Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2015, 10:22 PM
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
(18-09-2015 10:16 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not sure what nope is too. The point is you didn't really define in the then more elaborate manner what you proclaim by counter culture. Though I would disagree by the various conversations, articles, and public topics I've seen of both talking about Muslim desire to connect to an Islamic-American

There is no islamic American culture.

Quote: or Islamic-European culture.

What is that even supposed to be?

How has islam manifested itself in Europe? Antisemetic riots, murdering cartoonists, assaulting law enforcement, blowing up comuters, vanadalising art, assaulting the seperation of religion and state....

wow what a wonderfull "culture" to counter the other barbaric culture that so prominently features in the islamic world.

Quote: These are things that probably don't exist outside of certain areas or city realms already existing in the nations.


No. Those are things that dont even exist themselves.
Quote:Though they exist and have happened in Austin and I've known them happening around southern Chicago where there are high pockets of Palestinian populations.


Jews must be really welcome there.
Quote:Though they often go back across the sea and desire speaking in the same manners in places they can there.

They should stay there until they have been civilised.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 10:31 PM
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
(18-09-2015 04:22 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  [Image: zufiau.jpg]
Rape statistics are hard to assess, I think.

In some countries women can't go to the police about having been raped because they end up in prison themselves for having had sex outside of marriage.

There is also a potential stigma, in some countries rape victims are more likely to report the crime than others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 10:32 PM
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 02:59 AM
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
(18-09-2015 08:16 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Never argued that Islam wasn't violent. Your screed is swatting at a straw man if that is its purpose. I'm on my phone at work right now, so I cannot vet your sources, and therefore cannot comment on them right now.

As for your alleged expertise, I'm unimpressed, having lived in both Iran and Saudi Arabia. The latter certainly seemed like a more violent society, the former not nearly so much.

First, I clearly stated that I am not an expert and that I am speaking from my experience. And if you have problems with conclusions from personal experience why are you offering yours?

It`s good that we agree that Islam is violent.

Do we also agree that Islam is oppressive and abusive towards women?

For the sake of argument I will assume that we do agree on that too.

So you are saying that I am wrong to think that the influx of tens or hundreds of thousands of people practicing violent and towards women abusive religion leads to increase in violent crimes and rape?

And saying "not all of them are violent and rapist " doesn`t matter at all, I know it`s not all of them.

Would you agree to host a dinner for 10 guys knowing that some of them are violent rapists, not sure exactly which ones or exactly how many out of 10, but certainly not all of them are.
Would you let your daughter go on a camping trip with that group for the sake of being politically correct?

Of course you wouldn`t.

Then, why should society act any differently?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 07:41 AM
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
(18-09-2015 10:22 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 10:16 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not sure what nope is too. The point is you didn't really define in the then more elaborate manner what you proclaim by counter culture. Though I would disagree by the various conversations, articles, and public topics I've seen of both talking about Muslim desire to connect to an Islamic-American

There is no islamic American culture.
Apart from the fact there is, sure. Unless by culture you mean something significantly deeper than what culture is. Though there is the often joked at mannerisms of it's mixing of other cultures to make it's own thing over the years.
Quote:
Quote: or Islamic-European culture.

What is that even supposed to be?

How has islam manifested itself in Europe? Antisemetic riots, murdering cartoonists, assaulting law enforcement, blowing up comuters, vanadalising art, assaulting the seperation of religion and state....

wow what a wonderfull "culture" to counter the other barbaric culture that so prominently features in the islamic world.
That is the awful outcome of it for the existing world. It shouldn't be accepted or allowed. I'm not sure what it is you think I have to say against this in your ideas. I'm not saying open up and let all these people in or contrasting that idea of yours. I never mentioned a thing like that once despite your last post responding like I opposed it. There is just blindly ignoring that elements don't create or sum up everything that exists and wishfully ignoring reality to prove some point or exaggerate what occurs.
Quote:
Quote: These are things that probably don't exist outside of certain areas or city realms already existing in the nations.


No. Those are things that dont even exist themselves.
Quote:Though they exist and have happened in Austin and I've known them happening around southern Chicago where there are high pockets of Palestinian populations.


Jews must be really welcome there.
They are. There isn't a major issue that arises. Sure in the 60's there was some attacks but since the 90s when the populations were growing it's been non-confrontational in effects.
Quote:
Quote:Though they often go back across the sea and desire speaking in the same manners in places they can there.

They should stay there until they have been civilised.

What is that supposed to mean? civilized would mean? These are every day fat lazy Americans who happen to have family roots they visit frequently. I suppose I would also like generic Americans to be civilized too.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 07:42 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 07:45 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
@slowminded

I think we need to regroup here and resume what we know about the subject and how to deal with it. Here is a deconstruction of the argument.

argument 1: Islam is a religion that promotes physical and psychological violence toward women

This is evident in the numerous passage of the Quran that mention the inferior status of women compared to men, their need to be submissive and the implied authorisation of men to beat their women to force them into an inferior status. It also promotes a strong divide between men and women when it comes to gender role, forcing women to care for children, the sick and weak and maintain their household while men do everything else. Though, it's not mentioned anywhere precisely, women in Muslim dominated country are frequently forced to wear a veil that can be so extensive they are literal prisoners of their cloths.

Counter argument to argument 1

Every single major religion in the world place women has inferior to men and advocate them to be submissive. Their gender role is always the same too with very little nuances. In hierarchical system based on sex, the powerful one has systematically the implicit or direct authorisation to use physical force or the threat of it to enforce his authority. There is no exception to that. Sober clothing are always a requirements for women and «slut shaming» is a frequent practice. This is in no case specific to Islam. It should also be noted that if all major religion including Islam are supporting sexism, they only support violence toward women in the context of marriage/family to establish society order. A men is not allowed to rape or beat any women, only those he has direct authority over which means his wives, daughters and female servants living under his roof. Assaulting a stranger women in such a fashion is a crime.

Like every other major religion, it's possible to found passages to support women's rights and equality of sex inside the Quran. It simply requires extensive «cherry picking» which is far from being a problem since all religious group «cherry pick» their Holy Book. This is mandatory since those books are filled with contradictions and unclear messages. Thus, if it's true that Islam can be qualified has a religion hostile to women, it's impossible to stick that label to all Muslim. To argue that pretty much all Muslim are at least a little bit sexist is possible, but to link it directly to violent behavior would be an error. It's completely possible to be Muslim and believe in gender equality. It's also completely possible for a Muslim to be a feminist, even a radical one.

argument 2: the influx of migrants from Muslim dominated country increases violence toward women

People don't change because they moved from a country to another. A men who beat his wife will continue to do it in his new home. Their vision of women won't change overnight and will still be tainted by strong misogynistic teachings if they were exposed to it, which is most likely the case, considering the cultural and political situation of their country of origin. A strong influx of migrant will thus increase violence toward women simply because they carry their problems with them. It's self-evident. The children of those migrants will be born in a community that support or at least tolerate violence and disrespect toward women and thus will carry on a bad social trait.

counter argument to argument 2

While the premise of the argument 2 is completely true, its conclusion is challenged by a problem of perspective. While it is true that violence toward women will increase if you merge a community generally respectful of women's health compared to one that actively support and enforce the domination of men over them, the total amount of violence toward women hardly changes. If it's true that violent misogynistic behavior isn't lowered by migration to a new country, the opposite is also true. Women who are mistreated in Sweden would probably also have been mistreated in Iraq. Thus the sum total of violence toward women doesn't change. Only the geographic location of that violence does. I personally don't care about the country in which a women lives when she gets assaulted or insulted. I only care that she was assaulted or insulted and I am angry at that fact.

What about women native to Sweden who were raised and lived in an environment where women were mostly equal and strongly opposed to violence against them? Isn't an influx of persons perceiving them has inferior exposing them to higher risks of rape, assault or insults? The answer is not really. Victims of violent sexual crimes are only very rarely attacked by strangers. Here is in order the persons who are the most likely to sexually assault a women: her father, her spouse/regular sexual partner, her brother, her mother, a member of her extended family (uncle/aunt, grand-parents, step parents, etc.), a teacher/coach, a friend, her boss, a coworkers/employee, a health professional, a distant relation (ex co-worker/ex boss, neighbors, etc.), a stranger. Migrants coming of a visible minority type like pretty much all Muslim are systematically isolated socially in their new country. This phenomenon is explainable by linguistic difficulties, different way of life and core values. For this reason, it takes usually 3 to 4 generations for a migrant to blend in the social tissue of his new country. In the meantime, the migrants and their children will usually live in community which shares the same or similar migration history and cultural markers. This means, they have relatively few contacts outside these «villages». Thus, they have little chances of coming into contact regularly and in a personal manner with native women. Even the cases of well adapted migrant of a visible minority, mixed-race union are rare. While there is cases of native women being assaulted by stranger from that particular group of migrants, this events are very rare if heavily covered by media due to racist bias and their impact on our collective imagination. Sadly the crippling majority of the victims of rape by stranger still belong to the same community than their rapists. In resume, violence toward women hasn't changed neither is the ethnic identity of the victims significantly different, only where it's committed.

argument 3: preventing the migration of Muslim into Western Country will help keep those country safer.

If you follow the logical steps of the first two arguments, this comes has a no brainer. It's also easy to demonstrate that countries with a higher level of homogeneity have lower crime rates. Since Muslim represent a threat due their cultural value when it comes to women, reducing or not allowing them to migrate en masse will lead to a safer environment and lower criminality rates. This is especially true when it comes to refugees which are by definition not screened for crimes or other markers that reduce their capacity to adapt and socialise in a healthy manner in their new society.

counter argument to argument 3

Following the logical implication of the first two counter arguments, it shows that the third ones is also seriously flawed. While it is true that Muslim migrant sometimes carry a heavy baggage of misogyny with them, it's false to think that it can seriously threaten their host society peace and overall level of security. The vast majority of the crimes committed by those migrants will make victims only in their own community. Thus, their statistical impact is much greater than their social impact on the level of security of the country overall. Violence toward women isn't affected overall since those crimes would have been just has likely to happen in another country. Our justice and security system is capable of handling the criminality in those communities, albeit sometimes with difficulties mostly due to flaws in our own society more than by lack of money or expertise. Gating our community might seems like a good idea and on short term it can provide a certain amount of gain, but in the end it fails to address the problem that is denounced. It only covers it up and let it continue to reproduce itself outside of the walls of a particular society.

My personal conclusion on the issue

It's common knowledge that you can't teach something to someone if that person doesn't respect you and you don't respect that person. You can't propagate the ideals of gender equality without extensive positive contact with society that don't support that concept. Gating ourselves and harshly criticising their culture and their religion by accentuating certain aspect of it which are far from being shared by all Muslim, especially their elite intellectual class, only serves to antagonise them and reinforce their prejudice against us and against our ideal of free, powerful, independent, equal women. Is it true that Islam is a big pile of shit that promotes violence toward women? Yes, of course. Is saying that promotes any form positive changes of Muslim toward a more inclusive society for women and a less violent one? No, it's insulting a group of person for a flaw that our society is not free from either.

Does ridicule and harsh critique have a place? Yes it does. We cannot let Muslim hide behind the shield of racism to avoid any confrontation with beliefs with which they might uncomfortable. Ridicule and harsh critique are powerful weapons for Muslim who have let go of their heritage of misogyny to reinforce their pride and attack those who have not. They are powerful weapons for non-Muslim who want to shock Muslim in facing their own demon. They are a powerful weapons to dismiss those who would actively defend the idea of gender subordination/complicity with religion. They are terribly bad weapons to use to relate to people a concern and opposition to one of their cultural trait and practice. They are dangerous to present in a discussion with no Muslim involved for it feeds a fear mechanism and a negative stereotype that makes establishing a positive link with Muslim more difficult and in the end prevent us from sharing our concerns and arguments for gender equality.

What do you really think about it? How should we address ourselves to Muslims (or any other religious group) about gender equality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 12:14 PM
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
(19-09-2015 07:42 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @slowminded

I think we need to regroup here and resume what we know about the subject and how to deal with it. Here is a deconstruction of the argument.

argument 1: Islam is a religion that promotes physical and psychological violence toward women

This is evident in the numerous passage of the Quran that mention the inferior status of women compared to men, their need to be submissive and the implied authorisation of men to beat their women to force them into an inferior status. It also promotes a strong divide between men and women when it comes to gender role, forcing women to care for children, the sick and weak and maintain their household while men do everything else. Though, it's not mentioned anywhere precisely, women in Muslim dominated country are frequently forced to wear a veil that can be so extensive they are literal prisoners of their cloths.

Counter argument to argument 1

Every single major religion in the world place women has inferior to men and advocate them to be submissive. Their gender role is always the same too with very little nuances. In hierarchical system based on sex, the powerful one has systematically the implicit or direct authorisation to use physical force or the threat of it to enforce his authority. There is no exception to that. Sober clothing are always a requirements for women and «slut shaming» is a frequent practice. This is in no case specific to Islam. It should also be noted that if all major religion including Islam are supporting sexism, they only support violence toward women in the context of marriage/family to establish society order. A men is not allowed to rape or beat any women, only those he has direct authority over which means his wives, daughters and female servants living under his roof. Assaulting a stranger women in such a fashion is a crime.

Like every other major religion, it's possible to found passages to support women's rights and equality of sex inside the Quran. It simply requires extensive «cherry picking» which is far from being a problem since all religious group «cherry pick» their Holy Book. This is mandatory since those books are filled with contradictions and unclear messages. Thus, if it's true that Islam can be qualified has a religion hostile to women, it's impossible to stick that label to all Muslim. To argue that pretty much all Muslim are at least a little bit sexist is possible, but to link it directly to violent behavior would be an error. It's completely possible to be Muslim and believe in gender equality. It's also completely possible for a Muslim to be a feminist, even a radical one.

I don't think we should tolerate one oppressive religion based on the fact that other religions are oppressive also. Obviously, I would prefer getting all of the religious shit out of the way.

But there is a grater difference that needs to be addressed . In western societies for the largest part people understand that secular laws trump their religious beliefs. Slut shaming is quite benevolent compared to stoning to death or forcing a pre-pubescent girls into marriage. Don't you agree?
So the essence of problem is not with religion promoting physical and psychological violence toward women (as bad as that is ) , problem here lies with followers of the religion willingness to practice and act according to their religious laws and also what that means in practice.
To put in other way, we don't stone women to death and adultery is not a crime punishable by death, although sometimes a women might get called a slut.

Seems ridiculous to me that we as a society are trying to get rid of slut shaming , cat calling...but we are supposed to be tolerant toward religion that says that husband has the right to beat his wife if she refuses sex?

Quote:counter argument to argument 2

While the premise of the argument 2 is completely true, its conclusion is challenged by a problem of perspective. While it is true that violence toward women will increase if you merge a community generally respectful of women's health compared to one that actively support and enforce the domination of men over them, the total amount of violence toward women hardly changes. If it's true that violent misogynistic behavior isn't lowered by migration to a new country, the opposite is also true. Women who are mistreated in Sweden would probably also have been mistreated in Iraq. Thus the sum total of violence toward women doesn't change. Only the geographic location of that violence does. I personally don't care about the country in which a women lives when she gets assaulted or insulted. I only care that she was assaulted or insulted and I am angry at that fact.

What about women native to Sweden who were raised and lived in an environment where women were mostly equal and strongly opposed to violence against them? Isn't an influx of persons perceiving them has inferior exposing them to higher risks of rape, assault or insults? The answer is not really. Victims of violent sexual crimes are only very rarely attacked by strangers.
Here is in order the persons who are the most likely to sexually assault a women: her father, her spouse/regular sexual partner, her brother, her mother, a member of her extended family (uncle/aunt, grand-parents, step parents, etc.), a teacher/coach, a friend, her boss, a coworkers/employee, a health professional, a distant relation (ex co-worker/ex boss, neighbors, etc.), a stranger. Migrants coming of a visible minority type like pretty much all Muslim are systematically isolated socially in their new country. This phenomenon is explainable by linguistic difficulties, different way of life and core values. For this reason, it takes usually 3 to 4 generations for a migrant to blend in the social tissue of his new country. In the meantime, the migrants and their children will usually live in community which shares the same or similar migration history and cultural markers. This means, they have relatively few contacts outside these «villages». Thus, they have little chances of coming into contact regularly and in a personal manner with native women. Even the cases of well adapted migrant of a visible minority, mixed-race union are rare. While there is cases of native women being assaulted by stranger from that particular group of migrants, this events are very rare if heavily covered by media due to racist bias and their impact on our collective imagination. Sadly the crippling majority of the victims of rape by stranger still belong to the same community than their rapists. In resume, violence toward women hasn't changed neither is the ethnic identity of the victims significantly different, only where it's committed.

Yeah, ok , but there is no indication let alone guarantee that even after 3 or 4 generations they will change their modus operandi , so I would rather not wait for them to became integrated and became my daughters coach, physician or teacher and not a stranger and then start to worry about her safety.
And even the first generation get jobs, so they became coworkers very soon.

I feel bad for women getting raped anywhere in the world, but still, if I can't stop it I would rather have it as far as possible away from me.

On a pragmatic side, dealing with the victims and perpetrators is a burden on the system , from health care , to judicial system , prisons, the police, social workers...

Quote:argument 3: preventing the migration of Muslim into Western Country will help keep those country safer.

If you follow the logical steps of the first two arguments, this comes has a no brainer. It's also easy to demonstrate that countries with a higher level of homogeneity have lower crime rates. Since Muslim represent a threat due their cultural value when it comes to women, reducing or not allowing them to migrate en masse will lead to a safer environment and lower criminality rates. This is especially true when it comes to refugees which are by definition not screened for crimes or other markers that reduce their capacity to adapt and socialise in a healthy manner in their new society.

counter argument to argument 3

Following the logical implication of the first two counter arguments, it shows that the third ones is also seriously flawed. While it is true that Muslim migrant sometimes carry a heavy baggage of misogyny with them, it's false to think that it can seriously threaten their host society peace and overall level of security. The vast majority of the crimes committed by those migrants will make victims only in their own community. Thus, their statistical impact is much greater than their social impact on the level of security of the country overall. Violence toward women isn't affected overall since those crimes would have been just has likely to happen in another country. Our justice and security system is capable of handling the criminality in those communities, albeit sometimes with difficulties mostly due to flaws in our own society more than by lack of money or expertise. Gating our community might seems like a good idea and on short term it can provide a certain amount of gain, but in the end it fails to address the problem that is denounced. It only covers it up and let it continue to reproduce itself outside of the walls of a particular society.
Is our justice and security system capable of handling the criminality in those communities at satisfactory level is quite debatable.
There is no perfect solution here, but one thing is clear. Outside of the walls is better then inside of the walls. Let them sort their shit themselves.
Why do we need to deal with shit like this?









Quote:My personal conclusion on the issue

It's common knowledge that you can't teach something to someone if that person doesn't respect you and you don't respect that person. You can't propagate the ideals of gender equality without extensive positive contact with society that don't support that concept. Gating ourselves and harshly criticising their culture and their religion by accentuating certain aspect of it which are far from being shared by all Muslim, especially their elite intellectual class, only serves to antagonise them and reinforce their prejudice against us and against our ideal of free, powerful, independent, equal women. Is it true that Islam is a big pile of shit that promotes violence toward women? Yes, of course. Is saying that promotes any form positive changes of Muslim toward a more inclusive society for women and a less violent one? No, it's insulting a group of person for a flaw that our society is not free from either.

Does ridicule and harsh critique have a place? Yes it does. We cannot let Muslim hide behind the shield of racism to avoid any confrontation with beliefs with which they might uncomfortable. Ridicule and harsh critique are powerful weapons for Muslim who have let go of their heritage of misogyny to reinforce their pride and attack those who have not. They are powerful weapons for non-Muslim who want to shock Muslim in facing their own demon. They are a powerful weapons to dismiss those who would actively defend the idea of gender subordination/complicity with religion. They are terribly bad weapons to use to relate to people a concern and opposition to one of their cultural trait and practice. They are dangerous to present in a discussion with no Muslim involved for it feeds a fear mechanism and a negative stereotype that makes establishing a positive link with Muslim more difficult and in the end prevent us from sharing our concerns and arguments for gender equality.
Seriously? Making fun of them and stern talk will solve the problem ?

Bro, they kill people who make fun of them. Charlie Habdo?


Quote:What do you really think about it?

I perceive it as a threat to the future safety of my family and myself.

Quote:How should we address ourselves to Muslims (or any other religious group) about gender equality?

I don't know.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Slowminded's post
19-09-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
@slowminded

We have to tolerate an oppressive religion if we tolerate another one. I know it sounds stupid, but that's what being fair is. We tolerate Christianity, we got no choice to tolerate Islam. What we can't tolerate is them being violent toward women in our country and we are doing that. How they rule themselves is out of our reach. All we can do is try to convince them that there is more to gain to follow our lead when it comes to women rights and that it doesn't mean sacrificing their entire culture and history.

When it comes to immigration, every single mass migration was perceived has the one that would destroy their host country. In Canada, it was the Irish who were violent drunks who beat women all the time, then the Polish who were thieves and slackers, then Russian/Ukrainian who were alcoholics and pimps, then it was the Chinese who were filthy, gropers and job stealers, then it was the Italian who brought whores and bandits, then it was the Sikh who were terrorists and murderers and now it’s the Muslims/Arabs who beat women and bomb people. All the previous wave of immigrant share the same story, they arrive, setup communities, live through poverty and racism, face high criminality rates, stir up trouble, then settle down, adapted and live rather nicely. For some of those previous waves, the process isn't even finished, it's just more advanced. Sociology doesn't lie. People, no matter their origin, have very little interest in changing the world they live in. Most of us are just content on living our days without stirring up trouble or getting into fights.

If you want to talk about the riots of Paris, I can resume the situation very easily for you. The Arab and Muslim community is to France what the black community is to America. They are a community of the former slaves and servants that live in poverty has second class citizen right beside their former masters in society where climbing up the social scale is a lot harder than one might think or wish. It's facing racism, police profiling, negative identification in all public sphere, employment and housing discrimination. Every large community that is isolated and marginalised explodes from time to time. The trigger for the riots in Paris? Two teenagers where chased by the police over some minor vandalism act. They tried to hide themselves in a electrical installation. They died of electrocution. The community accused the police of bullying, harassment, violent arrest, profiling and generally fighting against the community more than for it. They presented lengthy cases of police harassment and unfair court judgement. They even got, then minister, Sarkozy chocking and insulting a guy who confronted him on the structural racism of his administration and police force. Does that sound like something familiar to you? If you go take a walk in those community it would require you to be blind not to see an important social problem caused, not by Islam, since that problem was the same for the Vietnamese before them.

About Charlie Hebdo, there is a thing you need to understand about social expression. You can make a very legitimate and factually true critique about an important issue of another society or culture and still be unacceptably racist at the same time. Charlie Hebdo was exactly that. They presented caricature that were originally made by a Danish newspaper who got bombed (2 deaths) 10 years earlier. Charlie Hebdo was a very small publication that made satires of Muslim and fundamentalist Catholics. Very little original content, a lot of small articles with a sensationalist vibe and clever comments on religious corruption and hypocrisy. The problem of Charlie Hebdo wasn't the caricature or their editorial line. The problem is where they stood in society. They never demonstrated any understanding of the Muslim community in their country, of the issues they were facing. Neither did they ever demonstrated they had any respect for these people despite their differences nor did they demonstrated their desire to establish a relationship to help them solve their problem. To the average French Muslim, they were yet another gang of rich white dudes born with a silver spoon in their mouth who laugh at them. The fact that the critique was correct and important makes it even more painful. How would you react if you were bullied constantly and one day that same bully would start pointing out your very real flaw of character? The bully might be right, but you are going to hate him even more. Humor has two rules. The first one: «You can laugh of everything, but not with everyone.». The second one: «The only difference between the best joke and an insult is the quantity of respect you have for you have for the person you are telling it too.». Nobody won that day. A dozen person died ridiculous, undeserved deaths. A community was further demonised and hated. Idiots became saints, victims became even worst then those who were victimising them and the solutions to the structural, political, social and cultural problem France had become even harder to reach.

To win this we need good diplomat to make bridges between culture and force a debate where the core of the issues can be debated. I leave you my favorite quote about diplomacy. I don't know where I picked it up. This is why what conservative call political correctness is sometimes so important. It’s a tool to help us pass our messages without starting wars and conflict.

Diplomacy is the art of lying while telling the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 03:37 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 04:26 PM by Slowminded.)
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
(19-09-2015 01:42 PM)epronovost Wrote:  We have to tolerate an oppressive religion if we tolerate another one.

No, we really don't. And I am intolerant towards Christianity as well , as much it is in my power. Why would I act any differently towards Islam?

Quote: but that's what being fair is

Being fair towards any religion is not high on my priority list.

Quote:When it comes to immigration, every single mass migration was perceived has the one that would destroy their host country. In Canada, it was the Irish who were violent drunks who beat women all the time, then the Polish ....

Aren't you forgetting something? Before the Irish and the Polish...there was a migration that brought oppressive religion with it and did fuck up the host country for the original inhabitants , native Americans.

How about Republic of South Africa? Didn't immigrants brought racism and apartheid with them?

It is just a matter of power , if immigrants are powerful enough they will impose their ways on the original population.

Quote:If you want to talk about the riots of Paris, I can resume the situation very easily for you. The Arab and Muslim community is to France what the black community is to America. They are a community of the former slaves and servants that live in poverty has second class citizen right beside their former masters in society where climbing up the social scale is a lot harder than one might think or wish. It's facing racism, police profiling, negative identification in all public sphere, employment and housing discrimination. Every large community that is isolated and marginalised explodes from time to time. The trigger for the riots in Paris? Two teenagers where chased by the police over some minor vandalism act. They tried to hide themselves in a electrical installation. They died of electrocution. The community accused the police of bullying, harassment, violent arrest, profiling and generally fighting against the community more than for it. They presented lengthy cases of police harassment and unfair court judgement. They even got, then minister, Sarkozy chocking and insulting a guy who confronted him on the structural racism of his administration and police force. Does that sound like something familiar to you? If you go take a walk in those community it would require you to be blind not to see an important social problem caused, not by Islam, since that problem was the same for the Vietnamese before them.

That's just an excuse. They are isolated and marginalized precisely because they refuse to observe and except the laws and customs of the host society.

Quote:Does that sound like something familiar to you?
It does, my country went trough UN sanctions, NATO bombing and my nation demonized beyond belief.

Yet, we didn't fly any planes into buildings , or bombed subways, or burned down any city even tho only in Chicago there are around 300,000 Serbs. Plenty in Canada too.
Nor we killed any journalist or film makers that portrayed us in a bed light.

I wonder if you would be that tolerant and understanding if a mob of angry Serbs burned down your house in Canada?

Quote:About Charlie Hebdo, there is a thing you need to understand about social expression. You can make a very legitimate and factually true critique about an important issue of another society or culture and still be unacceptably racist at the same time. Charlie Hebdo was exactly that. They presented caricature that were originally made by a Danish newspaper who got bombed (2 deaths) 10 years earlier. Charlie Hebdo was a very small publication that made satires of Muslim and fundamentalist Catholics. Very little original content, a lot of small articles with a sensationalist vibe and clever comments on religious corruption and hypocrisy. The problem of Charlie Hebdo wasn't the caricature or their editorial line. The problem is where they stood in society. They never demonstrated any understanding of the Muslim community in their country, of the issues they were facing. Neither did they ever demonstrated they had any respect for these people despite their differences nor did they demonstrated their desire to establish a relationship to help them solve their problem. To the average French Muslim, they were yet another gang of rich white dudes born with a silver spoon in their mouth who laugh at them. The fact that the critique was correct and important makes it even more painful. How would you react if you were bullied constantly and one day that same bully would start pointing out your very real flaw of character? The bully might be right, but you are going to hate him even more. Humor has two rules. The first one: «You can laugh of everything, but not with everyone.». The second one: «The only difference between the best joke and an insult is the quantity of respect you have for you have for the person you are telling it too.». Nobody won that day. A dozen person died ridiculous, undeserved deaths. A community was further demonised and hated. Idiots became saints, victims became even worst then those who were victimising them and the solutions to the structural, political, social and cultural problem France had become even harder to reach.

Are you trying to justify the murders?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
19-09-2015, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 08:25 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Syrian refugees attack gay people in Germany.
@slowminded

Muslims immigrants are far from being powerful and numerous enough to do any serious damage to their host community even if their leaders actively wanted to. Proportionally speaking, they are less numerous than both the Irish and the Chinese of past decades. Has a Serbian, it must be scarier than a North American to live in the center of a mass exodus of people fleeing Syria right now. Considering the ethno-religious war in your own national history between Muslim and Christians, could that baggage be the core reason of your concern over the massive immigration of Muslim refugees more than concern toward higher criminality which isn't really warranted? I don't think those people will ruin your country, or any other, neither do I think it's reasonable to think they will cause massive damage to the social tissue. Some punctual incident and friction will happen, there will be victims, but well-handled which means with tact, respect, structure, cooperation and professionalism, everything should remain largely fine. Of course the situation in the Middle Est will affect how this crisis will evolve in the next decades. Since we live in very different societies with a very different history, especially when it comes to relationship with Islam, you are probably much more conscious of the issues it might raise in your home that could be different if those migrants were coming knocking at my door. Feel free to inform me on it, I might be judging this situation form a too comfortable position in Canada.

On the situation of the French Muslim community, you really need to read up a bit on the social impact of racism and colonialism on France and its former colonies. Nobody is innocent in that situation. Both Muslim and French have blood and injustice on their hand. The big problem is that each group is expecting the other to clear up his act before they start to do the same. French Muslim want to remain isolated and despise the larger French society because they don't trust the power in place, they feel like they are still oppressed and want retribution for a past spend in servitude. The main French society feels like they give room and board to a bunch of isolationists who thinks laws don't apply to them and refuse to accept social norms. It's a «social standoff» nobody moves because they all think they are the bigger victim. In my opinion, in that kind of situation where everybody is guilty of a terrible situation, the first one to move must be the one with the greatest power and social standing. He must move first because they have more capacity for change and more means to do so. In that case, it would be the larger French society.

About the Serbian minority in North America, it mostly pre-date the Kosovo war and can be traced back to the start of WWI. There were a second wave in the early 90's too thought, the older first wave helped greatly their integration. Serbians being more educated and richer comparatively speaking than Algerians or Syrians had more tools for a smoother integration. Furthermore, Serbians are white. They are very hard to racialized and a culturally closer to western country. Thus, even if they were indeed demonized and bombed by NATO, the migratory experience Serbians tend to be much easier than for those who are easily racialized like Algerians for example. Serbia was also never colonised by foreign power and in fact has a good record when it comes to resist complete annexation by the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman or Russian Empire. A Serbian in Canada is just like everybody else, unlike a Chinese, an Irish or a Muslim right now.

So to answer your question, if an angry mob living in ghetto burst out and burned my house, would I be angry? Fuck yes I would! I would be angry at the fucking situation not at the mob. I would be angry it had to come to this and I would want to make sure this would not happen again. Mobs are generated by social revolt against something. Find what it is and try to find a solution. Mobs in Paris or London don't want to impose their religion or lower women's rights, they want to denounce systemic poverty, discrimination and power abuse. In no way are they related to international terrorism even if some of them are sympathetic to its cause simply because they feel they are fighting the same enemy (or for provocative value amongst their teenagers and young adults): our power. Has you can observe right now in the Middle Est and North Africa even Islamists are divided and prone to brutal infightings. There is no worldwide conspiracy between Muslim migrants and Islamic terrorists to kill us all or convert us. It's a myriad of factor feeding each other that makes a semi-ordered geopolitical situation that makes the Gordian knot look like a 5 piece puzzle when it comes to solving it.

My last comment on Carlie Hebdo would be the following. Did the killers, and by extension their community, had good reason to be angry at the people of Charlie Hebdo? Yes they had very good reasons. Charlie Hebdo more than deserved a harsh critique of their work published in popular media. They deserved to be lampooned themselves. Did they deserved death, death threats or even just to be silenced? Not at all. There is a major difference between having reasons to hate someone and justification to kill them. We all have reasons to hate someone, but very, very rarely justification to kill them or threaten them. I would redirect you to the last sentence of my paragraph to know what I think about it. In resume it’s a multilevel tragedy where everybody lost something important.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: