can discuss my personal experiences too if you want although they're all basically variations on "they've all been super nice to me, and either polite and considerate, or funny and jovial". Maybe you've had different experiences?
    • Bill wrote:

      Do you know that cops kill more whites than African Americans in the United States? It is true they kill a disproportionate number of African Americans, but then African Americans commit a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime. If it seems like there is an epidemic of white cops killing African Americans, it's probably because that's what the media focuses on, particularly in the post Ferguson era. If more whites are killed by cops than African Americans in absolute terms, how come we so rarely hear of those stories? It's because it isn't juicy, and it doesn't fit the media narrative. By constantly pushing this narrative, I believe the media is guilty of further damaging racial relations.

      The proportion of color suspects being killed by police is completely out of whack in relation to actual population percentages, so there's that.

      There's also the issue of certain police forces disproportionately targeting color suspects for crimes that whites are equally as likely to commit, or even more likely to commit. In a lot of these cases where a black man is killed by the police, the man is initially apprehended for petty reasons, if no good reason at all. This certainly applies to most of the situations that have drawn significant media attention.

      Because, as I described earlier, it's not so much the frequency that alarms the public, it's the nature of the killings. Eric Garner wasn't committing a violent crime. Neither was Philando Castile. Or Tamir Rice. Or Terence Crutcher.

      Charles Kinsey was trying to take care of his autistic patient and got shot at. Nothing happened to the officer who shot at him or the North Miami police department.

      I don't know what the circumstances were for every last situation where a police officer killed a white man. I'm sure many were justified, and I'm sure that plenty probably weren't. If we regularly had video of these instances, as we often do with the color suspects who are victims of deadly force, they might get more attention.

      When you have video of a police officer senselessly gunning down a civilian, it will turn far more heads than just written accounts.

      It's the same reason why the nation is [rightfully] enraged at the four miscreants who kidnapped the special needs man in Chicago, but no one really cares about the white scumbag who shoved a hangar up a black special needs man's rectum.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Mirren ().

    • i don't know but for something to be more or less a puppet state there needs to be more than a closely aligned head of state

      you require infiltration by one nation's operatives/influencers in high positions of power and lots of inter-departmental sharing of information and operations, quite like the way that Cuba and Venezuela are linked, with Cuba being the dominant partner.
    • Bill wrote:

      Look at the popularity of porn, the divorce rate, declining Church attendance, the increasing acceptance of homosexuality, the prevalence of hook-up culture and out-of marriage sex. The modern developed world can hardly be considered Christian in a meaningful sense, and that is a good thing. Our society is tolerable because even though a majority of the people are nominally Christian, the vast majority of Christians barely practice the tenets of their faith.

      Sorry to bring this up, but I just really dun like the idea of having a prescribed concept of what "Christianity" is about, or what "Islam" is about.

      Here are my problems:

      -> ignores the reality of multivocality
      because religions are extremely varied, and a large term like this is bound to be generalizing and extremely incorrect.

      -> logical fallacy
      because it's a strawman. you get to stuff whatever you wanna into the term "Christianity", and it'll be correct, because point 1

      -> prevents change
      religions are most likely to change from within. by prescribing what it is, you discursively contribute to the status quo, to the notion that, say, Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible, when there are so many Christian groups trying to change this. (same goes for Islam) you are, by saying this, contributing to the evangelical Christian discourse of biblical literacy, because you wanna say that whoever is trying to interpret the bible in, let's say, a feminist way, they're just trying to twist "Christianity" to themselves, because clearly the status quo interpretation is the thing. please let's not do that.

      -> two different understandings of religion
      we in academia define religion in two different paths. one is the substantivist way when you wanna grasp what the content of religion is, and proceed from there, and try to pinpoint the meaningful criteria; the other is a functionalist when you describe what people do and what function religion carries in these social actions. both can be okay, but what substantivists need to watch out for is the idea, again, of essentializing. it is problematic to call Judaism the religion of "justice", Christianity of "love", and Islam of "war" (a scholar did this, not you, before you say i'm putting words in your mouth), because you took one aspect and called it the determining factor, and basically committed the sin of essentializing. it can be fruitful to look for important factors content-wise, but if they are loaded, value-laden terms like lol love and war and justice, then you're prooobably about to do bad scholarship.

      -> you basically think like a terrorist/fundamentalist
      "The modern developed world can hardly be considered Christian in a meaningful sense" you know who says this? evangelicals.

      "The modern developed world can hardly be considered Muslim in a meaningful sense," you know who says this? radical islamists.

      they of course choose a different interpretation, because for them this is bad. but the idea that modernity and religion are incompatible are there nevertheless in both your mind and radical minds. it's a bad idea because it puts the proper locus of religion to the past, to the irrational, and to the anti-modernist. it may sound very enlightened, because it's fun to bash religion, but idk if i can call something enlightened that ignores the social reality of complexity.

      just my 2AM thoughts :)