Is it justifiable to hate migrants?

[Danioover9000]

@Nabd

1 hour ago, Nabd said:

Of course I am all in for strict police and strict sentencing of criminals even if they are refugees.

For example the way the court system in Germany is dealing with rapists or murderes is very lenient even in cases where a gang rape a girl. These people who commit such crimes should be sentenced harshly not just the bs of 1 year in prison which end up being 3 months.

Its also a net positive for European countries to take in refugees. Check Germany where you have the highest or 2nd highest number of doctors coming from Syria and they have like 1 million only.

Europe and the US are basically taking the best of the best from these countries without paying alot and with minimal effort and of course some shitty people will be there too but its absolutely a win for them.

   So, you're for stricter policing, pro policing, and want more harsher sentencing of criminals including refugees ones, so are you also for more border security and closed borders?

   So Germany's court system is lenient overall, that a homicide and gang rape, if found guilty with or without taking a plea deal, those criminals get lenient sentences? That they serve 1 year in prison, and because of good behavior or with parole, they get out in 3 months? Don't they have a rehabilitation center for those criminals and prisoners?

   How is it a new positive for European countries to take in refugees? Sure, if they're selecting for talent or experienced doctors or those with S.T.E.M and other skillsets, who want to migrate to a European country to live that nation and country as their citizen, but some to most of those refugees don't seem to be that loyal to the nation/country that took them in, and some even murder/rape those citizens living in say Sweden. How is this a net positive?

 

[PurpleTree]

3 minutes ago, Nabd said:

Most Syrians are extremely well educated compared to Europeans so this whole idea that refugees dont work or are not experienced/well educated is utterly ridiculous. They worked at home and they work abroad bringing their skills in every area of life. Syria was the place to go to get your teeth treated or do serious operations on body even today in Turkey people will search for a Syrian doctor because of the reputation. Even in things like plumbing and construction workers Syrians were the best in the region.

Thats a net gain considering that they didn't pay for them growing up and just took them as adults and in a matter of months they can be in the working force of the country. Thats actually exploitation if you ask me personally and thats why failed states are a necessary for this capitalist world to function.

They should let people in easier legally and this way they can screen them better and more people will stop flooding illegally and applying for refugee status.

More open borders isn't mutually exclusive with strict police. Just get rapists and murderers and jihadists into prison without hesitation and things would function better.

What's even better is Europeans can force mega ultra rich gulf countries to take refugees but they don't do it because it is beneficial for European governments. The moment a right wing government take power and kick migrants is the moment that country will be fucked big way.

not prison.

just send them back.

Edited December 7, 2023 by PurpleTree

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, Nabd said:

This also work but its extremely harsh if they are wanted by their government for example. At this point just be humane and sentence them to death.

Nah we don‘t have death penalty in europe. I think these criminals don’t fear prison at all but they would fear deportation more

[Schizophonia]

Justify to who?

On 06/12/2023 at 9:25 PM, bebotalk said:

It's not justifiable to hate migrants.

If people have issues with migrants, then blame governments. They allow migrants in, and formulate and implement policies on how to handle them.

Ditto, who do you have to justify anything to? 

Where does this thing come from, what could it possibly mean?

Edited December 7, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Thought Art]

Your mind can justify anything.

[Schizophonia]

3 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Your mind can justify anything.

Yes, but to whom?
WHOM ?

Edited December 7, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Danioover9000]

   A good video showing levels of hatred here, just pay attention to how they communicate, also bonus to how they argue, their body language, their tonality, mannerisms, and see how each person frames and justifies their claims and positions:

 

[Buck Edwards]

1 hour ago, Nabd said:

More open borders isn't mutually exclusive with strict police. Just get rapists and murderers and jihadists into prison without hesitation and things would function better.

Yea lol without people cramming the streets with protests. 

[Buck Edwards]

@Danioover9000 another video on Israel and Palestine is going to make me sick. Different subject please. It's like what's real about these countries, I don't know anymore. 

[Danioover9000]

@Buck Edwards

49 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

@Danioover9000 another video on Israel and Palestine is going to make me sick. Different subject please. It's like what's real about these countries, I don't know anymore. 

   Okay, sure.😅

[bebotalk]

16 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Justify to who?

Ditto, who do you have to justify anything to? 

Where does this thing come from, what could it possibly mean?

I don't get your question. the OP asked it, ask him what he means by "justify". 

I don't think it's acceptable personally to hate migrants, since they often are just people moving to another country for a better life in whichever way. Is that wrong? they're still people. 

 

 

 

[bebotalk]

On 06/12/2023 at 8:42 PM, zazen said:

A worthy read I came across on Twitter:

“Mass Immigration:

Economic migrants do not emigrate at scale to places which aren't already prosperous, therefore the countries they flock to were great before they even turned up. They are redundant rather than necessary, which is why the powers that be who profit from their arrival at the expense of the national interest repeatedly bleat about how necessary they are - because if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, people start to believe it regardless of its validity.
 

Pioneers are different. Pioneers emigrate somewhere that is undeveloped, or at a low level of development - with the promise opportunity awaits IF ONLY they work to build the nation. They are seduced by the prestige of being heralded as nation builders, the greater freedom that comes from living in a less developed and therefore less tightly regulated state, and the potential for massive growth that can only be found in places which haven't been built up yet.

They are not there to benefit from an already developed society, and set up mini parallel societies in the form of ethnic enclaves which take money out of the economy in the form of remittances sent to their families abroad, but to build up the country and become a citizen. Their loyalties lie with the land they're in, not some far flung foreign land from which their genes derive. Pioneers are nation builders, the very first generation to usher in greatness through the sweat of their brow to build a great country.

 

Economic migrants on the other hand are simply opportunists. They are generally not there because they love you or your people and want to become one of you, but because your country is richer than theirs and they want some of your money. They want a better life, which is understandable - who doesn't? But their pursuit of a better life shouldn't come at the expense of your way of life, which it inevitably and invariably does if the limits on how many are permitted entry aren't sufficiently restrictive.
 

Mass immigration is a lazy way of dealing with a declining birth rate to prop up tax revenues, a way for big business to depress wages and prop up asset values (thus directly lowering the quality of life for a society's poorest and most vulnerable) and when it comes to skilled migration, a toxic way of compensating for an inadequate education system by poaching brilliant people from much less developed nations.

If you had a skills shortage in a non-globalised world, how would you deal with it? You'd improve your education system and filtering processes for identifying cognitive brilliance and train up more of your own people to become doctors and teachers, instead of try to entice the best people from less fortunate and more struggling lands to abandon their people in order to come and make an already successful society even more successful.

 

If your people weren't making enough babies, what would you do? Take a long hard look at your economic and cultural practices, identify the elements which are suppressing fertility (eg: high real estate prices, lack of religiosity, feminism etc), and set about correcting them to reverse the trend - stated more generally, you would incentivise family formation amongst your own people, rather than replace yourselves with foreigners because you're greedy and not having enough babies.
 

You mould your population to what you need them to be through the actions of your policies, with the identity and culture of your people placed in the front and centre of your mind - this is what it is to put your country and people first, as opposed to sacrificing your people's identity and interests on the altar of economic prosperity.
 

Good governance is about serving the people, not the economy, and although the people certainly benefit from a strong economy, there are particular policy choices such as open door mass immigration which sacrifice the long-term prosperity, identity and cultural integrity of a people for nothing more than short-term economic gains.
 

A good leader and his party does not simply think about how to solve the problems of today, but likewise of the unintended consequences and second, third and forth order effects of how the solutions implemented today form the paradigm of tomorrow. They view a branching tree with multiple effects deriving from a cause, and then those effects becoming causes which too branch out to have their own effects. They do their best to predict, to be psychic, to anticipate what will come and to prevent worst case scenarios whilst trying to optimise for the best case and there are hopes that AI can aid in this endeavour, but stated in a simple manner: they try to problem solve a highly complex system with branching pathways (society) across time.
 

One of my favourite leaders I studied was known for planning at least 50 years ahead of time. The Chinese, likewise, as questionable as their regime may be, likewise appear to operate on long timescales both internally and geopolitically.

 

A good leader is more practical than ideological, but that does not mean he should be unpatriotic - for a leader is, by definition, there to further the interests of his people through the nation's improvement - and a man cannot devote himself to a country that he does not love, which is why men who love other lands are hard pressed to devote themselves to yours.”

 

Whoever wrote this is pretty unschooled in terms of contemporary geopolitics and trends. 

S/he is stuck in 19th-century thinking. 

Most migrants in the West at least since WW2 have been the "bad" economic migrants they mention. Economic pioneers as they put it don't exist - at least in the sense of German immigrants moving to the Midwest of the USA in the mid-19th century to create hamburgers, or people off the Netflix show Outlander. There aren't as many "wildernesses" out there left to conquer and tame, as there were back then. It has been governments in Europe and North America that have actively encouraged immigration, due to labour shortages amongst other reasons. This pattern has been true of Britain, France, Germany, the USA, Canada, etc. for decades. 

Many economic migrants have and do integrate - they learn the language and follow the general culture of the host country. Whilst there is some ghettoisation, this often comes from states that have poor integration policies. Moreover, people are free to live as they choose, generally, in liberal democracies. So if people wish to live in isolated communities, then that's their right. It's a black-and-white thing to say they are "bad" for doing so. Who can stop them, without violating the rights that are central to such countries' existence and morals? Economic migrants have contributed positively to various countries. This includes national cuisines - why is pizza big in the USA? Because Italians moved to big US cities such as NYC and settled. Curry is big in the UK for the same reason. 

Moreover, people within countries migrate to richer regions. Are they just as "bad"? If an ambitious person from rural Alabama moves to Atlanta, or NYC, or LA, is s/he "bad" since there are more opportunities in said cities? I'm sure such a thing, such as moving from the South to the West or New England, is common. The person admits this is a human thing - so then what's the issue? why deny people greater opportunities in other regions? 

Raising birth rates is possible, but the effects of such will take years or even decades to accomplish. We don't even know why birth rates are falling, and it's a global phenomenon. Blaming "feminism" or it is an easy and ideologically-driven way out. I suggest with this person, it's more of the latter. This person fails to recognise that birth rates and fertility rates are falling in countries that hardly are adherents of feminist values. Iran and Saudi Arabia are prominent examples. A country that legally mandates women to wear hijabs is hardly a bastion of gender equality, is it? 

The same is true of education levels or skills shortages. It takes time to train doctors or other highly-qualified professionals. If there are dire economic conditions, then this time taken for training to be conducted and training to take effect leads to further negative macroeconomic states. 

This "post" is based on a very black-and-white and frankly antiquated rationale. It labels all immigrants as "bad" and lacks critical nuance, and is a view from an ivory tower. I get the suspicion that some American conservative wrote this - they often tend to be anachronistic and hold hard refusals to see real details or the bigger picture. 

I wonder if the person who wrote this piece knows economic migrants. If so, then they might note the nuances involved. I get the feeling that s/he is probably some white, middle-aged, American from the South or Mid-West who lives in a very white community and is outraged from a very conservative/GOP angle. 

 

[bebotalk]

18 hours ago, Nabd said:

Of course I am all in for strict police and strict sentencing of criminals even if they are refugees.

For example the way the court system in Germany is dealing with rapists or murderes is very lenient even in cases where a gang rape a girl. These people who commit such crimes should be sentenced harshly not just the bs of 1 year in prison which end up being 3 months.

Its also a net positive for European countries to take in refugees. Check Germany where you have the highest or 2nd highest number of doctors coming from Syria and they have like 1 million only.

Europe and the US are basically taking the best of the best from these countries without paying alot and with minimal effort and of course some shitty people will be there too but its absolutely a win for them.

A refugee can be anybody. To assume they are necessarily bad people is cringe and irrational. 

People should pressure Scholz or Merkel when she was in office as to why refugees are being treated so leniently in the justice system. 

[gettoefl]

whatever you hate, is unhealed trauma

i hate the winter with venom

was left to the cold plenty when young

need to up my hardiness and my wardrobe

like they say in norway

there isn't bad weather just wrong clothes

Edited December 8, 2023 by gettoefl

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

5 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Whoever wrote this is pretty unschooled in terms of contemporary geopolitics and trends. 

S/he is stuck in 19th-century thinking. 

Most migrants in the West at least since WW2 have been the "bad" economic migrants they mention. Economic pioneers as they put it don't exist - at least in the sense of German immigrants moving to the Midwest of the USA in the mid-19th century to create hamburgers, or people off the Netflix show Outlander. There aren't as many "wildernesses" out there left to conquer and tame, as there were back then. It has been governments in Europe and North America that have actively encouraged immigration, due to labour shortages amongst other reasons. This pattern has been true of Britain, France, Germany, the USA, Canada, etc. for decades. 

Many economic migrants have and do integrate - they learn the language and follow the general culture of the host country. Whilst there is some ghettoisation, this often comes from states that have poor integration policies. Moreover, people are free to live as they choose, generally, in liberal democracies. So if people wish to live in isolated communities, then that's their right. It's a black-and-white thing to say they are "bad" for doing so. Who can stop them, without violating the rights that are central to such countries' existence and morals? Economic migrants have contributed positively to various countries. This includes national cuisines - why is pizza big in the USA? Because Italians moved to big US cities such as NYC and settled. Curry is big in the UK for the same reason. 

Moreover, people within countries migrate to richer regions. Are they just as "bad"? If an ambitious person from rural Alabama moves to Atlanta, or NYC, or LA, is s/he "bad" since there are more opportunities in said cities? I'm sure such a thing, such as moving from the South to the West or New England, is common. The person admits this is a human thing - so then what's the issue? why deny people greater opportunities in other regions? 

Raising birth rates is possible, but the effects of such will take years or even decades to accomplish. We don't even know why birth rates are falling, and it's a global phenomenon. Blaming "feminism" or it is an easy and ideologically-driven way out. I suggest with this person, it's more of the latter. This person fails to recognise that birth rates and fertility rates are falling in countries that hardly are adherents of feminist values. Iran and Saudi Arabia are prominent examples. A country that legally mandates women to wear hijabs is hardly a bastion of gender equality, is it? 

The same is true of education levels or skills shortages. It takes time to train doctors or other highly-qualified professionals. If there are dire economic conditions, then this time taken for training to be conducted and training to take effect leads to further negative macroeconomic states. 

This "post" is based on a very black-and-white and frankly antiquated rationale. It labels all immigrants as "bad" and lacks critical nuance, and is a view from an ivory tower. I get the suspicion that some American conservative wrote this - they often tend to be anachronistic and hold hard refusals to see real details or the bigger picture. 

I wonder if the person who wrote this piece knows economic migrants. If so, then they might note the nuances involved. I get the feeling that s/he is probably some white, middle-aged, American from the South or Mid-West who lives in a very white community and is outraged from a very conservative/GOP angle. 

 

   Why would you assume the person writing this post, or the tweet, is unschooled in terms of contemporary geopolitical trends?

   What do you mean 19-century thinking?

   What do you mean economic pioneers don't exist, across the countries you listed? Is Elon Musk, Jeff Bazos, the Sackler family, are not examples of economic pioneers? What about Bruce Lee, who studied Wing Chun partly in China, migrated to the USA, to then study many different martial arts with some philosophy, then created JKD, which now the USA military and Navy Seals use for hand to hand combat, and the UFC took that MMA concept as a business modal, is this not an example? Labor shortages and other reasons, including the death toll of WW1 and WW2 of such countries that needed to replenish their population?

   People are free to live as they choose, generally, in liberal democracies, which means migrants are free to assault and rape it's nation's citizens with little legal ramification, theft, gang violence, for example Sweden, as they choose?

   Who can stop them, without violating the rights that are central to such countries' existence and morals? The police? Armed citizens protecting their body? Harsher sentencing? The main problem is not whether economic migrants contribute to a society, it's not making the distinctions between economic migrants that really want to integrate to the country/nation's identity and culture, be nationalists, from immigrants with stage red values, that are egotistical and want money and benefits at the cost of other citizen's well being and happiness, form gang cultures and cartels and mafias, at the cost of harming the native citizens of a country, such as Sweden. How can Sweden distinguish economic migrants with stage blue and orange values, with higher cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, and 9 stages of ego development of conformist stage, other lines of development and ideological beliefs, from migrants with stage red/purple values, with lower cognitive and lower moral development, at ego stage impulsive to opportunist, with more negative personality types/traits manifested negatively, and consciousness lower such that they feel little moral qualms with harming others for their gain?

   Birthrates are falling from a number of combinatory issues, from females increasingly getting more hyper individualistic, more goal and careers orientated, from getting indoctrinated to have a male centric worldview, to being trained to demonize and dehumanize males from Feminists. Feminism as an ideology cannot stand in it's own merits, but has to also borrow from civil rights movements and parasite off of those movements and communism. Feminism indoctrinates some of the women to think like that, and to value less femininity, motherhood, family raising and the traditional female gender roles. As a result of neoliberalism and capitalism ideology, women are trending to take careers over being wives and raising children, and due to stage orange PUA culture and sexual liberation movements, they feel less shame, less restraint, and less human decency in exposing more and more of their skin, and feeling they can just short term date many men, which makes them have increase in committment to a long term partner, and being indoctrinated with unrealistic expectations of their male partners due to them being so careers orientated that they cannot settle down. Plus, no fault divorce is contributing to the higher divorce rates, and broken homes of the nuclear family, separating children and making them experience the fallout of a divorce and custody battles between husband and wife, having to visit each one, and giving them a bad impression of family relationship dynamics which effects them later on in their adult life. Egalitarianism and Feminism have contributed to the birthrate decline, just look at South Korea and Japan, westernized and secular countries from America. I also will add that nutritional deficiency from industrialized farming of agriculture, farming of say potatoes, tomatoes, other vegetables that are GMO and have sprayed pesticides because at mass scale companies cannot afford using more organic and natural means to pest control crops and those contaminate the soil removing trace minerals and vitamins for further plant growth, as well as industrial animal farms like raising cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, some horses, even goats and lambs for consumption or for other production of products, they are given many chemical injections, to bad conditions which makes them produce cortisol too much which leads to illnesses and weakened bodies, which then get slaughtered and consumed at mass scale.

   I really don't see why you're misrepresenting, straw manning, and bad faith tactics this person's writing:

'This "post" is based on a very black-and-white and frankly antiquated rationale. It labels all immigrants as "bad" and lacks critical nuance, and is a view from an ivory tower. I get the suspicion that some American conservative wrote this - they often tend to be anachronistic and hold hard refusals to see real details or the bigger picture.'

'I wonder if the person who wrote this piece knows economic migrants. If so, then they might note the nuances involved. I get the feeling that s/he is probably some white, middle-aged, American from the South or Mid-West who lives in a very white community and is outraged from a very conservative/GOP angle.'

   As him/her having a certain self bias and preference, a certain political and religious worldview, some ideological beliefs which makes them have a simplistic notion of immigrants, when said person already established 3 types of immigrants in his post? 

[bebotalk]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@bebotalk

   Why would you assume the person writing this post, or the tweet, is unschooled in terms of contemporary geopolitical trends?

   What do you mean 19-century thinking?

   What do you mean economic pioneers don't exist, across the countries you listed? Is Elon Musk, Jeff Bazos, the Sackler family, are not examples of economic pioneers? What about Bruce Lee, who studied Wing Chun partly in China, migrated to the USA, to then study many different martial arts with some philosophy, then created JKD, which now the USA military and Navy Seals use for hand to hand combat, and the UFC took that MMA concept as a business modal, is this not an example? Labor shortages and other reasons, including the death toll of WW1 and WW2 of such countries that needed to replenish their population?

   People are free to live as they choose, generally, in liberal democracies, which means migrants are free to assault and rape it's nation's citizens with little legal ramification, theft, gang violence, for example Sweden, as they choose?

   Who can stop them, without violating the rights that are central to such countries' existence and morals? The police? Armed citizens protecting their body? Harsher sentencing? The main problem is not whether economic migrants contribute to a society, it's not making the distinctions between economic migrants that really want to integrate to the country/nation's identity and culture, be nationalists, from immigrants with stage red values, that are egotistical and want money and benefits at the cost of other citizen's well being and happiness, form gang cultures and cartels and mafias, at the cost of harming the native citizens of a country, such as Sweden. How can Sweden distinguish economic migrants with stage blue and orange values, with higher cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, and 9 stages of ego development of conformist stage, other lines of development and ideological beliefs, from migrants with stage red/purple values, with lower cognitive and lower moral development, at ego stage impulsive to opportunist, with more negative personality types/traits manifested negatively, and consciousness lower such that they feel little moral qualms with harming others for their gain?

   Birthrates are falling from a number of combinatory issues, from females increasingly getting more hyper individualistic, more goal and careers orientated, from getting indoctrinated to have a male centric worldview, to being trained to demonize and dehumanize males from Feminists. Feminism as an ideology cannot stand in it's own merits, but has to also borrow from civil rights movements and parasite off of those movements and communism. Feminism indoctrinates some of the women to think like that, and to value less femininity, motherhood, family raising and the traditional female gender roles. As a result of neoliberalism and capitalism ideology, women are trending to take careers over being wives and raising children, and due to stage orange PUA culture and sexual liberation movements, they feel less shame, less restraint, and less human decency in exposing more and more of their skin, and feeling they can just short term date many men, which makes them have increase in committment to a long term partner, and being indoctrinated with unrealistic expectations of their male partners due to them being so careers orientated that they cannot settle down. Plus, no fault divorce is contributing to the higher divorce rates, and broken homes of the nuclear family, separating children and making them experience the fallout of a divorce and custody battles between husband and wife, having to visit each one, and giving them a bad impression of family relationship dynamics which effects them later on in their adult life. Egalitarianism and Feminism have contributed to the birthrate decline, just look at South Korea and Japan, westernized and secular countries from America. I also will add that nutritional deficiency from industrialized farming of agriculture, farming of say potatoes, tomatoes, other vegetables that are GMO and have sprayed pesticides because at mass scale companies cannot afford using more organic and natural means to pest control crops and those contaminate the soil removing trace minerals and vitamins for further plant growth, as well as industrial animal farms like raising cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, some horses, even goats and lambs for consumption or for other production of products, they are given many chemical injections, to bad conditions which makes them produce cortisol too much which leads to illnesses and weakened bodies, which then get slaughtered and consumed at mass scale.

   I really don't see why you're misrepresenting, straw manning, and bad faith tactics this person's writing:

'This "post" is based on a very black-and-white and frankly antiquated rationale. It labels all immigrants as "bad" and lacks critical nuance, and is a view from an ivory tower. I get the suspicion that some American conservative wrote this - they often tend to be anachronistic and hold hard refusals to see real details or the bigger picture.'

'I wonder if the person who wrote this piece knows economic migrants. If so, then they might note the nuances involved. I get the feeling that s/he is probably some white, middle-aged, American from the South or Mid-West who lives in a very white community and is outraged from a very conservative/GOP angle.'

   As him/her having a certain self bias and preference, a certain political and religious worldview, some ideological beliefs which makes them have a simplistic notion of immigrants, when said person already established 3 types of immigrants in his post? 

Musk left South Africa for the USA, and whilst South Africa wasn't or isn't overly rich, he would have been born in Apartheid times and thus being white would have been privileged. The USA was pretty well-developed and without much wilderness to settle, at the time Musk's family arrived in the USA. Musk himself said that he came from a lower-middle-class family looking for work as they migrated from SA to the USA. I'd say economic pioneers as the post mentioned don't exist, and their view of migration is very romanticised and inaccurate

When I said the 19th century, I meant it literally. The post mentioned people from richer countries going to poorer countries to "build them up". This doesn't happen, as global economic dynamics have changed. it's not like the 19th century when Europeans from Germany or Eastern Europe migrated to the rural Mid-West or California.  There are no wagon train pioneers anymore. Migration since WW2 has been generally on an economic basis from the "poor South" to the "rich North". The post-writer is therefore out of touch and is anachronistic in their thinking and viewpoints.  After WW2, European countries did invite immigrants from their newly independent former colonies, mainly due to labour shortages. This is a well-documented fact. In more recent decades, Eastern Europeans have moved from there to Western Europe for the same reason.  

There also is no reason to assume that a purely economic migrant, and not a "pioneer" as s/he puts it, inherently gives less of a shit about their new country over a "pioneer". 

Feminism hasn't been enacted in all countries, and falling birth rates are global in form. Countries that are still heavily patriarchal are experiencing them. PUA was a largely Internet-based dating fad/scam that existed about ten years ago. I doubt it had much penetration in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia, where patriarchy is still entrenched culturally and legally. Your points are relevant somewhat in the USA or Europe, but not as much in Asia, Africa, etc. Even in the US, Internet culture is moot. Not everybody is in open relationships or has an onlyfans, or even subscribes to it. It's mainly because content creators congregate around liberal and open spaces in the USA like California or Florida and thus demonstrate this lifestyle. It doesn't mean it's common throughout the country, or the West for that matter. As for feminism cottoning off civil rights, well Dr. King cottoned off Gandhi and other anti-colonialists. I don't see the issue there. Birth rates are falling in India, yet in many parts of India, it's not ethical to show off skin or for women to wear revealing clothing. Even in the USA, this differs. There are naked parades in Seattle. This wouldn't be allowed in the south. It wouldn't be right in the UK, France, or other European countries. Birth rates are falling in countries where men have to publicly chaperone women. Or where women are not allowed to do specific professions. Or where women are forced to be legally lesser than men due to Islamic or other religious laws. Do you really think that in Iran or Sudan, women can freely walk around in revealing mid-riff tops in warm weather like they do in Germany, the UK, or Canada? Iran and Sudan still have falling fertility/birth rates. Of the 200 or so sovereign countries on Earth right now, I'd argue maybe just over half have full and legal gender equality. But the vast majority, nay all, countries in existence are experiencing falling fertility rates. 

Your points are based on conservative ideology, and you're using strawmen. Rape is illegal in many countries, nay all countries. it's the fault of governments if they don't implement their own laws properly, or allow migrants to flagrantly violate them. Migrants aren't inherent sociopaths, nor is it intrinsic to migrants to think "Yes, I must sexually assault women as soon as I set foot in my desired country!!" The fact some countries don't manage immigration properly doesn't make migrants invalid. The person in his/her post mentioned ghettos or isolated communities. Yes, this is problematic, but then what is his/her solution? If groups of people wish to congregate, this isn't a problem in any other area or for any other people. If a group of migrants congregate in a part of a city but aren't committing crime, then yes it may look bad, but then that is their right. Curbing their right to do this is problematic. It's up to Sweden to sort out these problems, and tbh I'm not Swedish so I don't care. But if it were my country, I'd make it a point to call out the government for this seeming oversight in punishing those who commit serious crimes. And I also won't condemn ALL migrants, nor essentialise a group based on what some migrants do. 

I say yes, the post is based largely on cliches, misconceptions, anachronisms, and biased ideological groundings. The issue of migration in the West is nuanced. Yes, there are problems associated with it, in specific countries. But there are also success stories, and it's generally racists or bigots who decry ALL immigration or think migrants generally don't integrate to any extent. That's why I asked if this person actually knows any migrants. I'm not accusing them of being racist or bigoted - I do not know them. But by using fallacies and anachronisms, they are not viewing the issue with the complexity that it deserves and warrants. And bias, whether personal or ideological. should also be accounted for in this case, or any case. It skews perception and understanding, and often away from the general picture or factual picture. 

To use streamers/content creators as an example, as Leo is such, many of the top content creators in the world are migrants or are the children of such. Pewdiepie, KSI, xQC, Hasan, etc. all are such. From what they've said of their families, they all integrated relatively well. That's the norm, generally, for migrants in Western countries. Pewpiedie for one is a double migrant, as it were, as he's Swedish by birth but moved to the UK and now lives in Japan. Pokimane is another example, as is Destiny as his mother is Cuban. Some of my family are migrants, and have had little issues in adapting and integrating. It's more amusing than annoying to see analyses as presented from that X post, since it shows their limited perspective and often ideological underpinnings of their viewpoints. In my experience, which is admittedly limited, most migrants do integrate and aren't problematic. The X post really was dim, and to reiterate cliched, full of misconceptions and biased, and harking back to romanticised and anachronistic times that don't and cannot apply to modern realities. 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by bebotalk

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

7 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

Musk left South Africa for the USA, and whilst South Africa wasn't or isn't overly rich, he would have been born in Apartheid times and thus being white would have been privileged. The USA was pretty well-developed and without much wildernesses, in the time Musk's family arrived in the USA. He himself said that he came from a lower-middle class family looking for work as they migrated from SA to the USA. I'd say economic pioneers as the post mentioned don't exist, and their view of migration is very romanticised and inaccurate. I disagree with you strongly about feminism's effect on birth rates. Feminism hasn't been enacted in all countries, and falling birth rates are global in form. Countries that are still heavily patriarchal are still experiencing them. PUA was a largely Internet-based dating fad/scam about ten years ago. I doubt it had much penetration in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia, where patriarchy is still entrenched culturally and legally. Your points are relevant somewhat in the USA or Europe, but not in much of Asia, Africa, etc. Even in the US, Internet culture is moot. Not everybody is in open relationships or has an onlyfans, or even subscribes to it. It's mainly because content creators congregate around liberal and open spaces in the USA like California or Florida and thus demonstrate this lifestyle. It doesn't mean it's common. As for feminism cottoning off civil rights, well so did Dr. King cotton off Gandhi and other anti-colonialists. I don't see the issue there. Birth rates are falling in India, yet in many parts of India, it's not ethical to show off skin or for women to wear revealing clothing. Even in the USA, this differs. There are naked parades in Seattle. This woul;dn't be allowed in the south. It wou;ldn't be right in the UK or France or other European countries. 

Your points are based on conservative ideology, and you're using strawmen. Rape is illegal. it's the fault of governments if they don't implement their own laws, or allow migrants to flagrantly violate them. Migrants aren't inherent sociopaths, nor is it intrinsic to migrants to think "Yes, I must sexually assault women as soon as I set foot in my desired country!!" The fact some countries don't manage immigration properly doesn't make migrants valid. The person with his/her post mentioned ghettos or isolated communities. Yes, this is problematic, but then what is his/her solution? If groups of people wish to congregate, this isn't a problem in any other area or for any other people. If a group of migrants congregate in a part of a city but aren't committing crime, then yes it may look bad, but then that is their right. Curbing their right to do this is problematic. It's up to Sweden to sort out these problems, and tbh I'm not Swedish so I don't care. But if it were my country, I'd make it a point to call out the government for this seeming oversight in punishing those who commit serious crimes. And I also won't condemn ALL migrants or essentialise a group based on what some migrants do. 

I say yes, the post is based largely on cliches, misconceptions, anachronisms, and biased ideological groundings. The issue of migration in the West is nuanced. Yes, there are problems associated with it, in specific countries. But there are also success stories, and it's generally racists or bigots who decry ALL immigration or think migrants generally don't integrate to any extent. That's why I asked if this person actually knows any migrants. I'm not accusing them of being racist or bigoted - I do not know them. But by using fallacies and anachronisms, they are not viewing the issue with the complexity that it deserves and warrants. And bias, whether personal or ideological. should also be accounted for in this case. It skews perception and understanding, and often away from the general picture or factual picture. 

To use streamers/content creators as an example, as Leo is such, many of the top content creators in the world are migrants or are the children of such. Pewdiepie, KSI, xQC, Hasan, etc. all are such. From what they've said of their families, they all integrated relatively well. That's the norm, generally, for migrants in Western countries. Pewpiedie for one is a double migrant, as it were, as he's Swedish by birth but moved to the UK and now lives in Japan. Pokimane is another example, as is Destiny as his mother is Cuban. Some of my family are migrants, and have had little issues in adapting and integrating. It's more amusing than annoying to see analyses as presented from that X post, since it shows their limited perspective and often ideological underpinnings of their viewpoints. 

 

 

    Okay then, we'll agree to disagree and leave this post as that. Have a nice day.

[bebotalk]

I can't agree with fallacies, by definition. Japan isn't Western. It has a whole heap of societal issues that aren't caused by America. Japan still has many of its traditional traits from even before the Meiji Restoration, so culturally it isn't Western. If you believe that any democracy is Western, then India is Western also, as are Ghana and Singapore. 

 

[Schizophonia]

Beating of an ethnic French woman by North Africans today.

There isn't a week (day ?) without this kind of news item.
And again, there is no death from stabbing.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Sucuk Ekmek]

37 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Beating of an ethnic French woman by North Africans today.

There isn't a week (day ?) without this kind of news item.
And again, there is no death from stabbing.

This is a beating of an ethnic French woman by French government. These people didn't come out of blue, they are welcomed by corporations. One day what's happening in Israel might happen in any EU country, we are not so far away from citizens vs migrants scenario. Which is great thing from big corporations perspective because both citizen(nation state) and migrant(nation state) concepts are problematic, and it's a good time to come with new concepts like you'll own nothing and you'll be happy, which is a notion of a non-nation state. Whole idea of nation state is the preserving of  goods and chattels.