View Full Version : French Presidential Election
a completely inoffensive name
12-22-2016, 07:59
The Socialist party has lost it's incumbent president and has no chosen nominee yet.
The Republicans have chosen Filion.
Now please tell me how Le Pen has absolutely no chance. Is right wing populism just a 2016 fad?
That is because Media play the same than in US and UK. Ignoring other candidates in order to create the fear factor, then it will be the usual blackmail Le Pen or else.
So, the else, whoever, will be elected.
But there is one outsider who can change the rules...
The rejection by the French of the oligarchy (thanks to the Sarkolland's policies) is so intense that Le Pen might be elected (for the same reason Trump was elected, Corbyn and brexit), but then she will have to get a majority in the Assembly. And this is another story.
Greyblades
12-22-2016, 22:38
The establishment just needs to keep doing what it is doing: deny and downplay a few more terrorist attacks, rape gangs, crime increases and le pen will be in.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-23-2016, 05:01
The establishment just needs to keep doing what it is doing: deny and downplay a few more terrorist attacks, rape gangs, crime increases and le pen will be in.
A fair point. While conservative and nativist elements tend to overplay these episodes, progressives and tranzies tend to downplay them too far. With Trump and Brexit, there was enough backlash to shift things.
However, Brenus makes a telling point regarding the legislature. Trump may not like the establishment GOP all that much, nor they he, but both will work together more readily than would a Trump executive with a partially or wholly Dem legislature.
edyzmedieval
12-23-2016, 05:07
Valls is the Socialist key. He's by far the most high profile member of the Socialist Party, and he stands a reasonable chance in the election.
"Valls is the Socialist key. He's by far the most high profile member of the Socialist Party, and he stands a reasonable chance in the election." Not a chance. He is the man who used the 49.3 too many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_49_of_the_French_Constitution
He is part of the Government that gave money to rich, voted oppressive laws against workers, put unionists in jail whereas Lagarde can go free after conviction. No leftists will vote for him, and righists have their own in Fillon: 600 000 more unemployed from 2012, 1 french on 7 under the poverty level, 800 000 families on the minimum benefits scheme (RSA).
The only way for Fillon and Valls to convince the French to vote for them is the fear factor (Le Pen). I don't think it will work. Not any more. Game over.
edyzmedieval
01-02-2017, 07:58
The Socialists do not have Hollande - he declined to participate, so that's that. They need other members of the Parliament/government/party to step up to the plate and stand a reasonable chance because as things go, it's a race between Fillon and Le Pen right now.
"it's a race between Fillon and Le Pen right now." That is what the media try to convince voters in order to have Fillon elected.
Problem for Fillon is he was Sarkozy's Prime Minister for 4 years and has a very reactionary political platform, even if he is trying to backtrack a bit now...
The surprise might be from the "ignored by media" stream.
edyzmedieval
01-03-2017, 12:53
Fillon's political platform is more reactionary than the traditional Republican platform, indeed, but it shows that it connects with the Republican electorate because of his surprising victory over both Sarkozy and Juppe.
The next step is the primaries, we will see there who will come out on top.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-03-2017, 13:56
"it's a race between Fillon and Le Pen right now." That is what the media try to convince voters in order to have Fillon elected.
Problem for Fillon is he was Sarkozy's Prime Minister for 4 years and has a very reactionary political platform, even if he is trying to backtrack a bit now...
The surprise might be from the "ignored by media" stream.
Is there a mechanism whereby a Candidate can win in the first round if they get a high enough percentage
of the vote? I assume not, as that's the mechanism designed to prevent Le Pen being elected.
From the perspective of an Anglo the last president was bizarre, most especially in the way he treated the women in his life but also in the way he dealt with Foreign Relations.
I suspect the Fillion will win, in the current climate a many people will vote Right instead of Left because the Left will refuse to address outsiders as a potential problem despite the damage they inevitably do to social cohesion by their very nature (outsiders are always disruptive).
I don't think Trump and Brexit are simply an "angry backlash", I think they are also genuine expressions of opposition to the general political "direction of travel" in the West.
A lot of people ask why the Welsh voted to leave the EU, completely missing the fact that it was EU regulations against government interference in "competition" that prevented the UK Government from nationalising the Port Talbot Steelworks, and everything else owned by Tata Steel. That's a concrete reason to leave the EU if you're Welsh.
outsiders as a potential problem despite the damage they inevitably do to social cohesion by their very nature (outsiders are always disruptive)
Indeed, it's a common problem all around the world:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2804904/One-three-UK-tourists-causes-offence-holiday.html
Especially poor people are terrible humans:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2375095/Majorca-says-adios-binge-drinking-British-tourists-turns-attention-better-behaved-richer-crowd.html
And they terrify the locals due to their terrible culture:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1725699/flood-of-british-visitors-to-majorca-sparks-angry-backlash-from-locals/
Something has to be wrong with the "direction of travel" here indeed. :sweatdrop:
Who invented the terrible idea of travel? Do we really need need bananas, cocoa, cacao, coffee, tea? All this terrible globalism, people should forever stay in the village they were born in. British people would never support the idea to send people all around the world in ships to conquer tea plantations and diamond mines. :dizzy2:
I hope that Fillon wins, too, though. I mean, anyone but LePen is okay with me, French politics are weird anyway. Now we have a socialist imposing a seemingly indefinite state of emergency.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-03-2017, 16:22
Indeed, it's a common problem all around the world:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2804904/One-three-UK-tourists-causes-offence-holiday.html
Especially poor people are terrible humans:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2375095/Majorca-says-adios-binge-drinking-British-tourists-turns-attention-better-behaved-richer-crowd.html
And they terrify the locals due to their terrible culture:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1725699/flood-of-british-visitors-to-majorca-sparks-angry-backlash-from-locals/
Something has to be wrong with the "direction of travel" here indeed. :sweatdrop:
Who invented the terrible idea of travel? Do we really need need bananas, cocoa, cacao, coffee, tea? All this terrible globalism, people should forever stay in the village they were born in. British people would never support the idea to send people all around the world in ships to conquer tea plantations and diamond mines. :dizzy2:
I hope that Fillon wins, too, though. I mean, anyone but LePen is okay with me, French politics are weird anyway. Now we have a socialist imposing a seemingly indefinite state of emergency.
Uh huh.
Sure.
There's nothing wrong with foreigners - but mass movements of people on both a local and an international scale invariable cause disruptions and make things worse for the locals. This is as true for the Upper Middle Class "White Flight" into Devon as it is for the immigrants coming from overseas into the large cities like London.
If all your major politicians tell you that the disruptions, cultural upheavel, loss of housing etc. are good for you or that they can't do anything to help - they're going to vote for someone else.
Witness the rise of the Far Right in Germany after a string of terrorists Attacks perpetrated by Asylum Seekers, where the German Government continues to pursue a policy not only of allowing all Asylum Seekers (regardless of point of entry) but also defends the Schenhan Agreement which allowed one terrorist to cross into the country from Italy over an open border and then back again.
When people get attacking my axes, blown up with bombs and run over by lorries they understandably get scared. If you don't acknowledge that the fear is a rational response and address the cause they will conclude you are not rational and turn to someone else.
We've been hearing it for years here, a refrain something like, "They say the foreigners don't take our jobs but they work for less and undercut us, we can't compete."
Response: "You're a racist/lazy/too greedy."
Uh huh.
Sure.
There's nothing wrong with foreigners - but mass movements of people on both a local and an international scale invariable cause disruptions and make things worse for the locals. This is as true for the Upper Middle Class "White Flight" into Devon as it is for the immigrants coming from overseas into the large cities like London.
If all your major politicians tell you that the disruptions, cultural upheavel, loss of housing etc. are good for you or that they can't do anything to help - they're going to vote for someone else.
They're not saying that. In case you missed it, France is in a state of emergency since the last attacks, laws have been expanded to allow warrantless searches of homes and so on. To say politicians claim they can't do anything is either a lie or ignorance.
Witness the rise of the Far Right in Germany after a string of terrorists Attacks perpetrated by Asylum Seekers, where the German Government continues to pursue a policy not only of allowing all Asylum Seekers (regardless of point of entry) but also defends the Schenhan Agreement which allowed one terrorist to cross into the country from Italy over an open border and then back again.
Why is it important whether he kills people and/or gets caught in Italy or in Germany? Are Germans inherently more deserving of protection than Italians? Master race?
You also forgot to mention that he also crossed from Northern Africa to Italy despite being a known criminal and even though that border is technically closed.
When people get attacking my axes, blown up with bombs and run over by lorries they understandably get scared. If you don't acknowledge that the fear is a rational response and address the cause they will conclude you are not rational and turn to someone else.
It would be more understandable if they were just as scared about getting eaten from inside and demanded similar efforts from the government to stop that from happening. Instead they only seem to get scared by whatever the news and blogs choose as headlines. From an intelligent thinker I demand to see a little more than the carrot dangling in front of his or her eyes.
Can you explain rationally to me why a guy with an axe should scare me more than MRSA or why the truck killing 12 people is scarier than the estimated 3300 traffic deaths in 2016? Is it somehow less scary that you would drive to the bakery and suddenly someone ignoring a redlight T-bones into you and you slowly bleed out with half the bones in your body broken? I've been almost run over by a car a few times and got actually hit and injured by a truck once, but I've never seen someone point a gun at me or murder someone. So if I don't shit my pants every time I cross a street, why should I shit my pants because of terrorism?
Don't say this is relativism because I'm not saying terrorism is okay, I'm asking why it should scare me as much as you think it should.
We've been hearing it for years here, a refrain something like, "They say the foreigners don't take our jobs but they work for less and undercut us, we can't compete."
Response: "You're a racist/lazy/too greedy."
Wasn't the foreigners who thought capitalism is the system we need and competition is better for all of us. So why is the foreigner less deserving of a job than the local? Master race? Tribalism? Where were you when Intel and NVidia outcompeted AMD? Did you shed some tears and complain that AMD employees did not deserve to be laid off just because Intel bribed retailers to not offer their products? Did you ever complain about colonialism because the Zulus could not compete with the British due to spears vs guns?
And why can a British person not compete with an immigrant? Does an immigrant not need shelter and food and possibly entertainment etc.?
And don't immigrants pay the same taxes etc. that the locals pay?
There is literally no reason why a local could not compete with an immigrant, the locals even have the language bonus, the local bonus, they know the laws better, they can organize better and so on. So how can you say they cannot compete? Is it due to the inferior culture of not wanting to share a room with two other people? And then whine that the younger generations are too entitled, lol....
Even funnier if you consider that Trump and the AfD advocate the same kind of trickle down economics that caused a lot of the problems in the first place...
It would be more understandable if they were just as scared about getting eaten from inside and demanded similar efforts from the government to stop that from happening. Instead they only seem to get scared by whatever the news and blogs choose as headlines. From an intelligent thinker I demand to see a little more than the carrot dangling in front of his or her eyes.
This is beside the point. Note that people campaigning for awareness surrounding car accidents or pathogenic bacteria are not normally labeled autophobes or bacteriophobes.
If someone is suspected to have been infected with MRSA, they will likely be put in isolation (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/MRSA/Pages/Prevention.aspx); whereas if immigrants from some countries are much more likely than others to turn into terrorists, this does not appear to have any impact on immigration policy at all. How does the 'intelligent thinker' justify this?
"Is there a mechanism whereby a Candidate can win in the first round if they get a high enough percentage
of the vote? I assume not, as that's the mechanism designed to prevent Le Pen being elected." No. You have to get 50% + 1 voice at the first round if you want to be elected, then relative majority at the second.
The trick is you can stay on the race if you get 12,5 % of the vote.
For the moment, as polls goes, 4 candidates can qualify: Le Pen, Fillon, Mélenchon and Macron.
I don't believe in them as Macron is the candidate of the establishment and of the news agencies.
However, I believe that Le Pen, Fillon and Mélenchon are in position to be in the second tour.
Le Pen is fighting her own niece ( The Front National is a federation of parties, from Royalistes, extreme catholics to Nazi and Pagans with all the crescendo of the extreme right to right extrem).
Fillon is losing grounds. He is the candidate of a extreme reactionary right and his programme starts to be known for what it is, a big leap backwards. Even his side starts to realize he has to change his speeches. Unfortunately for him, a video of his financial platform has been published on youtube and largely shared...
Le Pen can count on the abstention of the left and the anti-establishment feeling largely spread in the french society, and an absence of questioning of her program, if she has one except "death to foreigners"by the media that use her in order to boost their candidate.
The third one, Mélenchon, might be the out-sider claiming back the leftist vote. His challenge is to convince them to go to vote.
The Pseudo-Socialist Party, whoever they will choose, has not a chance.
This is beside the point. Note that people campaigning for awareness surrounding car accidents or pathogenic bacteria are not normally labeled autophobes or bacteriophobes.
If someone is suspected to have been infected with MRSA, they will likely be put in isolation (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/MRSA/Pages/Prevention.aspx); whereas if immigrants from some countries are much more likely than others to turn into terrorists, this does not appear to have any impact on immigration policy at all. How does the 'intelligent thinker' justify this?
That's a terrible comparison because it does not work. If someone performs a terrorist attack, they are also put in isolation, it's called prison. :dizzy2:
Your impact-on-immigration-policy-example is just as terrible, or do you put all older people and infants into medical isolation because they have a higher likelihood to get infected?
Besides, it is not besides the point because I have not seen autophobes and bacteriophobes found new parties that advocate putting old people in isolation because they cause more car accidents and spread so many germs and then actually get a large share of votes. Even though statistically their issues would seem to warrant such a response far more in terms of dead people and direct cost on society etc.
That's a terrible comparison because it does not work. If someone performs a terrorist attack, they are also put in isolation, it's called prison. :dizzy2:
Relevant diseased individuals are isolated because of their potential to infect others in general, not because they already have infected people. Similarly, certain demographics can be 'isolated' to avoid the spreading and/or induction of terrorism.
Besides, it is not besides the point because I have not seen autophobes and bacteriophobes found new parties that advocate putting old people in isolation because they cause more car accidents and spread so many germs and then actually get a large share of votes. Even though statistically their issues would seem to warrant such a response far more in terms of dead people and direct cost on society etc.
If elderly people were mowing down many people every now and then because of poor driving skills, and the major political parties suggested that scepticism against driving elderly people was driven by gerontophobia, you might get the rise of political parties that suggested restrictions on the driving of elderly people.
Of course, it's not just the terrorism that's a potential issue with mass-immigration; but local breakdown of law and order as well. A good case study is the Swedish city of Malmö (http://www.thelocal.se/search/?q=malm%C3%B6) (click the link to see more news items), a city with ~ 340,000 inhabitants:
Malmö has experienced thirty explosions this year [2015], so worried local police have asked for assistance from the national police for help in staunching the wave of violence.
Just this week, there have been three hand grenade incidents.
http://www.thelocal.se/20150725/malm-police-ask-for-help-to-stop-violence
The suspected murder would be the eleventh murder in Malmö in 2016, and it is the second murder investigation to be started in the city in a period of two days.
http://www.thelocal.se/20161115/man-in-his-30s-dies-in-malm-shooting [15 November 2016]
(related: Masked men on mopeds shoot four in Malmö (http://www.thelocal.se/20160925/four-injured-in-shooting-in-malm) [September 2016], Man injured in shooting at Malmö shopping mall (http://www.thelocal.se/20160726/man-injured-in-shooting-at-rosengrd-shopping-mall) [July 2016], One dead after Malmö drive-by shooting (http://www.thelocal.se/20160926/malm-gunfire-missed-child-by-centimetres) [September 2016])
A secondary school in Malmö has been closed after the teachers' union declared that it is too dangerous a place for students and teachers to attend due to widespread violence and criminality.
Violence, threats and visits from adult criminals eventually became too much for the teachers' unions at Varner Rydén School in the Malmö suburb of Rosengård, whose safety officers have now closed the premises.
http://www.thelocal.se/20150301/malm-school-too-dangerous-for-students [2015]
The wave of summer car burnings in Malmö has continued, with nine more set alight between Thursday night and Friday morning. And police have still been unable to catch any perpetrators, despite calling in extra resources.
[...]
Over 70 car fires have occurred in Malmö since July 1st this year [2016], and police have been left scratching their heads as to why the trend has occurred.
http://www.thelocal.se/20160812/malms-wave-of-car-burnings-continues
Suspected gangland shootings have marked the start of the weekend in the Swedish cities of Malmö and Gothenburg, with victims left seriously wounded in both cities.
At around 7pm on Friday evening a 20-year-old man was shot in Biskopsgården, a district of Gothenburg long plagued by gang violence. Then at 2am on Saturday morning, a man in his mid-to-late 30s was shot inside a club in Norra Grängesbergsgatan, a Malmö street known for its illegal nightclubs.
http://www.thelocal.se/20161126/gangland-shooting-kick-off-weekend-in-malm-and-gothenburg [26 November 2016]
Something more seems at stake here than mere terrorism or car accidents. And in France, the subject of this topic, similar things are going on.
Montmorency
01-03-2017, 23:07
But isn't the problem, Viking, that the groups in question are already isolated? This is distinct from isolating groups for the application or construction of policy (though in fact the former carries on from the latter a fair extent in recent history).
Relevant diseased individuals are isolated because of their potential to infect others in general, not because they already have infected people. Similarly, certain demographics can be 'isolated' to avoid the spreading and/or induction of terrorism.
There is an incredibly large gap between infected individuals and potentially dangerous demographics.
That argument is completely useless. You could lock all poor people up with that argument.
If elderly people were mowing down many people every now and then because of poor driving skills, and the major political parties suggested that scepticism against driving elderly people was driven by gerontophobia, you might get the rise of political parties that suggested restrictions on the driving of elderly people.
We had 3300 traffic deaths and maybe 20 due to islamic terrorism in 2016. Now I don't have any statistics on who caused all the traffic deaths and why, but surely old people would account for 20 or more of them?
The rest of your argument seems pretty irrelevant to the argument.
Of course, it's not just the terrorism that's a potential issue with mass-immigration; but local breakdown of law and order as well. A good case study is the Swedish city of Malmö (http://www.thelocal.se/search/?q=malm%C3%B6) (click the link to see more news items), a city with ~ 340,000 inhabitants:
I get that you can't just put 340000 immigrants into a city of 340000 people and expect it to work out just fine, that is actually besides the point now. Just as it is useless to take one city as anecdotal evidence and then make some vague claim about how problematic mass immigration is.
Montmorency
01-03-2017, 23:29
Husar, the statistical argument has more limitations than you recognize. If this is still a period of low-risk from terrorism, then speaking apart from the wider political issues associated with terrorist actors we should take this as good time to work out appropriate, scaleable laws, practices and responses so that we don't end up extrapolating the French "panic and flail" response to public emergencies. In the West, Germany is still in the best position of all to take a lead here. If strong reactions against Arab immigrants are the wrong approach, then it is because there are better approaches, not because the threat of terrorism or terrorists is actually meaningless.
Husar, the statistical argument has more limitations than you recognize. If this is still a period of low-risk from terrorism, then speaking apart from the wider political issues associated with terrorist actors we should take this as good time to work out appropriate, scaleable laws, practices and responses so that we don't end up extrapolating the French "panic and flail" response to public emergencies. In the West, Germany is still in the best position of all to take a lead here. If strong reactions against Arab immigrants are the wrong approach, then it is because there are better approaches, not because the threat of terrorism or terrorists is actually meaningless.
I did not say it is meaningless, I said it is not something to panic about at the moment to the extent a lot of people are doing.
Of course something should be done, but the knee-jerk reaction of directly or indirectly killing people and/or mass-punishments of everyone with non-white skins are complete overreactions. Obviously someone will say I misrepresent their proposed methods now, but since I only see vague proposals ('isolated'), I feel free to speculate here.
As for "but you don't offer anything", well, yeah, because I'm too busy talking down people who propose broad brush attempts of what sounds like ethnic monocultures. I'm thinking along the lines of giving more resources to the police, handling people differently upon entering the country and, terrible idea, maybe spreading them out more across EU countries so they're not as concentrated as they are in certain Swedish cities. And perhaps also thinking about how we can dissolve the reasons people have to come here in the first place.
Gilrandir
01-04-2017, 09:39
I've been almost run over by a car a few times and got actually hit and injured by a truck once, but I've never seen someone point a gun at me or murder someone. So if I don't shit my pants every time I cross a street, why should I shit my pants because of terrorism?
Since statistically the older you are the more likely you are to die, you should shit your pants every morning realizing you are a day older.
Since statistically the older you are the more likely you are to die, you should shit your pants every morning realizing you are a day older.
Exactly. Do you know how many people die in household accidents because a ladder does not alarm them as much as a bearded brown person?
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-home-front/2009/08/31/the-top-5-causes-of-accidental-home-injury-deathsand-how-to-prevent-them
But isn't the problem, Viking, that the groups in question are already isolated? This is distinct from isolating groups for the application or construction of policy (though in fact the former carries on from the latter a fair extent in recent history).
Not sure what you are saying here (which groups isolated how?).
There is an incredibly large gap between infected individuals and potentially dangerous demographics.
That argument is completely useless. You could lock all poor people up with that argument.
You could, but most would consider that unethical and overkill. It's different from telling people that they should rather stay in their home country or migrate to countries that are more culturally similar.
We had 3300 traffic deaths and maybe 20 due to islamic terrorism in 2016. Now I don't have any statistics on who caused all the traffic deaths and why, but surely old people would account for 20 or more of them?
Presumably, but there are at least a couple of things to consider:
how many of the dead were elderly people (and should therefore be subtracted from the total), and how many non-elderly people were killed by elderly people as an overrepresentation (relative to the rest of the driving population; the actual number we are looking for)?
how easy is it reduce the number of deaths and injuries resulting from traffic relative to those resulting from terrorist attacks? Presumably, the government is already spending a great deal on road safety, the police and counter-terrorism.
I get that you can't just put 340000 immigrants into a city of 340000 people and expect it to work out just fine, that is actually besides the point now. Just as it is useless to take one city as anecdotal evidence and then make some vague claim about how problematic mass immigration is.
It's not an anecdote, similar things are happening/have happened in many cities in Western Europe and form part of a larger statistic. For example, the Köln assaults last year match the general pattern of antisocial behaviour. Malmö is just one place where this phenomenon has turned particularly extreme, and could represent the future of other vulnerable cities if immigration pressure and government policies persist.
You could, but most would consider that unethical and overkill. It's different from telling people that they should rather stay in their home country or migrate to countries that are more culturally similar.
That's like a red herring scarecrow or whatever because plenty of them already go to similar countries but these countries don't always want or can't always take all of them and they also don't always offer them the same chances of a better life. Telling people their lives are over and will be spent in a military-controlled tent-city for decades or for ever from now on is not as unethical as locking a group of people up? Aren't people basically imprisoned in quite a few of those refugee camps?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-chios-hilton-inside-the-refugee-camp-that-makes-prison-look-like-a-five-star-hotel-a6996161.html
Oh look, we can even do it here. One of the comments is very ethical:
Wonderful! Then GO HOME! Swim. Walk. Die.
No one cares. But spread the word. Europe is a prison.
Excellent.
It's funny how we want to protect our Christian heartland full of good people who'd rather watch outsiders die in droves than let them into their lovely christian paradise of brotherly love. :rolleyes:
Presumably, but there are at least a couple of things to consider:
how many of the dead were elderly people (and should therefore be subtracted from the total), and how many non-elderly people were killed by elderly people as an overrepresentation (relative to the rest of the driving population; the actual number we are looking for)?
how easy is it reduce the number of deaths and injuries resulting from traffic relative to those resulting from terrorist attacks? Presumably, the government is already spending a great deal on road safety, the police and counter-terrorism.
:laugh4:
You really want to continue that angle?
Well, no, the police is understaffed and overworked, driving deaths could be reduced by barring people from driving, preferably all people because none of us are perfect and computers could probably do it much better. So far the accidents per kilometer driven for self-driving cars are already lower than for humans, IIRC only half the number of accidents per kilometer driven. Do you think the government should ban manual driving once the technology has arrived in the mainstream?
It's not an anecdote, similar things are happening/have happened in many cities in Western Europe and form part of a larger statistic. For example, the Köln assaults last year match the general pattern of antisocial behaviour. Malmö is just one place where this phenomenon has turned particularly extreme, and could represent the future of other vulnerable cities if immigration pressure and government policies persist.
The problem is that not everywhere in Western Europe can you prove that foreigners are statistically more antisocial than the natives. In addition you get excuses for the locals who are "just reacting to the evil foreigners", yet the fact that foreigners may be angry and antisocial because they just react to the racism and discrimination of the locals is never considered, they have to shut up and take it. There may be good behavior as a guest, but being a good host is just as important. Your "general pattern of antisocial behavior" is based on superficial newspaper headlines and since you were so statistically adept about accident statistics, have you factored the social status, environmental factors, type of criminality and so on into your "pattern" or are newspaper headlines and skin colour the only metrics you used?
You know, I'd consider tax evasion and bullying antisocial behavior as well, how many natives do you think engage in that or does that not count and why?
http://investorplace.com/investorpolitics/10-worst-countries-for-tax-evasion/#.WGz3Cy-GNGE
http://www.workplacebullying.org/wbiresearch/wbi-2014-us-survey/
http://freakonomics.com/2013/07/19/the-data-on-bar-fights/
http://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics
Are those the noble Christian social values we defend?
Is that the social peace they are disturbing so violently?
Gilrandir
01-04-2017, 15:15
Exactly. Do you know how many people die in household accidents because a ladder does not alarm them as much as a bearded brown person?
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-home-front/2009/08/31/the-top-5-causes-of-accidental-home-injury-deathsand-how-to-prevent-them
The fact that people are afraid of the immigrants more than of other, more lethal ~;), things is quite explicable: those car accidents and vicious ladders are the things from their every day environment they had got used to. Immigrants are a new thing that has intruded/has been imposed upon them. Hence a closer attention paid to anything they do and more painful awareness of their actions.
This being said, I don't support the idea of indiscriminate acceptance of migrants, for they are migrants and not refugees.
The fact that people are afraid of the immigrants more than of other, more lethal ~;), things is quite explicable: those car accidents and vicious ladders are the things from their every day environment they had got used to. Immigrants are a new thing that has intruded/has been imposed upon them. Hence a closer attention paid to anything they do and more painful awareness of their actions.
That is very true and it affects me, too. That does however not make it rational or mean one should have a terrible knee-jerk reaction based on it.
This being said, I don't support the idea of indiscriminate acceptance of migrants, for they are migrants and not refugees.
Are we talking about anyone specific or just making sure everyone understands that migrants are not refugees? I currently don't support the indiscriminate acceptance of migrants either.
These ones for example should not be let in just like that: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38486584
but these countries don't always want or can't always take all of them
We could spend money we would otherwise have to spend on integration and anti-terrorism to sweeten the deal for such countries.
and they also don't always offer them the same chances of a better life.
Are they entitled to our quality of life right now just because we have happen to have it?
Telling people their lives are over and will be spent in a military-controlled tent-city for decades or for ever from now on is not as unethical as locking a group of people up? Aren't people basically imprisoned in quite a few of those refugee camps?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-chios-hilton-inside-the-refugee-camp-that-makes-prison-look-like-a-five-star-hotel-a6996161.html
Doesn't seem like any worse conditions than what I would guess millions of very poor people the world over have lived in for all their lives; to put things in perspective. Are the people in that camp more worthy of Western help because they used to have a wealthier lifestyle once? Or should we empty the slums and move all their inhabitants to the West along with the migrating Syrians?
Note that the camp in question is in Europe. A more compelling argument, here, would be concerning camps in other Muslim countries, although that takes us back to my first point in this post: putting pressure on other Muslim countries to take them in, and help them with it where it seems useful and possible.
Well, no, the police is understaffed and overworked
Yet you might have to spend great sums only to see small reductions in deaths and injuries. It's comparing the return on investment from the different alternatives that is relevant here.
The problem is that not everywhere in Western Europe can you prove that foreigners are statistically more antisocial than the natives.
That's not the point, but that law and order is unravelling different places (cities and neighbourhoods) in Europe because of mass-immigration, while mass-immigration continues. Whatever the percentages are for natives and immigrants when it comes to antisocial behaviour, that doesn't particularly matter unless you can use it to both actually restore law and order in these places and prevent lawlessness from spreading (and without gutting other parts of the state budget, which could of course lead us to more traffic deaths, increased MRSA incidence, less aid to poor countries etc..).
You know, I'd consider tax evasion and bullying antisocial behavior as well, how many natives do you think engage in that or does that not count and why?
http://investorplace.com/investorpolitics/10-worst-countries-for-tax-evasion/#.WGz3Cy-GNGE
http://www.workplacebullying.org/wbiresearch/wbi-2014-us-survey/
http://freakonomics.com/2013/07/19/the-data-on-bar-fights/
http://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics
What are you trying to say?
It's funny how we want to protect our Christian heartland full of good people who'd rather watch outsiders die in droves than let them into their lovely christian paradise of brotherly love. :rolleyes:
[...]
Are those the noble Christian social values we defend?
Is that the social peace they are disturbing so violently?
I care little for Christianity and 'Christian values', so I'll leave it to you to defend them.
We could spend money we would otherwise have to spend on integration and anti-terrorism to sweeten the deal for such countries.
Pay dictators to take them in as well? You would pay countries like Saudi Arabia, who fund terrorism in the first place, to take in the people that were displaced by the terror they funded? Now you're rewarding bad behavior IMO. Not only that, you'd also give them a lot of people who hate us (more) now as recruits for terrorist organizations. You're not fixing a problem, you're just throwing money at a problem once more, hoping it will go away. Where exactly has that worked out fine before in the long term?
Are they entitled to our quality of life right now just because we have happen to have it?
Are we entitled to it just because we were born here? Were we entitled to violently conquer some of these countries and extract their resources to gain part of the wealth we currently have? If violently taking something is okay, then their attempts to violently try and get in here cannot be called immoral.
Doesn't seem like any worse conditions than what I would guess millions of very poor people the world over have lived in for all their lives; to put things in perspective. Are the people in that camp more worthy of Western help because they used to have a wealthier lifestyle once? Or should we empty the slums and move all their inhabitants to the West along with the migrating Syrians?
Are Western people somehow more worthy of protecting their jobs and peaceful lifestyles just because they had them once? If other people can take a hit to their quality of life, why can't we? Surely immigration does not lower our lifestyle to the level of the poorest slums, so it is overall more acceptable than just increasing the size of the poorest slums by putting more refugees there. We can afford to give more and still be better off than most. Your argument defeats itself.
Note that the camp in question is in Europe. A more compelling argument, here, would be concerning camps in other Muslim countries, although that takes us back to my first point in this post: putting pressure on other Muslim countries to take them in, and help them with it where it seems useful and possible.
The point was that you're basically locking people up, some of them are running away from dictators who want to lock them up or kill them and you want to lock them up and chain them somewhere far away from you. Where they get locked up is not the issue if they are proper war refugees. That you lock up people who try to violently climb a fence to become millionaire football players in Europe is more understandable IMO, but so far you seem to want to take noone here and keep Europe somehow ethnically clean given how you talk about immigration in general. On that note, do you also not like Spanish people who come to Norway to work or do you find they do not disrupt public order?
Yet you might have to spend great sums only to see small reductions in deaths and injuries. It's comparing the return on investment from the different alternatives that is relevant here.
That makes no sense, the ROI on anti-terror measures may already be enormous if you consider how many attacks we may have had without any police at all. And obviously if you have only 20 deaths to reduce, it's impossible to reduce the deaths in that field by 100.
If 20 scares you so much, then consider that we have some 30000-40000 deaths per year from infections in hospitals and we wouldn't even need enormous investments to reduce them. The disinfectant for example is usually already provided, it's just not used properly by personnel because there is not pressure being applied. All the pressure is seemingly applied to reduce the last 20 terror deaths instead of forcing people to clean their hands and material for little extra cost to prevent maybe 10000 deaths from infections. The ROI on the latter would be a whole lot higher than on the former. Which was my point from the start...
And spending more money on the police would help with more than just fighting terrorism either way.
That's not the point, but that law and order is unravelling different places (cities and neighbourhoods) in Europe because of mass-immigration, while mass-immigration continues. Whatever the percentages are for natives and immigrants when it comes to antisocial behaviour, that doesn't particularly matter unless you can use it to both actually restore law and order in these places and prevent lawlessness from spreading (and without gutting other parts of the state budget, which could of course lead us to more traffic deaths, increased MRSA incidence, less aid to poor countries etc..).
To restore law and order implies that there were law and order before, which is a myth that you can't prove.
The best thing you can claim is that before there was a kind of lawlessness that people were used to but when it involves brown people, it suddenly gets everyone's attention. You haven't shown me anything that proves otherwise, see the next answer as well.
Maybe the crimes of immigrants have a tendency to be more bold and out in the open, but in that case the only thing that unravels is the illusion of law and order that we grew so comfortable with before.
What are you trying to say?
That lawlessness is not exclusively caused or greatly increased by immigration, it exists already anyway, you just ignore it when it is not caused by immigration. You are free to actually prove otherwise. And by prove I don't mean that you just claim it is so or show single newspaper incidents that prove nothing as you did until now.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-04-2017, 18:07
Since statistically the older you are the more likely you are to die, you should shit your pants every morning realizing you are a day older.
Hmmm.....
I don't think the death part is optional, so shouldn't I wake up happy to have had one more day and the chance to move forward into the new one, rather than dwelling in fear on that which is unavoidable?
Gilrandir
01-04-2017, 18:16
That is very true and it affects me, too. That does however not make it rational or mean one should have a terrible knee-jerk reaction based on it.
Fear belongs to the realm of emotions which is definitely apart from the realm of rationality.
Are we talking about anyone specific or just making sure everyone understands that migrants are not refugees?
I mean the ones that have been inundating Europe for the last two years.
Hmmm.....
I don't think the death part is optional, so shouldn't I wake up happy to have had one more day and the chance to move forward into the new one, rather than dwelling in fear on that which is unavoidable?
What if moving forward into the new day is moving forward into the last day?
Pay dictators to take them in as well? You would pay countries like Saudi Arabia, who fund terrorism in the first place, to take in the people that were displaced by the terror they funded? Now you're rewarding bad behavior IMO. Not only that, you'd also give them a lot of people who hate us (more) now as recruits for terrorist organizations. You're not fixing a problem, you're just throwing money at a problem once more, hoping it will go away. Where exactly has that worked out fine before in the long term?
You stated that they did not want the refugees, so if we refunded some of the costs they would incur upon taking them in, we would certainly not be rewarding them. If you don't want make agreements with SA, then make them with Kazakhstan, Indonesia or whomever.
That migrants should hate the West more because we didn't allow them in seems rather unlikely, I think they would be more concerned with their daily life.
Are we entitled to it just because we were born here?
No one is entitled to it, we just happen to have it.
Were we entitled to violently conquer some of these countries and extract their resources to gain part of the wealth we currently have? If violently taking something is okay, then their attempts to violently try and get in here cannot be called immoral.
This country has been relatively poor until modernity, I doubt much colonial wealth ended up here; and that aid given to previously colonised countries far outweighs whatever small amounts ended up here.
That colonial plunder is the reason Europe is well-off while former colonial possessions are not, I would like to see some documentation on. Last time I checked, Africa seemed to still be full of natural resources.
Are Western people somehow more worthy of protecting their jobs and peaceful lifestyles just because they had them once? If other people can take a hit to their quality of life, why can't we? Surely immigration does not lower our lifestyle to the level of the poorest slums, so it is overall more acceptable than just increasing the size of the poorest slums by putting more refugees there. We can afford to give more and still be better off than most. Your argument defeats itself.
This does not answer the question of why Syrian migrants should be allowed to settle here while we don't also go to the slums to ask who there would like to move out of poverty and settle in the West. I think many there would accept the offer.
Spanish people who come to Norway to work or do you find they do not disrupt public order?
Do they? If they do, maybe you have some evidence for it.
That makes no sense, the ROI on anti-terror measures may already be enormous if you consider how many attacks we may have had without any police at all. And obviously if you have only 20 deaths to reduce, it's impossible to reduce the deaths in that field by 100.
If 20 scares you so much, then consider that we have some 30000-40000 deaths per year from infections in hospitals and we wouldn't even need enormous investments to reduce them. The disinfectant for example is usually already provided, it's just not used properly by personnel because there is not pressure being applied. All the pressure is seemingly applied to reduce the last 20 terror deaths instead of forcing people to clean their hands and material for little extra cost to prevent maybe 10000 deaths from infections. The ROI on the latter would be a whole lot higher than on the former. Which was my point from the start...
And spending more money on the police would help with more than just fighting terrorism either way.
If all the relevant immigrants hadn't been accepted in the first place, there would have been much fewer terrorist attacks to prevent. As there is currently no end in sight for the immigration, a lot of future terrorist attacks might be avoided by not taking in more migrants from relevant countries; and it might not cost more than the alternative, meaning that we are not taking money that could have been spent on disinfection, or whatever.
To restore law and order implies that there were law and order before, which is a myth that you can't prove.
Maybe the war in Syria is a 'myth that you cannot prove', either; it's just a series of fired bullets and rockets, similar incidents of which happen in the West as well. Particularly in certain immigrant-rich cities, like Malmö.
it involves brown people
Does it, always?
Maybe the crimes of immigrants have a tendency to be more bold and out in the open, but in that case the only thing that unravels is the illusion of law and order that we grew so comfortable with before.
In the same sense that when being in a closed refugee camp, the only thing that unravels is 'the illusion of freedom' the refugees had before.
That lawlessness is not exclusively caused or greatly increased by immigration, it exists already anyway, you just ignore it when it is not caused by immigration. You are free to actually prove otherwise. And by prove I don't mean that you just claim it is so or show single newspaper incidents that prove nothing as you did until now.
Why don't you prove it that I ignore it, instead? This is inane.
Fear belongs to the realm of emotions which is definitely apart from the realm of rationality.
So should we base all our policy decisions on emotions rather than rationality or only the ones affecting immigration?
I mean the ones that have been inundating Europe for the last two years.
So someone who runs away from a war in Syria is not a refugee if they run too far? If they're supposed to stay in the next country that has no war, why don't they just send them to the next city or village in Syria that is currently not affected by the war? Clearly someone who runs away further than the average shell can fly is overdoing it. And obviously being the neighbor of a whacko means you're responsible for what he does and need to clean up after him.
You stated that they did not want the refugees, so if we refunded some of the costs they would incur upon taking them in, we would certainly not be rewarding them. If you don't want make agreements with SA, then make them with Kazakhstan, Indonesia or whomever.
In case of SA you seem to have missed the point. Kazakhstan and whoever have a culture that is way too different to allow mass-immigration of Syrians without a complete meltdown of law and order. They also aren't anywhere near as stable and wealthy to afford the necessary measures to keep public order as Western Europe is. We'd have to pay them billions every months to make up for the cost.
That migrants should hate the West more because we didn't allow them in seems rather unlikely, I think they would be more concerned with their daily life.
You may have missed the angry ones attacking border agents because we didn't let them in. Their daily life is exactly why they want to come here, they want a better daily life than their home countries currently offer them.
No one is entitled to it, we just happen to have it.
Yes, and now we share it with those in need just like we teach our children to share the chocolate they happen to have.
(We happen to have it would also be better argument if the history of the world began 20 years ago)
This country has been relatively poor until modernity, I doubt much colonial wealth ended up here; and that aid given to previously colonised countries far outweighs whatever small amounts ended up here.
Indeed, your forefathers only pillaged the rest of Europe.
And a lot of the wealth today was built based on cultural exchange with the rest of Europe and the fact that the rest of Europe didn't come and pillaged all your oil and fished away all your fish before you even got anywhere. So basically a good example of how people can prosper if you don't treat them as Untermenschen or children and just trade with them in a relatively fair way as the technologically superior and richer side.
That colonial plunder is the reason Europe is well-off while former colonial possessions are not, I would like to see some documentation on. Last time I checked, Africa seemed to still be full of natural resources.
And who extracts them in most cases and gets most of the profits?
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/07/banking.regulation.africa
Western legal systems are stacked, thanks to the hired hands of skilled lawyers, to protect the rights of the crooked over the rights of Africa's ordinary citizens.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162/27791.html
To put this figure in perspective, America's cotton farmers receive:
- more in subsidies than the entire GDP of Burkina Faso – a country in which more than two million people depend on cotton production. Over half of these farmers live below the poverty line. Poverty levels among recipients of cotton subsidies in the US are zero.
- three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa's 500 million people.
In an economic arrangement bizarrely reminiscent of Soviet state planning principles, the value of subsidies provided by American taxpayers to the cotton barons of Texas and elsewhere in 2001 exceeded the market value of output by around 30 per cent. In other words, cotton was produced at a net cost to the United States.
See, we give them a chance, but they just can't compete on the market.
And another one:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2012/11/201211714649852604.html
Do I really need to explain how the powerful have a much easier time protecting their advantages than the downtrodden ones have trying to get anywhere?
This does not answer the question of why Syrian migrants should be allowed to settle here while we don't also go to the slums to ask who there would like to move out of poverty and settle in the West. I think many there would accept the offer.
Because they happen to have come here and are fleeing war. I hope I don't have to explain that slums are a disgrace either way.
Do they? If they do, maybe you have some evidence for it.
Weren't you on the side that claimed mass migration always causes problems?
Why should I prove your point now?
If all the relevant immigrants hadn't been accepted in the first place, there would have been much fewer terrorist attacks to prevent. As there is currently no end in sight for the immigration, a lot of future terrorist attacks might be avoided by not taking in more migrants from relevant countries; and it might not cost more than the alternative, meaning that we are not taking money that could have been spent on disinfection, or whatever.
Yes, that is true, so how do you weed out the "relevant immigrants" from the others without just sending everyone back?
You know, if you make everyone leave the country, all the problems are gone. The only argument you seem to have is that people born here are more deserving of help based on pure happenstance. Basically the same argument that monarchies use(d) to exist/rule and take money from all the plebs whenever they wanted to. Just in this case the royal family is identified based on having a certain peace of paper as a birthright.
Maybe the war in Syria is a 'myth that you cannot prove', either; it's just a series of fired bullets and rockets, similar incidents of which happen in the West as well. Particularly in certain immigrant-rich cities, like Malmö.
[...]
Does it, always?
[...]
This is inane.
Answered yourself in a way...
In the same sense that when being in a closed refugee camp, the only thing that unravels is 'the illusion of freedom' the refugees had before.
And what can we learn from that?
Why don't you prove it that I ignore it, instead? This is inane.
You insinuate that we had law and order before mass-immigration and I showed that we didn't. I basically already proved it, no need to do it again.
Kazakhstan and whoever have a culture that is way too different to allow mass-immigration of Syrians without a complete meltdown of law and order. They also aren't anywhere near as stable and wealthy to afford the necessary measures to keep public order as Western Europe is. We'd have to pay them billions every months to make up for the cost.
I think you are underestimating the stability of such countries and overestimating the stability of countries in the West.
You may have missed the angry ones attacking border agents because we didn't let them in. Their daily life is exactly why they want to come here, they want a better daily life than their home countries currently offer them.
They attack the border guards because they are now part of their daily life and within reach; if they had been settled in Saudi Arabia, they'd be working at the local bakery instead. The kind of people that attack border guards might not be the type of people we'd want to let in, anyway.
Yes, and now we share it with those in need just like we teach our children to share the chocolate they happen to have.
(We happen to have it would also be better argument if the history of the world began 20 years ago)
There are some significant differences between chocolate and citizenship.
And who extracts them in most cases and gets most of the profits?
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/07/banking.regulation.africa
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162/27791.html
See, we give them a chance, but they just can't compete on the market.
And another one:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2012/11/201211714649852604.html
Do I really need to explain how the powerful have a much easier time protecting their advantages than the downtrodden ones have trying to get anywhere?
At any rate, not a result of colonial plunder in the past. If this is true, then they should ask for those things to be fixed, not migrate here.
Because they happen to have come here and are fleeing war. I hope I don't have to explain that slums are a disgrace either way.
One of the biggest reasons they have come here while people from the slums do not, is because Syrians live closer and are wealthier; they actually have the means to get here unlike people from the worst slums. There are many people on this planet in much greater need of help than Syrians in refugee camps.
Weren't you on the side that claimed mass migration always causes problems?
Why should I prove your point now?
You can start by proving that a mass-migration of Spaniards is actually taking place. Of course, the more similar the cultures are, the less of an issue the migration will be.
Yes, that is true, so how do you weed out the "relevant immigrants" from the others without just sending everyone back?
Except from the obvious of checking against known or suspected criminals, we don't because we can't. Many terrorists are second-generation and not even born yet as their future parents cross the borders.
The only argument you seem to have is that people born here are more deserving of help based on pure happenstance.
I have suggested that they should be helped right from the start; just without the parts where people get mowed down by lorries and cities takes steps towards anarchy. They should not feel entitled to a life in Europe.
You insinuate that we had law and order before mass-immigration and I showed that we didn't. I basically already proved it, no need to do it again.
You didn't show anything, you played with words. Law and order doesn't mean zero criminality any more than not being imprisoned means you can do anything you would feel like.
They attack the border guards because they are now part of their daily life and within reach; if they had been settled in Saudi Arabia, they'd be working at the local bakery instead. The kind of people that attack border guards might not be the type of people we'd want to let in, anyway.
I'm sure there are lots of bakeries longing for workers in Saudi Arabia, on that I concede the point to you. I'm not sure why you say the latter as I said the same myself, perhaps not in this thread...
There are some significant differences between chocolate and citizenship.
No, both are pretty sweet in this case.
At any rate, not a result of colonial plunder in the past. If this is true, then they should ask for those things to be fixed, not migrate here.
I'm sure they haven't thought of asking politely so far, what an oversight on their part.
Maybe beating border guards is the only way they know how to express their dissatisfaction given that we never gave them highschool discussion club technology?
One of the biggest reasons they have come here while people from the slums do not, is because Syrians live closer and are wealthier; they actually have the means to get here unlike people from the worst slums. There are many people on this planet in much greater need of help than Syrians in refugee camps.
As you know, I agree about the latter, the reasons for both are largely the same though IMO.
As for the ability to come here, how do sub-saharan Africans do it? Are they as wealthy as Syrians?
Except from the obvious of checking against known or suspected criminals, we don't because we can't. Many terrorists are second-generation and not even born yet as their future parents cross the borders.
And because we know for certain that some of them will inevitably breed some terrorists, we should send all of them elsewhere?
I have suggested that they should be helped right from the start; just without the parts where people get mowed down by lorries and cities takes steps towards anarchy. They should not feel entitled to a life in Europe.
The thing is that some of them are entitled to a life in Europe. The ones who are not should be sent back more effectively, on that I do not disagree.
You didn't show anything, you played with words. Law and order doesn't mean zero criminality any more than not being imprisoned means you can do anything you would feel like.
"a situation characterized by respect for and obedience to the rules of a society."
Would you call tax evasion respect for and obedience to the rules of a society? I'd rather give you that bar brawls are part of our culture... :sweatdrop:
Seamus Fermanagh
01-05-2017, 05:34
...What if moving forward into the new day is moving forward into the last day?
If I knew it were, I'd get shrived, remind my loved ones of my love, and probably toss off a good rendition of "The Parting Glass" (I have a fair baritone). After that, either the questions are answered or dreamless sleep.
Not rushing headlong to get there, but it will be a destination on my trip regardless. And, after all, WALSTIB.
As for the ability to come here, how do sub-saharan Africans do it? Are they as wealthy as Syrians?
One could also ask why the ones that do migrate are the ones doing it and not their neighbour or their uncle. Is it random, is it because they feel more entitled to a better life than the rest, is it because they recently lost a job etc.?
It may indeed be that many of those that migrate are wealthier (and healthier) than many of those that do not.
And because we know for certain that some of them will inevitably breed some terrorists, we should send all of them elsewhere?
Pretty much, plus for other reasons I've brought up here and in other threads.
The thing is that some of them are entitled to a life in Europe.
Here I disagree.
"a situation characterized by respect for and obedience to the rules of a society."
Would you call tax evasion respect for and obedience to the rules of a society? I'd rather give you that bar brawls are part of our culture... :sweatdrop:
When people are doing drive-by shootings, using bombs and hand grenades, there is probably a lot of other criminality going on as well. For example, as I quoted earlier:
Norra Grängesbergsgatan [is] a Malmö street known for its illegal nightclubs
All kinds of economic criminality probably follow the people that are behind the bombings and other severe antisocial behaviour. You can presumably take tax evasion for granted in such environments.
The most serious thing is not things like shootings, bombings and illegal nightclubs in and of themselves; but the sum of these things, where the monopoly on violence is weakened and the state is less capable of enforcing its laws.
Police themselves are often attacked in Sweden (as well as firefighters (http://www.thelocal.se/20120220/39212)) with rocks, and in 2012, a Malmö police station was even attacked with a bomb (http://www.thelocal.se/20120201/38838).
One could also ask why the ones that do migrate are the ones doing it and not their neighbour or their uncle. Is it random, is it because they feel more entitled to a better life than the rest, is it because they recently lost a job etc.?
It may indeed be that many of those that migrate are wealthier (and healthier) than many of those that do not.
One could search the answer in Google, Bing or another search engine of choice, it's not a secret.
The answer to the questions posed is mostly 'no' though.
As for your proposed answer, concerning the entire planet that is probably true to some extent and hardly very surprising.
Most parents would rather see their children in safety than themselves without their children, don't you think?
Pretty much, plus for other reasons I've brought up here and in other threads.
So fear-based politics that return us to pre-20th century morals, discards a lot of social achievements, and ends up in some wicked national socialism model that perpetuates conflict.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me...
Here I disagree.
How very post-factual of you.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2016/02/11/why-dont-refugees-fly/
The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees — created after the shameful turning away of those fleeing Nazi Germany — obliged its signatories to accept refugees, even if they have no documents, no visa, no passport, and no resettlement authorization. There is no such thing as an “illegal asylum seeker.” People have a right to refuge if they are forced from their homes by persecution and war. The United States and the countries of Europe have signed this convention or its 1967 Protocol. Turkey has not signed. It only offers temporary refuge.
When people are doing drive-by shootings, using bombs and hand grenades, there is probably a lot of other criminality going on as well. For example, as I quoted earlier:
So we also send every suspected mafia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1560401/Six-killed-in-Mafia-feud-in-Germany.html) and motorcycle club (https://www.thelocal.de/20091101/22957) member to Somalia? Or do we pay Norway to take them?
I already quoted some numbers on other criminality these people engage in, no need to tell me.
All kinds of economic criminality probably follow the people that are behind the bombings and other severe antisocial behaviour. You can presumably take tax evasion for granted in such environments.
That is based on nothing but your own assumption and makes no sense.
By your example, Greece would have to be full of violent criminals because their tax evasion rate is so high.
Makes you wonder how people can enjoy their holidays there with all the grenades flying around.
The most serious thing is not things like shootings, bombings and illegal nightclubs in and of themselves; but the sum of these things, where the monopoly on violence is weakened and the state is less capable of enforcing its laws.
Police themselves are often attacked in Sweden (as well as firefighters (http://www.thelocal.se/20120220/39212)) with rocks, and in 2012, a Malmö police station was even attacked with a bomb (http://www.thelocal.se/20120201/38838).
While you are right that respect for the police is going down, this is partially because politics missed the opportunity to adapt criminal laws and enforce them. Your suggestion that we just punish everyone who fits a certain stereotype with expulsion from the country is nothing but a huge injustice in itself.
Gilrandir
01-05-2017, 13:58
So should we base all our policy decisions on emotions rather than rationality or only the ones affecting immigration?
There is a whole world of difference between what we SHOULD do and what we DO.
So someone who runs away from a war in Syria is not a refugee if they run too far? If they're supposed to stay in the next country that has no war, why don't they just send them to the next city or village in Syria that is currently not affected by the war? Clearly someone who runs away further than the average shell can fly is overdoing it.
Exactly. These ARE refugees:
http://www.interpretermag.com/dont-forget-the-4000000-ukrainians-living-through-russias-war-in-the-donbass/
One could search the answer in Google, Bing or another search engine of choice, it's not a secret.
The answer to the questions posed is mostly 'no' though.
Got an example link? Note that the question was not why people migrate, but why not everyone in the same position (e.g. all jobless or poor people) do so.
As for your proposed answer, concerning the entire planet that is probably true to some extent and hardly very surprising.
Yet the ones actually get much publicity in the media are the ones that migrated across seas, while I can only presume people are dying in the droves many places from medical conditions that are usually treatable in the West.
So fear-based politics that return us to pre-20th century morals, discards a lot of social achievements, and ends up in some wicked national socialism model that perpetuates conflict.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me...
The latest rise in nationalism seems to have a lot to do the rise of immigration, so if you wish to national socialism return as a force to be reckoned with; increasing the immigration rates even further might not be a bad idea.
And what is 'fear-based' politics? Is working to prevent of traffic deaths or pandemics also 'fear-based' politics?
How very post-factual of you.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2016/02/11/why-dont-refugees-fly/
Not so much post-factual as having the intent to create new facts through rejection and renegotiation of relevant treaties. At any rate:
It only offers temporary refuge.
So we also send every suspected mafia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1560401/Six-killed-in-Mafia-feud-in-Germany.html) and motorcycle club (https://www.thelocal.de/20091101/22957) member to Somalia? Or do we pay Norway to take them?
I already quoted some numbers on other criminality these people engage in, no need to tell me.
What's the argument, exactly? Is there a quota for crime that criminal immigrants will fill up so that the Italian mafia and German motorcycle clubs can retire, leaving the crime rates constant? I think it's much more likely that they'll get an even freer hand when the general crime rates in society go up.
That is based on nothing but your own assumption and makes no sense.
By your example, Greece would have to be full of violent criminals because their tax evasion rate is so high.
Makes you wonder how people can enjoy their holidays there with all the grenades flying around.
It was not stated that those who evades taxes are likely to be violent, but that it wouldn't seem very likely that those who do drive-by shootings should be very concerned about filling out tax forms honestly. Not the least because they probably participate extensively in the black economy, living in criminal neighbourhoods like they presumably do.
this is partially because politics missed the opportunity to adapt criminal laws and enforce them.
Like which?
Your suggestion that we just punish everyone who fits a certain stereotype with expulsion from the country is nothing but a huge injustice in itself.
Once again you are using the word 'punish(ment)' so liberally that it would appear to become meaningless.
Got an example link? Note that the question was not why people migrate, but why not everyone in the same position (e.g. all jobless or poor people) do so.
https://openborders.info/blog/how-can-migrants-afford-huge-smuggling-fees-three-answers/
Yet the ones actually get much publicity in the media are the ones that migrated across seas, while I can only presume people are dying in the droves many places from medical conditions that are usually treatable in the West.
Indeed, and that is not likely to change as long as we mostly protect our wealth from everyone else.
The latest rise in nationalism seems to have a lot to do the rise of immigration, so if you wish to national socialism return as a force to be reckoned with; increasing the immigration rates even further might not be a bad idea.
But the application of national socialist methods of extradition is going to keep the national socialism at bay?
Did you ever even consider alternative approaches such as letting them work to earn their asylum stay (community work), giving them mandatory classes about our culture, laws, etc. or is some kind of soft ethical cleansing your first go-to-method?
And what is 'fear-based' politics? Is working to prevent of traffic deaths or pandemics also 'fear-based' politics?
When you let your fears guide your politics more than a rational look at problems? Where do pandemics come from?
http://www.dw.com/en/40000-patients-die-annually-due-to-german-hospital-infections-says-watchdog/a-17460622
Does that mean we already have a pandemic?
Not so much post-factual as having the intent to create new facts through rejection and renegotiation of relevant treaties.
So basically just treat the symptoms and not the causes. I'm not in favor of millions of refugees going anywhere, I'd rather have them not become refugees in the first place. You also seem to ignore all historical context just because you don't like the treaties right now. I think that is what people mean when they say we don't learn from history and history tends to repeat itself.
What's the argument, exactly? Is there a quota for crime that criminal immigrants will fill up so that the Italian mafia and German motorcycle clubs can retire, leaving the crime rates constant? I think it's much more likely that they'll get an even freer hand when the general crime rates in society go up.
The argument is that we don't need immigrants for that kind of crime, your second point is disproven by the USA, where motorcycle clubs are just as violent, where some of them even originated. And the USA did not accept hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.
It was not stated that those who evades taxes are likely to be violent, but that it wouldn't seem very likely that those who do drive-by shootings should be very concerned about filling out tax forms honestly. Not the least because they probably participate extensively in the black economy, living in criminal neighbourhoods like they presumably do.
Yes, now your argument seems completely irrelevant because noone argued that we should let criminal immigrants do what they want. :dizzy2:
Like which?
Like the ones that say people who throw rocks at the police need to go to prison.
Or the ones that say theft is punishable. There was a (AFAIK true, not even from a right-wing source) story about a woman here in Germany who had a lot of wedding gowns stolen from her shop and when she found them herself at some immigrant family's wedding, police came and said they won't do a thing because it would likely end in a shootout. The criminals also proceeded to harass her and spit at her or something like that in front of the police. If that is what we call law enforcement nowadays, then it's hardly surprising that the criminals are thriving because there is no actual enforcement left. I'm not even blaming the police, they're not well-equipped and understaffed after decades of funding cuts.
As for laws, in Italy it is already punishable if the police can prove that someone belongs to a criminal organization, here this is no problem as long as you're not getting caught directly in a criminal act, this means a lot of known mafiosi come here to "work" or retire because life is a lot simpler for them here. Not to forget that human trafficking and sex slavery usually require the victims to speak out, which pretty much never happens so these things just continue while politics do hardly anything about it. I can see how some of it can be hard to solve, but as long as we are busy with terrorism, I'm sure even less will happen on that front.
I assume the situation is similar in Sweden, but Sweden alone is not Europe anyway.
Once again you are using the word 'punish(ment)' so liberally that it would appear to become meaningless.
Taking away citizenships and/or homes, jobs, potentially spouses etc. does not constitute punishment for you or were you not talking about throwing all middle easterners or at least everyone who arrived since 2015 out of here?
https://openborders.info/blog/how-can-migrants-afford-huge-smuggling-fees-three-answers/
Seems to focus heavily on migration from China to the US, and it also seems to rely heavily on individual cases rather than statistics. A more accurate answer would require surveying a large number actual boat migrants from Africa to Europe (whether before, during or after the journey). Relevant, but not a definite answer.
Indeed, and that is not likely to change as long as we mostly protect our wealth from everyone else.
Or while their governments continue to squander as much money and the militias wage as much war.
But the application of national socialist methods of extradition is going to keep the national socialism at bay?
Did you ever even consider alternative approaches such as letting them work to earn their asylum stay (community work), giving them mandatory classes about our culture, laws, etc. or is some kind of soft ethical cleansing your first go-to-method?
This is about not handing out new citizenships and returning the relevant people that do not have citizenship.
When you let your fears guide your politics more than a rational look at problems?
And what's rational? Say you live in a big house with 99 other people, and 10 people are outside in the cold, wanting to get in. You know that if you let them in, one of the 100 people will likely be killed during the night by one of the 10, and that if you do not let them in, they will freeze and get little or no sleep, but it is not very likely that any of them will die; and when the day comes, the electricity returns to their home, so they can go back there.
In this scenario, I would say that the rational choice is to let those 10 freeze a night and most likely save a life.
So basically just treat the symptoms and not the causes.
Which is precisely what letting them in is. It doesn't fix the underlying issue while destabilising Europe.
You also seem to ignore all historical context just because you don't like the treaties right now. I think that is what people mean when they say we don't learn from history and history tends to repeat itself.
Rather, it's a straw man; it has not been suggested that the migrants should be forced to stay in potentially lethal conditions, like in a country where the government is executing a genocide of their group.
The argument is that we don't need immigrants for that kind of crime
That's trivial, and not relevant to the point. The point is that Malmö, as an example, almost certainly would not have anywhere near as much crime if it weren't for the immigration it has seen.
your second point is disproven by the USA, where motorcycle clubs are just as violent, where some of them even originated. And the USA did not accept hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.
You don't think it's better for organised criminals that general crime rates in a society goes up?
Yes, now your argument seems completely irrelevant because noone argued that we should let criminal immigrants do what they want. :dizzy2:
I have no idea what you are referring to here.
Like the ones that say people who throw rocks at the police need to go to prison.
I don't know how that is treated in Sweden, but I doubt it would fix the underlying issues. The youths get out of jail and keep throwing while the prisons would have less room for the Italian mafia, German bikers and American bankers.
The money required to get such high levels of crime under control is probably quite significant, and where would you get that money from? Not the hospital disinfection budget, I hope. And didn't you say that we were supposed to 'share our wealth', anyway; and now it seems like we have to spend much of it on police with expensive Western-level wages?
Taking away citizenships and/or homes, jobs, potentially spouses etc. does not constitute punishment for you or were you not talking about throwing all middle easterners or at least everyone who arrived since 2015 out of here?
No one will loose their citizenship (unless they are criminal and it is possible to return them). A lot of the people in question are going to get returned, anyway. My main focus is on asylums that have not yet been granted; primarily on the people that have not arrived yet, and maybe not even left their home country yet.
Returning people once peace has arrived is a separate and more complex issue.
Or while their governments continue to squander as much money and the militias wage as much war.
And it's a pure coincidence that they all ended up with corrupt governments and rebels after colonialization "ended"?
Or that their corrupt governments defend their power with weapons bought from us?
And what's rational? Say you live in a big house with 99 other people, and 10 people are outside in the cold, wanting to get in. You know that if you let them in, one of the 100 people will likely be killed during the night by one of the 10, and that if you do not let them in, they will freeze and get little or no sleep, but it is not very likely that any of them will die; and when the day comes, the electricity returns to their home, so they can go back there.
In this scenario, I would say that the rational choice is to let those 10 freeze a night and most likely save a life.
This is not a terrible argument, but it lacks a bit in the details. For one, it's not that electricity went out in Syria, you can probably find pictures of what used to be their homes aplenty.
And then the two options you present fail to represent the real options with the refugee crisis. First of all, you could lock the ten from outside in a separate room if they just want to stay for one night... :dizzy2:
Secondly, they were not really outside anymore, but they already entered your neighbor's home already and you're afraid they might murder two people and starve due to your neighbor not being as rich as you, if they all stay there...
Which is precisely what letting them in is. It doesn't fix the underlying issue while destabilising Europe.
And because it is not a viable long-term strategy, it has already been stopped. But people still arrive on the shores of Greece and Italy anyway. Blaming the problems only on them and their governments as you did above is not going to tackle the causes at all.
Rather, it's a straw man; it has not been suggested that the migrants should be forced to stay in potentially lethal conditions, like in a country where the government is executing a genocide of their group.
Eh, they weren't back then either, the US just refused them, they could have tried any other country that would not have required them to cross the Atlantic, such as Sweden or Switzerland, pretty much what you say about them now.
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/holocaust-jewish-refugees-switzerland.html
The treaty came to be because back then it was seen as wrong for the USA to have rejected them and apparently noone said the US could have paid Switzerland to take even more because it was so much closer. How are you not ignoring the historic context and changing definitions of refugees etc. around to suit your agenda of ethnic purity?
That's trivial, and not relevant to the point. The point is that Malmö, as an example, almost certainly would not have anywhere near as much crime if it weren't for the immigration it has seen.
You don't think it's better for organised criminals that general crime rates in a society goes up?
You have yet to prove any of those claims.
I've quoted the German police before as saying the correlation is minimal and here you have another report from the USA:
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/does_immigration_increase_crime
The results of his analysis are clear: “There’s essentially no correlation between immigrants and violent crime,” he asserts. Given some media depictions of immigrants as violent, or associated with human trafficking and the drug trade, this finding may come as a surprise to many, says Spenkuch. “There’s a long perception that immigration increases crime, and when you look at neighborhoods where lots of immigrants live, these are typically not the best neighborhoods. These are violent places. So there’s this anecdotal association [between immigrants and violent crime] that just doesn’t turn out to be true in the data.”
If Malmö is somehow special and different, then it cannot be used to make a general point about immigration anyway...
Perhaps Sweden managed to increase ratios and "tolerance" to a point where it does get problematic, but that does not prove anything about spreading 2 million people over the European mainland. At least according to German law, many of the 2 million are not allowed to stay anyway, that the whole extradition is sometimes handled in a rather sub-optimal way is a different problem and not the fault of the refugees.
I don't know how that is treated in Sweden, but I doubt it would fix the underlying issues. The youths get out of jail and keep throwing while the prisons would have less room for the Italian mafia, German bikers and American bankers.
The money required to get such high levels of crime under control is probably quite significant, and where would you get that money from? Not the hospital disinfection budget, I hope. And didn't you say that we were supposed to 'share our wealth', anyway; and now it seems like we have to spend much of it on police with expensive Western-level wages?
That is a lot of assumption again with nothing to actually back it up, might as well close all prisons if you're right because the criminals will just criminal on once they get out anyway, better to throw them all out of the country into Norway (and pay Norway to take them) or so. :dizzy2:
No one will loose their citizenship (unless they are criminal and it is possible to return them). A lot of the people in question are going to get returned, anyway. My main focus is on asylums that have not yet been granted; primarily on the people that have not arrived yet, and maybe not even left their home country yet.
So now anyone can lose their citizenship if they are criminals? Or make a special law that allows only "former middle eastewrners" or so to lose their citizenship? People who have not left their home country yet will not arrive here anymore in any legal or official way, NATO is patrolling the sea near Greece and we pay Turkey to take them all in, much as you wanted. I'm not perfectly happy but also not fiercely opposed to this "solution" as long as it remains a stopgap measure. Sending the newcomers back without even checking the validity of their claims is just wrong. The whole checking might have gone much faster if Germany didn't have to do it almost alone, so if time is the problem, ask Poland etc. why they don't help and check some themselves, it would also greatly increase the density per country. And no, I have little sympathy for their demands regarding which EU country should take them either.
Leaving them all in Greece especially is just a (sorry) dick move, given that Greece already has enough troubles itself and can't/shouldn't just kill them on the shore either...
And it's a pure coincidence that they all ended up with corrupt governments and rebels after colonialization "ended"?
Or that their corrupt governments defend their power with weapons bought from us?
Fine, we'll send down assassins to take out the corrupt leaders and take all the weapons back from relevant rebels and militaries. What happens then, and how likely would it be that this scenario would be very different from one where we didn't do the bad things (which you accuse us of doing) after their independence?
For one, it's not that electricity went out in Syria, you can probably find pictures of what used to be their homes aplenty.
Can be rebuilt.
First of all, you could lock the ten from outside in a separate room if they just want to stay for one night... :dizzy2:
Well, you said locking up people was bad; plus it might be cheaper to keep them outside, and then you get more money for disinfecting gel.
Secondly, they were not really outside anymore, but they already entered your neighbor's home already and you're afraid they might murder two people and starve due to your neighbor not being as rich as you, if they all stay there...
Whatever is the case, another option is to send them to yet other neighbours, where the 10 are less likely to murder inhabitants.
Blaming the problems only on them and their governments as you did above is not going to tackle the causes at all.
Blaming only whom?
Eh, they weren't back then either, the US just refused them, they could have tried any other country that would not have required them to cross the Atlantic, such as Sweden or Switzerland, pretty much what you say about them now.
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/holocaust-jewish-refugees-switzerland.html
The treaty came to be because back then it was seen as wrong for the USA to have rejected them and apparently noone said the US could have paid Switzerland to take even more because it was so much closer. How are you not ignoring the historic context and changing definitions of refugees etc. around to suit your agenda of ethnic purity?
What we have learnt from contemporary history is that taking massive amounts of immigrants from radically different cultures is not a great idea, either.
You have yet to prove any of those claims.
I've already covered this ground:
[The point is] that law and order is unravelling different places (cities and neighbourhoods) in Europe because of mass-immigration, while mass-immigration continues. Whatever the percentages are for natives and immigrants when it comes to antisocial behaviour, that doesn't particularly matter unless you can use it to both actually restore law and order in these places and prevent lawlessness from spreading
So again, percentages are not so important; although I would expect that you would find that the percentages of antisocial behaviour stemming from migrants (first, second and third generation) is higher than natives in Sweden and France, certainly in specific cities.
here you have another report from the USA:
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/does_immigration_increase_crime
Parts of it agrees with me, actually:
But Spenkuch did discover a modest positive correlation between immigration and property crime, although this effect is only present with regard to “immigrants with the poorest labor market outcome,” he says, such as those from Mexico. An increase in immigrants with better economic prospects, such as those from Canada, is not associated with any increase in property crime.
The lack of correlation with violence is interesting, but a single study in a single country is not the definite answer.
I've quoted the German police before as saying the correlation is minimal and
[...]
If Malmö is somehow special and different, then it cannot be used to make a general point about immigration anyway...
As with the study above, I'd like to take a look at the way the data was gathered, analysed and how the conclusions were drawn.
When you see similar things happening in both France and Sweden, it would not appear likely that Malmö is a very unusual (i.e. unlikely) scenario given massive amounts of relevant immigrants settling in one city or neighbourhood.
Perhaps Sweden managed to increase ratios and "tolerance" to a point where it does get problematic, but that does not prove anything about spreading 2 million people over the European mainland. At least according to German law, many of the 2 million are not allowed to stay anyway, that the whole extradition is sometimes handled in a rather sub-optimal way is a different problem and not the fault of the refugees
Most of the countries that already have very large immigrant communities (France, UK, Germany) are also the ones who in theory would be the most capable of receiving immigrants, in terms of wealth and population size; and of course it is perfectly understandable that those countries that still are very homogenous want to preserve that; and they can't know how many 'exceptional circumstances' will require them to take in yet more immigrants in the future.
That is a lot of assumption again with nothing to actually back it up, might as well close all prisons if you're right because the criminals will just criminal on once they get out anyway, better to throw them all out of the country into Norway (and pay Norway to take them) or so. :dizzy2:
What are the controversial assumptions? Many countries struggle with full prisons. In fact, this country is sending prisoners to the Netherlands (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/01/norwegian-inmates-sent-to-dutch-prison-cells-too-full) (who mysteriously have plenty of room (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37904263)) because the jails here are too full.
That getting high levels of crime under control should cost a lot of extra money in most cases should be pretty obvious; I don't have any indication that the Swedish (or French) police is so ineffective because the police officers are too busy drinking tea.
So now anyone can lose their citizenship if they are criminals?
If they came as adults, why not.
"Fine, we'll send down assassins to take out the corrupt leaders and take all the weapons back from relevant rebels and militaries." Are you crazy? They were and are OUR corrupted leaders...
And when a potential threat to them appeared/s, we sent/d assassins to take them out... Kind of operation Condor...
The lack of correlation with violence is interesting, but a single study in a single country is not the definite answer.
Given that you used some four or five incidents from Malmö to "prove" that there is supposedly a problem in the first place, I'd place the ball squarely in your court now...
Given that you used some four or five incidents from Malmö to "prove" that there is supposedly a problem in the first place, I'd place the ball squarely in your court now...
That wasn't even the number of links that I posted. I'll requote:
Over 70 car fires have occurred in Malmö since July 1st this year [2016]
Malmö has experienced thirty explosions this year [2015]
To add to the last one, regarding the number of separate incidents:
Since the start of the new year [2015] Malmö has on average been rocked by an explosion a week.
and the previous year:
In 2014 a total of 25 blasts took place in Malmö.
http://www.thelocal.se/20150824/you-get-street-smart-when-you-live-in-malm
Then there's the murder rate:
Malmö
City population: 318,107 (2014) [1] (http://malmo.se/download/18.6fb145de1521ab79c0a74e15/1459956671844/Malm%C3%B6+i+korta+drag%2C+2016-04-06.pdf) (32% born abroad + 12% born in Sweden with both parents born abroad = 44% of the population with significant immigrant background [2] (http://malmo.se/Kommun--politik/Statistik/Befolkning/Utlandsk-bakgrund.html))
Murders:
2016: at least 11 per a previous post
2015: at least 6 [3] (http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/6-olosta-gangstermord-senaste-aret-i-malmo/)
2011: 8 [3]
Average: 8.33
Oslo
City population: 634 463 (2014) [4] (https://www.oslo.kommune.no/politikk-og-administrasjon/statistikk/befolkning/folkemengde-og-endringer/)
Murders between 2011-2015: 6, 11, 9, 7, 7, 10; average: 8.33 [5] (https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/lokale_vedlegg/kripos/Vedlegg_3500.pdf)
While murder statistics for Malmö were difficult to get hold of (and therefore incomplete), you can see that something funny is going on. Not only is Oslo almost twice as large as Malmö, but its metropolitan area should also be significantly larger. The murder ratio for Malmö would seem to be almost twice that of Oslo, even though Malmö is a much smaller city.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-07-2017, 00:53
Chicago 2016:
2.72M persons; 762 homicides.
Per capita that would be:
Malmo 3.45/100k
Oslo 1.73/100k
Chicago 2.33/100k....
er, sorry, that was the monthly average. 28.02
Quite, and having a majority population of around 45% (http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/1714000), it fits a more general pattern.
Being much larger than Malmö, the distance from a troubled neighbourhood to the nearest calm neighbourhood can be much larger, and that probably helps driving crime rates up.
I think when you have significant segregation and a large minority population (in absolute numbers), minority youth will risk feeling disconnected from and lose respect for the system that is dominated (even if proportionally) by the majority population, and be more likely to chose a path that involves crime. Crime often involves competition, and criminal competition often involves murder.
Quite, and having a majority population of around 45% (http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/1714000), it fits a more general pattern.
Being much larger than Malmö, the distance from a troubled neighbourhood to the nearest calm neighbourhood can be much larger, and that probably helps driving crime rates up.
I think when you have significant segregation and a large minority population (in absolute numbers), minority youth will risk feeling disconnected from and lose respect for the system that is dominated (even if proportionally) by the majority population, and be more likely to chose a path that involves crime. Crime often involves competition, and criminal competition often involves murder.
And that's why your daydream of segregated nations that compete over limited resources, dominated by a few very wealthy and powerful nations, would inevitably lead to more conflict, murder and possibly world wars, right?
If your argument is that the multicultural ghettoization is a terrible thing, then I'm with you, the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more. But national segregation is not better than neighborhood segregation, it just pits armies against one another instead of criminal gangs. And armies do far more damage...
I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful than we world we currently have. A lot of rebellions have been started with the purpose of carving out or reclaiming space for a people that had no independence. Do you think the UK would have been better off if Ireland had not been granted complete independence? If Northern Ireland is anything to go by, it wouldn't.
Furthermore, force has many times been used with the purpose of adjusting borders according to ethnicity; the annexation of Sudetenland and the annexation of Crimea being relevant examples.
In sum, heterogeneity within countries has inspired a lot of violence and bad behaviour.
I don't see how a world of culturally homogeneous countries would make it easier for large and wealthy countries to dominate (if anything, some larger countries would get split up). Smaller countries would have to band together in order to be stronger when facing larger countries, but they do not need to have open borders with one another in order to accomplish this. If the EU had stuck with political and economical cooperation rather than gradually morphing into the USE, it may had been in a much better/more stable state today.
the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more
Yet that's not always realistically achievable in the near to medium term (or even long term), and naturally gets more difficult the more immigrants are settled.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-07-2017, 18:55
And that's why your daydream of segregated nations that compete over limited resources, dominated by a few very wealthy and powerful nations, would inevitably lead to more conflict, murder and possibly world wars, right?
If your argument is that the multicultural ghettoization is a terrible thing, then I'm with you, the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more. But national segregation is not better than neighborhood segregation, it just pits armies against one another instead of criminal gangs. And armies do far more damage...
The problem with multiculturalism is that it has not been shown to actually, well, work.
Assimilation works. Comes at a price, but it works.
Cultural hybridity works. Doesn't necessarily come without cost, as the cognitive dissonance of being one way with one group and a different culture with another is mentally straining.
True multiculturalism has not worked past the individual level.
Culture is an aspect of identity and identity is a human need.
On the other hand, you are also correct in that truly homogenous nations have had as many and as challenging -- if different -- issues to confront as have more heterogeneous societies.
I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful than we world we currently have. A lot of rebellions have been started with the purpose of carving out or reclaiming space for a people that had no independence. Do you think the UK would have been better off if Ireland had not been granted complete independence? If Northern Ireland is anything to go by, it wouldn't.
Furthermore, force has many times been used with the purpose of adjusting borders according to ethnicity; the annexation of Sudetenland and the annexation of Crimea being relevant examples.
In sum, heterogeneity within countries has inspired a lot of violence and bad behaviour.
I don't see how a world of culturally homogeneous countries would make it easier for large and wealthy countries to dominate (if anything, some larger countries would get split up). Smaller countries would have to band together in order to be stronger when facing larger countries, but they do not need to have open borders with one another in order to accomplish this. If the EU had stuck with political and economical cooperation rather than gradually morphing into the USE, it may had been in a much better/more stable state today.
That may be somewhat true about internal conflict. The problem with homogeneous groups of people is that they tend to blame all their problems on some outside group and this leads to more and more conflict. Not to forget that they, especially with capitalism, require growth and can only grow after a certain point by growing into their neighbors. WW1 largely happened because the rather homogeneous nations wanted to preserve their glory, show their superiority or gain either of those. There was territorial conflict over who gets to eat the smaller nation of Serbia and so on. Of course there can also be "homogenous expansion" but then you end up with Hitler where you try to exterminate the people you conquer to replace them with your own.
Yet that's not always realistically achievable in the near to medium term (or even long term), and naturally gets more difficult the more immigrants are settled.
Yes, in today's environment of short term profit over everything else, my position has to be outrageous indeed.
The problem with multiculturalism is that it has not been shown to actually, well, work.
Assimilation works. Comes at a price, but it works.
Cultural hybridity works. Doesn't necessarily come without cost, as the cognitive dissonance of being one way with one group and a different culture with another is mentally straining.
True multiculturalism has not worked past the individual level.
Culture is an aspect of identity and identity is a human need.
On the other hand, you are also correct in that truly homogenous nations have had as many and as challenging -- if different -- issues to confront as have more heterogeneous societies.
I'm advocating some kind of cultural hybridity/assimilation developing towards a global monoculture of sorts. One may bemoan the loss of diversity, but diversity can and does exist in sub-cultures and so on. Multiculturalism does not work as it attempts to keep the cultures seperate and that doesn't work on a national level nor on an international level.
That may be somewhat true about internal conflict. The problem with homogeneous groups of people is that they tend to blame all their problems on some outside group and this leads to more and more conflict.
Like?
Not to forget that they, especially with capitalism, require growth and can only grow after a certain point by growing into their neighbors.
As would, then, any diverse country.
WW1 largely happened because the rather homogeneous nations wanted to preserve their glory, show their superiority or gain either of those. There was territorial conflict over who gets to eat the smaller nation of Serbia and so on.
It also heavily involved empires (often a heterogeneous lot) and monarchies with dubious democratic credentials, and was sparked by someone who wanted to join the territories of a people geographically disunited.
Yes, in today's environment of short term profit over everything else, my position has to be outrageous indeed.
Time here is money, lives and stability.
"I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful " Due to the number of civil wars we French had in the past, I am not sure of this.
Now, ban all religions and THIS will drastically cut the number of wars.
We will still have the good all reasons to do wars, mind you, from looting to "I don't like how you look at me"...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-08-2017, 02:25
"I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful " Due to the number of civil wars we French had in the past, I am not sure of this.
Now, ban all religions and THIS will drastically cut the number of wars.
We will still have the good all reasons to do wars, mind you, from looting to "I don't like how you look at me"...
Typical Blinkered French view.
Banning Religions would not reduce the number of wars. For starters you're have to oppress millions of people but even assuming you actually persuade the world to "forget" all religion they'll just start wars over something else - like Football.
Worse, ban all religion and people might just start fighting for conquest again like they did before the Jews invented Holy War. Pretty sure it was them - or if it wasn't them they killed whoever did invent it.
Like?
Russia, Iran, North Korea, you, ....
As would, then, any diverse country.
Not if there only was one country.
It also heavily involved empires (often a heterogeneous lot) and monarchies with dubious democratic credentials, and was sparked by someone who wanted to join the territories of a people geographically disunited.
Who was the latter? Russia? And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.
It was very easy to declare the other people whatever terrible stereotype the rulers could come up with because the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group. Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.
Time here is money, lives and stability.
Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.
Gilrandir
01-08-2017, 11:17
Now, ban all religions and THIS will drastically cut the number of wars.
There was a time when banning parties and usage of Russian in Ukraine was considered undemocratic. Is banning religions any better?
"I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful " Due to the number of civil wars we French had in the past, I am not sure of this.
Diverse countries have a lot of civil wars too (between majority factions, with separatism on top of this), and the odd genocide every now and then. I suspect that recent or current authoritarian rule could be a factor in many civil wars.
Russia
Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.
Iran
Seemingly pretty diverse (http://www.cfr.org/iran/irans-ethnic-groups/p12118#p1), also a theocracy.
North Korea
One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.
Not if there only was one country.
Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.
Who was the latter? Russia?
The Serb assassin.
And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.
Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.
the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group.
In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.
Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.
You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.
EDIT: Also somewhat ironic to bring up the US, where the majority population consists of mixed immigrant populations. A new nation grew to replace the old ones.
Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.
A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.
"Is banning religions any better?" Much better. Russian is not an ideology. Religions are ideologies and based on very dodgy texts, to say it mildly...
Diverse countries have a lot of civil wars too (between majority factions, with separatism on top of this), and the odd genocide every now and then. I suspect that recent or current authoritarian rule could be a factor in many civil wars.
So nations should all be based around ancient tribes and basically only perform inbreeding?
What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?
Where does it end?
Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.
Seemingly pretty diverse (http://www.cfr.org/iran/irans-ethnic-groups/p12118#p1), also a theocracy.
One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.[/QUOTE]
Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.
And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?
Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.
The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others. :sweatdrop:
Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.
You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?
The Serb assassin.
Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.
Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.
That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.
In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.
I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?
You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.
So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?
EDIT: Also somewhat ironic to bring up the US, where the majority population consists of mixed immigrant populations. A new nation grew to replace the old ones.
The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity. Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?
A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.
Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.
Gilrandir
01-10-2017, 13:59
"Is banning religions any better?" Much better. Russian is not an ideology. Religions are ideologies and based on very dodgy texts, to say it mildly...
So you would second banning an ideology? The communist one, for instance, and the party that propagates its tenets?
I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts. If the ideology changed and became in line with the laws, no.
So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned.
I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-11-2017, 00:29
I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts. If the ideology changed and became in line with the laws, no.
So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned.
I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.
You'll have banned Capitalism, then.
Good question but irrelevant. Where is the ideological book describing Capitalism? The consequences of bad capitalism (or bad communism) are not in the platform but in the actions of states or individuals. Is Condor operation inscribe in capitalism? Or was it H Kissinger decision?
Gilrandir
01-11-2017, 09:56
I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts.
If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?
Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?
So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned. I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?
However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam).
In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.
So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?
But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?
So nations should all be based around ancient tribes and basically only perform inbreeding?
A bit late for this solution of yours.
What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?
I don't think the solution involves mass-immigration.
Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.
In Russia's case, it is. Forgotten about Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan? That's just the beginning.
And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?
The ultimate point has of course to be how diversity and homogeneity has affected the outcome. The hostile rhetoric of the North Korean government can be seen as a way to justify the extreme authoritarianism and seems primarily to be directed at ideological rather than ethnic enemies.
Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.
The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others. :sweatdrop:
The US is still very diverse, and it seems quite normal for populists in any country to blame problems on outside forces.
You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?
You can chose which party to join, but you cannot chose your ethnicity.
Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.
I would say that is having it upside down. Such people come into existence when an ethnic group is scattered over several different countries in a region (and preferably where it forms a minority, or the use of force would be more difficult to justify). If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have any unification to fight for.
That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.
It is what tends to happen; diverse entities created by force or without the support of the people it includes seems to often be rather unstable in the long run. Once the reelvant people actually get to have their voices heard, they tend to want independence. And that's not strange if they form a minority - their risk becoming outvoted on many or most issues important to them. If they form a majority, the current rulers would probably rather let them go than give them numerically fair representation (think of the British parliament dominated by MPs from India; not a very probable or stable scenario).
I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?
Unlikely, and people can migrate even if the borders are open for free movement; it would just (in my scenario) be in much smaller amounts (at least for permanent settlement). If migration levels are sufficiently low and from sufficiently similar cultures, assimilation would be very high for just a couple of generations.
So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?
Dicatorships in general seem to do the more extreme things like these. Stalin deported entire ethnic groups that were thought of as unreliable, and he came from a minority population himself (Georgian) within a diverse empire.
The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity.
Yes, but this homogeneous (not necessarily in all senses) came from a heterogeneous population, so this new homogeneous population did not at all become any more tolerant just because it has no concept of a nation stretching back more a thousand years or more.
Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?
I just said that some civil wars are between majority factions.
Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.
Democracies don't really have any solid long-term strategy, they can zigzag like a person with a split personality from election to election. Democracies are probably not the best source for long-term strategies (not the typical dictatorship, either).
A bit late for this solution of yours.
*of mine.
I don't think the solution involves mass-immigration.
Why? They should adopt 12 Afroasian children IMO.
In Russia's case, it is. Forgotten about Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan? That's just the beginning.
How are theses cases comparable to the effects of the current migrant crisis?
The US is still very diverse, and it seems quite normal for populists in any country to blame problems on outside forces.
And who usually votes for populists in the first place?
You can chose which party to join, but you cannot chose your ethnicity.
Is that really a choice or the predictable outcome of your environment and circumstances?
How likely is it for a Communist party member to make the choice to join the NSDAP?
And don't say Horst Mahler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Mahler).
I would say that is having it upside down. Such people come into existence when an ethnic group is scattered over several different countries in a region (and preferably where it forms a minority, or the use of force would be more difficult to justify). If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have any unification to fight for.
No, you're having it upside down. These people come into existance because they and the people around them still care about ethnicity in the first place. There may be an innate desire to form in-groups, but it doesn't necessarily have to be based on ethnicity. It's not like you're best friends with every Norwegian, or is it?
Otherwise we'll get back to the best husband being your cousin and so on... Or would you call that normal/desirable human behavior now?
Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one. Might even say at this point that you can choose your ethnicity as much as the party to join.
It is what tends to happen; diverse entities created by force or without the support of the people it includes seems to often be rather unstable in the long run. Once the reelvant people actually get to have their voices heard, they tend to want independence. And that's not strange if they form a minority - their risk becoming outvoted on many or most issues important to them. If they form a majority, the current rulers would probably rather let them go than give them numerically fair representation (think of the British parliament dominated by MPs from India; not a very probable or stable scenario).
That's all learned behavior again, your opinion on ethnicity is a choice. You talk about it as though it were unchangeable. You even exclude cases where the mixing has "the support of the people it includes", so you basically acknowledge the existence of people who can just live and let live instead of making a big fuss for no good reason.
Unlikely, and people can migrate even if the borders are open for free movement; it would just (in my scenario) be in much smaller amounts (at least for permanent settlement). If migration levels are sufficiently low and from sufficiently similar cultures, assimilation would be very high for just a couple of generations.
I do not disagree that long-term migration should not be as high as it was in 2015 or 2016, but there are plenty of other reasons for that besides peoples' irrational fears of the boogeyman. The other issue is that migration is so high in the first place because we have so many individual competing nations and the losers don't all just want to sit on their asses and wait until they die. The same reason that made people vote for Trump is why sub-saharan Africans want to come to Europe (and Mexicans to the US). they lost in the economic game and want a job. The only question is which one of the losers succeeds in beating the other losers before the machines make us all lose anyway.
Yes, but this homogeneous (not necessarily in all senses) came from a heterogeneous population, so this new homogeneous population did not at all become any more tolerant just because it has no concept of a nation stretching back more a thousand years or more.
Which was never relevant anyway. The groups that made up the new majority had plenty of ethnic infighting in the beginning, the immigrants were always blamed until new immigrants came and the old immigrants became part of the in-group. Which just goes to show that ethnic differences are a choice/based on circumstances and should usually not be seen as some kind of universal truth.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-11-2017, 16:02
Good question but irrelevant. Where is the ideological book describing Capitalism? The consequences of bad capitalism (or bad communism) are not in the platform but in the actions of states or individuals. Is Condor operation inscribe in capitalism? Or was it H Kissinger decision?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
Adam Smith actually propounded upon a doctrine of beneficial selfishness. His writing and those who follow him may well be responsible for not only the recent financial crisis but also the general unravelling of social fabric in Europe.
Smith did not, however, advocate slum landlords or dismantling companies and selling them off for parts. Marx did not advocate Gulags and Jesus preached absolute pacifism.
Either God is real and religion is special of He isn't and it isn't.
You can't say God is a made up idea and then say religion is still different to any other philosophy or ideology.
*of mine.
Yes, of thine (aka straw manning).
How are theses cases comparable to the effects of the current migrant crisis?
Just follow the chain of quotes:
The problem with homogeneous groups of people is that they tend to blame all their problems on some outside group and this leads to more and more conflict.
Is Putin blaming the Chechens and the Ingush? No, he is blaming you and your homosexual goldfish. This is Dagestan:
The Avars form the largest ethnic group and account for about a fifth of the population. A further substantial proportion is made up of Dargins, Kumyks and Lezgins. About 10 per cent are ethnic Russians. There are also Laks, Tabasarans and Nogai, to name but a few of the other significant groups.
The republic's constitution declares the protection of the interests of all of Dagestan's peoples to be a fundamental principle. It is a delicate balance to maintain, in what is Russia's most ethnically diverse province.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3659904.stm
In 2011, a BBC article proclaimed Dagestan to be the most dangerous place in Europe (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15824831):
Once it was Chechnya, today it is the republic of Dagestan on the Caspian Sea that is the most explosive place in Russia - and in Europe. There are bomb attacks almost daily, shootouts between police and militants, tales of torture and of people going missing.
Sounds a bit like Malmö, maybe on steroids.
And who usually votes for populists in the first place?
Homo sapiens sapiens.
Is that really a choice or the predictable outcome of your environment and circumstances?
Many signals for ethnic belonging are genetic; and even when they aren't, they can be difficult to fake (like language and accent).
How likely is it for a Communist party member to make the choice to join the NSDAP?
And don't say Horst Mahler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Mahler).
If you want to take part in the camaraderie and corruption, just sign up to join the party. No cosmetic surgery needed.
Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one.
[...]
That's all learned behavior again, your opinion on ethnicity is a choice. You talk about it as though it were unchangeable.
In theory, you can separate the biology (phenotype) and culture of an ethnicity, but in practice, it's typically not quite that simple.
(in the same sense as ethnicity being an 'artificial social construct', so is humanity: a collection of organisms that happen to share a lot of DNA and that can often interbreed)
You even exclude cases where the mixing has "the support of the people it includes", so you basically acknowledge the existence of people who can just live and let live instead of making a big fuss for no good reason.
Not quite sure what you are referring to here.
I do not disagree that long-term migration should not be as high as it was in 2015 or 2016
I think the immigration rates in previous years have also been too high in many countries; the current issues in countries like France, Sweden and the UK are primarily not about the last couple of years of immigration, but go back a long time.
Which was never relevant anyway. The groups that made up the new majority had plenty of ethnic infighting in the beginning, the immigrants were always blamed until new immigrants came and the old immigrants became part of the in-group. Which just goes to show that ethnic differences are a choice/based on circumstances and should usually not be seen as some kind of universal truth.
They were all from Europe, so it's not very shocking that the assimilation was swift. Since Mexico also has been heavily influenced by a European culture (Spain), including in terms of religion, they too might not have a hard time assimilating, although many of them might be more strongly tagged as out-group by looking differently (and again, concerns about too many immigrating over a too short period of time don't go away).
"If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?" Expropriate is a right that any State got in their laws. I think the one who invented the notion in France was Napoleon III in 1852, hardly a communist.
"Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?" It was not a tenet of Communism, but a debate within the Communist Party. I sort of remember that Stalin was against, Trotsky for. Stalin won.
Now, you have to show me in a nowadays communist platform where the "export of revolution by force" is written.
"So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?" Depending of the modern version of their ideology. However, the basis of Nazi ideology being the same than ISIL, racism, inequality, cult of death and violence and porn, if they change all these items, they won't be anymore Nazi... So the question is not really one...
"Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam)." They still refer to the same books accepting slavery, inequality, slaughters and aggression. So until they come with an explanation how their Gods were wrong the 1st time he/she/it came up with the holy texts... Jesus recognise the Old Testament, so does Islam. The difference between Shia and Sunni is mainly due to a different opinion about who was the heir of Mohammed, not the core of the text.
"So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?" Yes, because there are different streams in communism as you know. Putting in the same bags the Communist executed by Stalin with Stalin is ridiculous. And this is the most best known example. Do you want to ban Social Democrat Parties in the world because dictatorship this ideology imposed in Europe (Greece, Portugal, France, etc)?
"But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?" Didn't say it was possible. I just said in order to avoid a good reason for war would be the vanishing of religions. They will hopefully disappeared, but it will under the flamethrower of knowledge and reason, Inch'allah...
"You can't say God is a made up idea and then say religion is still different to any other philosophy or ideology." And it is why I didn't say so. I am saying Religions are based on books their followers claim being the word of God. So, as such, God being truthful and by definition incapable of mistake, it can't be change. So if God said few centuries ago it is ok to have slaves, to rape and conquered others lands, it is valid for ever as God never specify a end date. So, Religions have option one to declare God was wrong, not good, option two, hiding the fact God was wrong, much better. Problem with option 2 is when some idiots come-up with original texts and argue rightly God never oppose slavery, rape, genocide and conquests.
But the way, didn't Jesus expelled the priest from the Temple with a whip? Is it the "absolute pacifism" he preached for? They were just earning the crust...
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-11-2017, 21:12
And it is why I didn't say so. I am saying Religions are based on books their followers claim being the word of God. So, as such, God being truthful and by definition incapable of mistake, it can't be change. So if God said few centuries ago it is ok to have slaves, to rape and conquered others lands, it is valid for ever as God never specify a end date. So, Religions have option one to declare God was wrong, not good, option two, hiding the fact God was wrong, much better. Problem with option 2 is when some idiots come-up with original texts and argue rightly God never oppose slavery, rape, genocide and conquests.
But the way, didn't Jesus expelled the priest from the Temple with a whip? Is it the "absolute pacifism" he preached for? They were just earning the crust...
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Oh, look, he quotes a single line out of context without understanding it. Evangelicals do that.
Please now go and read verses Matthew 10:34-42, inclusive.
That massage is not about violence but about strife between families - something anyone in a mixed-religion family can attest to. One parent is a Christian, the other an Atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, etc... Jesus still preached absolute pacifism, but pacifism doesn't mean there is no strife between people, it means you don't resort to violence to get your way.
Do better in future.
As to the episode with the whip, it always amazes me how often this is misinterpreted, everything Jesus says and does is a sort of performance, a way of illustrating his teachings. When he drives the money-lenders and the merchants (not the priests) out of the Temple with a whip his a Son expelling those people from his Father's House. He's turfing out the squatters who've taken up residence whilst dad was away. That's why he uses the whip.
As to the idea that a given religious writing "cannot change" this is infantile. Although great strain has been taken by copyists to accurately reproduce the text by hand it has ALWAYS been acknowledged that these copies are imperfect, and for this reason earlier copies have always been preferred. This goes back in the christian tradition at least as far as Jerome.
Again, you are constructing a caricature of a Christian from stereotypes of ignorant evangelicals, then reading that onto mainstream Christianity and every other religion.
I've been saying this for a decade now, and you've been here all that time so there is no excuse for this sort of sloppy argument. Buck up or I'll file a report with the moderators and let them decide whether your response to my point is spam or not.
Just follow the chain of quotes:
Is Putin blaming the Chechens and the Ingush? No, he is blaming you and your homosexual goldfish. This is Dagestan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3659904.stm
In 2011, a BBC article proclaimed Dagestan to be the most dangerous place in Europe (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15824831):
Sounds a bit like Malmö, maybe on steroids.
Where is the mass immigration and the huge ethnic difference?
Many signals for ethnic belonging are genetic; and even when they aren't, they can be difficult to fake (like language and accent).
If you want to take part in the camaraderie and corruption, just sign up to join the party. No cosmetic surgery needed.
What about black-skinned people who grew up here and have our culture?
Do they need cosmetic surgery to get our ethnicity? Bleach their skin?
In theory, you can separate the biology (phenotype) and culture of an ethnicity, but in practice, it's typically not quite that simple.
(in the same sense as ethnicity being an 'artificial social construct', so is humanity: a collection of organisms that happen to share a lot of DNA and that can often interbreed)
So we can just continue immigration if we just stop making a big deal out of it?
The inter-ethnic hatred is not an unchangeable fact after all and we have the choice to just stop it.
Yay!
Not quite sure what you are referring to here.
Mixed-ethnic marriages for example. They don't seem to inevitably murder eachother whereas you seem to say that this were the case when you mix ethnicities on a national level. My point is that you can mix them as long as the people on both sides do not make a big deal about it, which is a decision on the part of those people, a matter of education, upbringing or whatever (we hardly discuss that part here it seems).
I think the immigration rates in previous years have also been too high in many countries; the current issues in countries like France, Sweden and the UK are primarily not about the last couple of years of immigration, but go back a long time.
I think the way immigration has been treated as a self-solving issue of sorts was wrong.
Immigrants are treated the wrong way, are not introduced to and held to our basic standards and neither was much being done about the hostility they received early on from the side of the natives. There was lots of ghettoization and group-building around ethnic lines, that just exaggerates the differences. That is why I say the problem are not the ethnicities but how people handle them. Surely the "ethnic" hardliners who do not want to talk should be sent back home, I applaud e.g. the decision of the European court not to allow Muslims to remove their girls from swimming lectures just because they want everything to be more like home where girls and boys are seperated. People who come here should be willing to accept the basic tenets of our culture.
They were all from Europe, so it's not very shocking that the assimilation was swift. Since Mexico also has been heavily influenced by a European culture (Spain), including in terms of religion, they too might not have a hard time assimilating, although many of them might be more strongly tagged as out-group by looking differently (and again, concerns about too many immigrating over a too short period of time don't go away).
Then I'm sure the assimilation of the areas conquered by Russia will be swift as well, they only assimilate neighbors after all.
"That massage is not about violence but about strife between families - something anyone in a mixed-religion family can attest to. One parent is a Christian, the other an Atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, etc... Jesus still preached absolute pacifism, but pacifism doesn't mean there is no strife between people, it means you don't resort to violence to get your way." :laugh4: Well, that is YOUR interpretation. A sword is a weapon, a strike, not a strife. You can say whatever you want...
"As to the idea that a given religious writing "cannot change" this is infantile. Although great strain has been taken by copyists to accurately reproduce the text by hand it has ALWAYS been acknowledged that these copies are imperfect, and for this reason earlier copies have always been preferred. This goes back in the christian tradition at least as far as Jerome" :laugh4: Exactly!!! So the pretendence of religious people to know the alleged words of God is absurd. But when the text is clear, as slavery, slaughters, genocide, burning witches etc, nothing changed. Open your bible and these words are still nowadays in it, clear, precise, concise. Words of God or not? Religions say yes. Jesus did say, as much of the witnesses are telling as, that the Old Testament is still valid, so invasions, rape, slaughters are legitimate. It was with these texts that slavery was organised in the 3 Americas... Tell me if you dare that slavery is not allowed in the Bible!!!
So the Bible is against one of the basic Human Right. The Bible stated that women are inferior to men. The Bible gave numerous examples of slaughters not only authorised but ordered by the Divinity... All these are against the Humanity made rights.
"I've been saying this for a decade now, and you've been here all that time so there is no excuse for this sort of sloppy argument. Buck up or I'll file a report with the moderators and let them decide whether your response to my point is spam or not.":laugh4: Still better than to be burned by the Holy Inquisition, I suppose.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-12-2017, 02:21
:laugh4: Well, that is YOUR interpretation. A sword is a weapon, a strike, not a strife. You can say whatever you want...
Taken in the context of what happens later in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus heals the slave of the Temple priest after Peter cuts off his ear, it's pretty clear.
That's Matthew 25.47-56.
Verse 51-25 Specifically:
Suddenly, one of those who was with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. / Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
If you read the Gospel all in one sitting, as you should, then it's quite clear that the "sword" Jesus is referring to earlier is not a literal sword, it is a sword of division. Jesus' "sword" is his message, and when he says "I have not come to bring peace" he is saying that the Christian message will not bring harmony but diviosn, because there will be those who accept it and those who reject it.
He also said Christians would be mocked.
Now, here you are two millennia later laughing at me and miss-quoting the Gospels, so I'd say he was an excellent judge of human nature.
:laugh4: Exactly!!! So the pretendence of religious people to know the alleged words of God is absurd. But when the text is clear, as slavery, slaughters, genocide, burning witches etc, nothing changed. Open your bible and these words are still nowadays in it, clear, precise, concise. Words of God or not? Religions say yes. Jesus did say, as much of the witnesses are telling as, that the Old Testament is still valid, so invasions, rape, slaughters are legitimate. It was with these texts that slavery was organised in the 3 Americas... Tell me if you dare that slavery is not allowed in the Bible!!!
So the Bible is against one of the basic Human Right. The Bible stated that women are inferior to men. The Bible gave numerous examples of slaughters not only authorised but ordered by the Divinity... All these are against the Humanity made rights.
Straw man - the position of the VAST majority of Christians and especially Christian doctors is that the Bible is the Word of God as recorded by man. There is no monolithic "religions", there are a few billion people who follow a variety of religious traditions originating from various different parts of the planet. Even if you take the largest group, Roman Catholics, you'll still find a wide variety of views on many topics.
There's also absolutely nothing about "witches" in the Bible at all. That whole thing stems from a famously bad translation in the KJV, where it says "Witch" it should probably say "Necromancer", and even if it does says "Sorceress" that doesn't mean the same as a Demon-following Witch. We're not actually sure what sort of Sorcery women were doing in ancient Israel, so we don't really understand the import of the condemnation.
Hell, the "Bible" doesn't even really exist! It's a group of writings (as in the title), an anthology and the various Christian groups can't even agree what should be included and what shouldn't. Even with Jews, who've had much longer to think about this, I don't believe there's agreement on the content of the Rabbicic writings or an awful lot beyond the basic five books of the Torah.
:laugh4: Still better than to be burned by the Holy Inquisition, I suppose.
Maybe try engaging with other people instead of just mocking them? You might learn something despite yourself, maybe your views of other people are capable of evolution.
PVP, what you failed to understand is I don't care of what Gospel or Holy Books are saying. What I care is what people are doing with it. You probably know that I am an atheist, so I don't believe in any deity/ies. It doesn't mean I don't have a set of beliefs, it just mean I don't believe in a Super ET creator of the world.
I mostly agree with what you said about translation and as I speak several languages, I can tell you that what define a language are the words that can't be fully translated, as alien in French (the word étranger will not give the full meaning) or the serbian word "inat" (pride which will push to take a decision against your own good).
However, my point is not a theological debate. My point was and is Holy Texts are words of God in the mainstream religions. As such, they can't be modified, but interpreted. But they still remain in the book.
And your reading of the word "sword" is a good example. Your interpretation is perhaps valid. But when a extremist Christian just read the word and read as literal, he/she can justify any violent action by the Bible.
So, when political platforms can be updated to meet modern standards (i.e. communist doctrine is now fully aware that dictatorship is not an option), a Holy Text can't.
We both know it was done in the past, and this not the argument.
"Maybe try engaging with other people instead of just mocking them?" Well, I don't react very well under "threat". And it is honestly a better thing to be reported to a moderation on a website than to be reported to the Inquisition, you should agree that it is an improvement... Now, if it really hurts you, I apologise.
Gilrandir
01-12-2017, 12:13
*
Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one.
All society groups are artificial constructs, including the family (if we speak of two (or more) people that share houshold, bed, finances, etc. If we speak of family as of parents and children, then they are biological group).
"If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?" Expropriate is a right that any State got in their laws. I think the one who invented the notion in France was Napoleon III in 1852, hardly a communist.
What's the difference who invented the term? Communists incorporated it into the doctrines and, which is more important, put it into practice.
"Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?" It was not a tenet of Communism, but a debate within the Communist Party. I sort of remember that Stalin was against, Trotsky for. Stalin won.
Perhaps there was a debate, but the tenet itself was forwarded by Lenin:
The victorious proletariat… having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would confront the rest of the capitalist world, attract to itself the oppressed classes of other countries, raise revolts among them against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity, come out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. – V.I. Lenin, The United States of Europe Slogan (1915), Selected Works, English edition, Volume 5 (1936), p. 14.
Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. – J.V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism (April 1924), Works, English edition, Volume 6 (1953), p. 111.
"So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?" Depending of the modern version of their ideology. However, the basis of Nazi ideology being the same than ISIL, racism, inequality, cult of death and violence and porn, if they change all these items, they won't be anymore Nazi... So the question is not really one...
I don't know such minute details of nazi ideology, so would you be so kind as to prove the existence of such tenets as cult of death and porn in them.
"Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam)." They still refer to the same books accepting slavery, inequality, slaughters and aggression. So until they come with an explanation how their Gods were wrong the 1st time he/she/it came up with the holy texts... Jesus recognise the Old Testament, so does Islam. The difference between Shia and Sunni is mainly due to a different opinion about who was the heir of Mohammed, not the core of the text.
Yet religions ARE subject to modification, which is what I was trying to show.
"So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?" Yes, because there are different streams in communism as you know.
Don't you think that banning only SOME stream of communism and ALL religions indiscriminately (despite both can be blamed in many unsavory things) is somehow unfair?
Putting in the same bags the Communist executed by Stalin with Stalin is ridiculous.
I don't think so. Stalin executed his colleagues not because of some ideological issues, it was a usual internal strife to get the domination in the party and in the country. Or to you mind we can't put in the same nazi bag Hitler and those he assassinated in the Night of the long knives?
"But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?" Didn't say it was possible. I just said in order to avoid a good reason for war would be the vanishing of religions. They will hopefully disappeared, but it will under the flamethrower of knowledge and reason, Inch'allah...
What you say now is somehow different from banning, the word you used at first. So I don't know what in fact do you stand for - official banning or natural disappearence.
PVP, what you failed to understand is I don't care of what Gospel or Holy Books are saying. What I care is what people are doing with it.
This is what I've been saying all the time. Some people might do nasty things having nothing to do with religions (like Breivik, for instance), others do very good things because they have read the Holy books. The latter are something like a huge shop containing EVERYTHING. What you buy in it - bread for the needy or a gun to shoot your neighbor - depends on YOU, not on the SHOP.
All society groups are artificial constructs, including the family (if we speak of two (or more) people that share houshold, bed, finances, etc. If we speak of family as of parents and children, then they are biological group).
Yes, and that's why one should not treat ethnicity as an unchangeable fact of life. Especially when it gets in the way of greatness.
And two people who are a couple usually have more biological/chemical links that are part of their nature and bind them together than I do with some random guy from Saxony that I never even met. :dizzy2:
The point being that one should not raise ethnicity as a seemingly immovable object or natural fact that prevents immigration from being successful, because that makes it seem like something it just is not. We need to move on from a post-factual world to a post-ethnical one.
Gilrandir
01-12-2017, 13:43
We need to move on from a post-factual world to a post-ethnical one.
That's where Europe (and Germany especially) seems to be moving, and that's what seems to be ruining it. Europeans seems to lose an anchor, a glue that holds their societies together.
Where is the mass immigration and the huge ethnic difference?
Dagestan is a very diverse place; and the immigration into Europe tends to be quite diverse, often creating quite diverse places where they settle.
What about black-skinned people who grew up here and have our culture?
Do they need cosmetic surgery to get our ethnicity? Bleach their skin?
They are part of the culture, but they aren't necessarily part of the ethnic group; certainly not in the strictest sense (in which there is presently nothing realistic that they can do to change it). This goes beyond skin colour, of course, which is just one component of an ethnic phenotype.
So we can just continue immigration if we just stop making a big deal out of it?
It's a big deal for many because it is causing a lot of problems.
The inter-ethnic hatred is not an unchangeable fact after all and we have the choice to just stop it.
Yay!
Yes, like criminals have to choose to be criminal. Currently, it's a statistical certainty that many will make the that choice, anyway; so you prepare for crime because you know you'll get it.
Mixed-ethnic marriages for example.
You'd need quite a lot of mixed marriages before it would have any relevance for a UK parliament dominated by MPs living in India.
They don't seem to inevitably murder eachother whereas you seem to say that this were the case when you mix ethnicities on a national level.
Interactions between individuals is not the same as the statistics of interaction between groups of individuals. For the current topic, it's not particularly relevant that some individuals from different groups form close bonds, or that some individuals from certain groups become 'successful'; but what the statistics for the group is as a whole, over time.
My point is that you can mix them as long as the people on both sides do not make a big deal about it, which is a decision on the part of those people, a matter of education, upbringing or whatever (we hardly discuss that part here it seems).
[...]
Immigrants are treated the wrong way, are not introduced to and held to our basic standards and neither was much being done about the hostility they received early on from the side of the natives. There was lots of ghettoization and group-building around ethnic lines, that just exaggerates the differences. That is why I say the problem are not the ethnicities but how people handle them. Surely the "ethnic" hardliners who do not want to talk should be sent back home, I applaud e.g. the decision of the European court not to allow Muslims to remove their girls from swimming lectures just because they want everything to be more like home where girls and boys are seperated. People who come here should be willing to accept the basic tenets of our culture.
I disagree with the underlying view. Unless we are willing to spend massive amounts of both money and time on integration, I think we will just see the same issues repeated and made worse with recent/current immigration levels. The way I see it, the immigrants cluster together because they either have more in common with each other than the majority population, or because they settle in the parts of cities that are the cheapest - or both. This causes segregation and maintains the status of immigrants and their descendants as out-group, and rates of antisocial behaviour go up in such areas.
Then I'm sure the assimilation of the areas conquered by Russia will be swift as well, they only assimilate neighbors after all.
Neighbours quite distinct from themselves. The Caucasus is quite unique with its endemic language families; and is also culturally distinct (including, of course, the presence of Islam in several of these republics). Other republics contain Buddhist Mongols (Kalmykia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/4580467.stm)) and Turkic people (like the Muslim Tatars in Tatarstan). So no, they got much work to do if the want to assimilate; and it might seem things are going in the opposite direction (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19179399) here and there (maybe everywhere).
Dagestan is a very diverse place; and the immigration into Europe tends to be quite diverse, often creating quite diverse places where they settle.
And they flee from very diverse places in the first place, which makes the problem rather inescapable...
They are part of the culture, but they aren't necessarily part of the ethnic group; certainly not in the strictest sense (in which there is presently nothing realistic that they can do to change it). This goes beyond skin colour, of course, which is just one component of an ethnic phenotype.
So do they have no ethnic group, are they "problems we can't deal with", should they make their own ethnic group and be provided a breeding ground to call their own nation? And how much trouble do they cause anyway?
It's a big deal for many because it is causing a lot of problems.
Yes, like criminals have to choose to be criminal. Currently, it's a statistical certainty that many will make the that choice, anyway; so you prepare for crime because you know you'll get it.
Interactions between individuals is not the same as the statistics of interaction between groups of individuals. For the current topic, it's not particularly relevant that some individuals from different groups form close bonds, or that some individuals from certain groups become 'successful'; but what the statistics for the group is as a whole, over time.
And it's causing a lot of problems because it's a big deal for many. Hen or egg? :inquisitive:
I usually don't feel the need to cause trouble because I'm surrounded by different ethnicities. Can't speak for everyone of course...
Statistically, the ethnic groups also commit the most murders within their own ethnic group, which begs the question why other groups are so concerned. The theft and other property crimes simply occur more and more the bigger the divide between rich and poor. The rich tend to steal legally and the poor with more physical/violent methods, where ethnicity enters the question is something you'd have to explain. Apart from the obvious idea where one ethnicity dominates another, which is once again an artificially created divide that is usually created along different lines in more homogeneous societies as well, and causes the same issues there.
I disagree with the underlying view. Unless we are willing to spend massive amounts of both money and time on integration, I think we will just see the same issues repeated and made worse with recent/current immigration levels. The way I see it, the immigrants cluster together because they either have more in common with each other than the majority population, or because they settle in the parts of cities that are the cheapest - or both. This causes segregation and maintains the status of immigrants and their descendants as out-group, and rates of antisocial behaviour go up in such areas.
This is partially true, as people tend to flock to "their own" even if just for reasons of lazyness. The other part is that they are clumped together upon/after entering the country and are pretty much prohibited from participating in anything that could make them get to know naticves, such as working. And when they do, the natives try to avoid them on purpose due to prejudices which are often wrong. I dare say when we began letting a lot of people come here, racism was far more common among the native population and it led to a divide that then strengthened itself over time.
Your argument that "well, that's just the way it is and we have to adapt to it instead of changing it" is the same that certain other cultures use to make women wear full cover and not let them leave the house without male supervision...
I prefer the Western approach of correcting the wrong behavior instead of treating it as an unchangeable truism that we have to work around somehow.
Neighbours quite distinct from themselves. The Caucasus is quite unique with its endemic language families; and is also culturally distinct (including, of course, the presence of Islam in several of these republics). Other republics contain Buddhist Mongols (Kalmykia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/4580467.stm)) and Turkic people (like the Muslim Tatars in Tatarstan). So no, they got much work to do if the want to assimilate; and it might seem things are going in the opposite direction (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19179399) here and there (maybe everywhere).
Now I wonder how the Catholics from Italy and the Protestants from Sweden integrated so fast in the US, because they're quite distinct...
It couldn't possibly have something to do with the difference between being forced to accept a different government due to having been conquered by force and willingly going somewhere with a different government?
And they flee from very diverse places in the first place, which makes the problem rather inescapable...
Many of those who migrate form the majority population in their country of origin. For those who come from very diverse places, maybe they should fix the diversity-related problems where they come from rather than creating colonies of them in Europe.
So do they have no ethnic group, are they "problems we can't deal with", should they make their own ethnic group and be provided a breeding ground to call their own nation? And how much trouble do they cause anyway?
They'll have to figure out themselves whether they want to do something about it or not; I don't see how this is relates the topic at hand.
And it's causing a lot of problems because it's a big deal for many.
I doubt that; unless, of course, you include the immigrants themselves.
Statistically, the ethnic groups also commit the most murders within their own ethnic group, which begs the question why other groups are so concerned.
That is a rather narrow perspective. If you could choose between one neighbourhood of your city being full of crime and none at all, you'd presumably choose the latter. Crime can spread; and, of course, if you've lived most of your life in a calm city or neighbourhood, you don't want to risk seeing crime engulf you, and 'force' you to move.
an artificially created divide that is usually created along different lines in more homogeneous societies as well
Like?
I prefer the Western approach of correcting the wrong behavior instead of treating it as an unchangeable truism that we have to work around somehow.
You have shown the desire to change it, but not the ability. I would prefer if I didn't have to bother with keys and passwords, but I do not possess the means to bring the necessary change about.
Now I wonder how the Catholics from Italy and the Protestants from Sweden integrated so fast in the US, because they're quite distinct...
It couldn't possibly have something to do with the difference between being forced to accept a different government due to having been conquered by force and willingly going somewhere with a different government?
You can note the actual differences between past migration from Europe to the US and current migration to Europe. Unless I am missing something, the Catholic Italian migrants to the US did not intentionally mow down pedestrians or the like. That implies there is a difference somewhere, whatever its exact nature. It could be modernity that is the issue, it could be Islam itself, it could be certain immigrant cultures themselves that don't fit in as well here, it could be the amount of immigration relative to native population size - or a combination of many different factors. But something, whatever it is, seems different, and that makes the comparison between past immigration to the US and the current migration to Europe not seem that relevant.
One simple solution is that the European cultures where closer and/or more compatible than you give them credit for.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-12-2017, 20:23
PVP, what you failed to understand is I don't care of what Gospel or Holy Books are saying. What I care is what people are doing with it. You probably know that I am an atheist, so I don't believe in any deity/ies. It doesn't mean I don't have a set of beliefs, it just mean I don't believe in a Super ET creator of the world.
I don't believe in a "Super ET" either, I think "Super ET" is an idea peddled by a certain group of Atheists (not you) who like to characterise religions as childish even when they aren't.
Now, it IS important what a given Holy Book says if you are going to critique it. You quoted the Gospel of Matthew out of context, I explained the context, you literally laughed off my explanation, so I gave you the litteral chapter and verse.
Yes, I know you're an Atheist, you should probably know I'm not uneducated fanatic, I've actually studied the Bible as a collection of texts. The same way I have studied Homer, or Shakespeare.
I mostly agree with what you said about translation and as I speak several languages, I can tell you that what define a language are the words that can't be fully translated, as alien in French (the word étranger will not give the full meaning) or the serbian word "inat" (pride which will push to take a decision against your own good).
All translations are useful lies, essentially.
However, my point is not a theological debate. My point was and is Holy Texts are words of God in the mainstream religions. As such, they can't be modified, but interpreted. But they still remain in the book.
As I have already explained this is incorrect for the "mainstream". It is only correct for the lunatic fringe. Go to any Christian Doctor of Theology from any reputable university and he will tell you the same thing - the Bible was written down by men. Men decided which books were worthy of inclusion and which not. Indeed, the major Christian denominations only came up with authoritative lists around 500 years ago, after the Reformation.
There is no "Book", the Bible is a collection of texts and different denominations have different Bibles. Now, is it true that you get lunatics who will hold of the KJV and claim it is THE word of God? Yes - but you can educate people out of it. I've seen it done, there's usually crying involved but the person tends to be better off in the long term.
And your reading of the word "sword" is a good example. Your interpretation is perhaps valid. But when a extremist Christian just read the word and read as literal, he/she can justify any violent action by the Bible.
No, they can't. They can try but it only takes five minutes to prove them wrong. That's important, because it means that if you engage with people and educate them rather than talking down to them, laughing at them and ridiculing them you can change their minds.
They're doing a lot of this with returning Islamists and the Koran right now - they get them to read the whole Koran, and then they educate them about the context. It's very effective.
So, when political platforms can be updated to meet modern standards (i.e. communist doctrine is now fully aware that dictatorship is not an option), a Holy Text can't.
We both know it was done in the past, and this not the argument.
You can nuance the implementation of Communist Doctrine but the reality is it's still Communism as expounded by Marx, or it isn't. You can't update the core ideas behind Communism, or it ceases to be Communism.
It's also not true that Holy Texts can't be updated - it's been done several times. Mormonism is an update of Christianity and Islam is a fusion and re-implementation of Christian and Jewish teaching as applied in the Arabian Peninsula.
The reason I'm not a Muslim or a Mormon is basically the same as the reason I'm not a Neocon, I happen to think these new ideas are not as good the old ideas they're trying to reinvent. I also prefer Plato and Aristotle to modern philosophers in the main.
"Maybe try engaging with other people instead of just mocking them?" Well, I don't react very well under "threat". And it is honestly a better thing to be reported to a moderation on a website than to be reported to the Inquisition, you should agree that it is an improvement... Now, if it really hurts you, I apologise.
I accept your apology but I would point out that I have had to refer back to both the "sword" and the 2whip" comment multiple times on these forums. One of the reasons I posts less on religion than I used to is that I have tired of responding to the same old points.
Many of those who migrate form the majority population in their country of origin. For those who come from very diverse places, maybe they should fix the diversity-related problems where they come from rather than creating colonies of them in Europe.
That they come from the majority population of their country is not an argument. Because on one hand it is not proven and on the other hand it does not invalidate their problem. Fixing the diversity-related problems is easier said than done, you're currently opposing all my attempts to do so for example. I'll have to silence and oppress you somehow if I can't convince you I guess... :sweatdrop:
They'll have to figure out themselves whether they want to do something about it or not; I don't see how this is relates the topic at hand.
It relates to the topic at hand in the sense that the government has to take care of them as it does for any other citizen, so it has to find a solution for those nazis who want to beat them up, and not just watch them do that. And if that solution is to make the nazis care less about ethnic differences, the other immigration problems are closer to being fixed as well.
And it shows that your ideal of same-ethnicity nation states is rather hard to achieve nowadays. Even with much less immigration, Germany would grow more diverse. The shrinking population would also set an incentive to grow again because population is one measure of a nation's power among competing nations...And if the native population can't be forced to grow, there's immigration again...
That is a rather narrow perspective. If you could choose between one neighbourhood of your city being full of crime and none at all, you'd presumably choose the latter. Crime can spread; and, of course, if you've lived most of your life in a calm city or neighbourhood, you don't want to risk seeing crime engulf you, and 'force' you to move.
Crime = immigrants is the narrow perspective here... :inquisitive:
Especially when it already happens with just a few immigrants moving into the neighborhood and before they actually commit any crimes.
Like?
Japan, which is apparently the only somewhat homogeneous country in the world.
You have shown the desire to change it, but not the ability. I would prefer if I didn't have to bother with keys and passwords, but I do not possess the means to bring the necessary change about.
Deporting all the people you want to deport is not something we are able to do either, so I can just give that right back to you.
I also never claimed to know a way to solve all friction between ethnicities, instead I think we're already somewhat on the way there in Western societies, we mostly need to fix some details. That's because I don't see the "problem" you seem to see given that it's not visible in the statistics here. There may be a problem in Malmö, but I don't want to apply fixes to all of Europe just because Malmö has a problem.
You can note the actual differences between past migration from Europe to the US and current migration to Europe. Unless I am missing something, the Catholic Italian migrants to the US did not intentionally mow down pedestrians or the like. That implies there is a difference somewhere, whatever its exact nature. It could be modernity that is the issue, it could be Islam itself, it could be certain immigrant cultures themselves that don't fit in as well here, it could be the amount of immigration relative to native population size - or a combination of many different factors. But something, whatever it is, seems different, and that makes the comparison between past immigration to the US and the current migration to Europe not seem that relevant.
One simple solution is that the European cultures where closer and/or more compatible than you give them credit for.
And why would that be so?
As for murders in the US, a lot of the immigrating Europeans brought the mafia or gangs with them and they murdered a whole lot of people.
And finding out what the reasons for terrorist acts are should be something done alongside the effort to suppress them. That these people basically began to use suicide attacks on civilians in modernity may have a reason. To just say that you don't care and want them gone is the same approach that the NSDAP had towards jewish bankers. Obviously your "solution" is a lot less cruel, but the way you get there is pretty much the same, you ignore all historical context and just blame and punish people for the status quo.
That they come from the majority population of their country is not an argument.
They often don't come from places as diverse as Dagestan (that's why they are at all able to form a majority of the population). In many cases, granting independence to certain regions could solve a lot.
Fixing the diversity-related problems is easier said than done, you're currently opposing all my attempts to do so for example.
I am opposing your attempts to introduce diversity, not decrease it.
It relates to the topic at hand in the sense that the government has to take care of them as it does for any other citizen, so it has to find a solution for those nazis who want to beat them up, and not just watch them do that. And if that solution is to make the nazis care less about ethnic differences, the other immigration problems are closer to being fixed as well.
Many Western curriculums are full of unicorns, rainbows and tolerance already - what are you going to do? One of the countries that seems to have the most rainbows and unicorns is Sweden, and they're one of the worst off.
the other immigration problems are closer to being fixed as well
Not by much.
And it shows that your ideal of same-ethnicity nation states is rather hard to achieve nowadays.
With a stop in relevant immigration and with evidence-based assimilation drives, we might revert to pre-immigration states sooner than you think.
Crime = immigrants is the narrow perspective here... :inquisitive:
Especially when it already happens with just a few immigrants moving into the neighborhood and before they actually commit any crimes.
Think more about living your entire life in a city like Malmö, only to see crime rates shoot up as you grow older.
Japan, which is apparently the only somewhat homogeneous country in the world.
And which 'artificially created divide' do we find in Japan that is some sort of equivalent to an ethnic divide?
Deporting all the people you want to deport is not something we are able to do either, so I can just give that right back to you.
As I stated earlier, my main focus is on halting immigration.
There may be a problem in Malmö, but I don't want to apply fixes to all of Europe just because Malmö has a problem.
Not just Malmö, many different places.
And why would that be so?
Common religious and lingual roots. The latter part might be more important than it first seems, as it may also include a recent (relatively speaking) common cultural origin.
As for murders in the US, a lot of the immigrating Europeans brought the mafia or gangs with them and they murdered a whole lot of people.
There's a lot of relevant crime in Europe that's in addition to terrorism (as discussed previously); and of course, the American mafia is another example of how immigration can go wrong.
To just say that you don't care and want them gone is the same approach that the NSDAP had towards jewish bankers. Obviously your "solution" is a lot less cruel, but the way you get there is pretty much the same, you ignore all historical context and just blame and punish people for the status quo.
In the same vague sense that the non-Western immigration to Europe has the potential to become comparable to the marginalisation of the native Americans by Europeans if it goes on for long enough.
They often don't come from places as diverse as Dagestan (that's why they are at all able to form a majority of the population). In many cases, granting independence to certain regions could solve a lot.
That's completely untrue.
Many Western curriculums are full of unicorns, rainbows and tolerance already - what are you going to do? One of the countries that seems to have the most rainbows and unicorns is Sweden, and they're one of the worst off.
That's because unicorns count even peeing on the street as visual rape whereas countries full of bears don't even count *********** in their statistics and incentivize the police not to report it whenever possible.
Not by much.
By very much.
With a stop in relevant immigration and with evidence-based assimilation drives, we might revert to pre-immigration states sooner than you think.
With ongoing immigration and evidence-based tolerance-courses, everything can be fixed without resorting to Hitler's dream.
Think more about living your entire life in a city like Malmö, only to see crime rates shoot up as you grow older.
They didn't shoot up, and I would have voted for the people who made it happen repeatedly anyway.
And which 'artificially created divide' do we find in Japan that is some sort of equivalent to an ethnic divide?
Rich vs. Poor, Men vs Women, Japanese vs. Criminals, Able-Bodied vs. Disabled.
Not to forget that for being such a utopia, 57th place in the happiness ranking, way after most of the terribly diverse Euronations, is not exactly a stellar achievement.
Not just Malmö, many different places.
Such as?
Common religious and lingual roots. The latter part might be more important than it first seems, as it may also include a recent (relatively speaking) common cultural origin.
Languages can be learned, taught even.
There's a lot of relevant crime in Europe that's in addition to terrorism (as discussed previously); and of course, the American mafia is another example of how immigration can go wrong.
That other crime is statistically insignificant, 2 million new Germans of the same socioeconomic group instead of 2 million new immigrants would produce the same "increase". Ethnicity does not factor in there.
And there's a mafia in Japan, too. Your argument is invalid.
In the same vague sense that the non-Western immigration to Europe has the potential to become comparable to the marginalisation of the native Americans by Europeans if it goes on for long enough.
When? 2500? The comparison is completely invalid again on several levels. The native Americans were technologically inferior and killed by diseases they did not know due to their lack of contact with other ethnicities. Today we have plenty of measures to at least dampen the effect of diseases, have fewer diseases we don't know anything about and are technically, monetarily and in most other aspects superior to the refugees and immigrants. They also don't land here with armed and armored soldiers disembarking from warships in case you haven't noticed.
Gilrandir
01-13-2017, 14:00
Japan, which is apparently the only somewhat homogeneous country in the world.
Not the only. You may count in both Koreas, Denmark, Iceland, Mongolia, Cambodia and some others.
Not the only. You may count in both Koreas, Denmark, Iceland, Mongolia, Cambodia and some others.
There is actually a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level
You may want to name Tunisia, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Greece and The Netherlands, but especially the latter is already a hellhole due to too much diversity I hear. Korea was out due to the dictatorship thing, which leaves us with Japan. Yemen has a civil war, Portugal is ruined by diversity, Italy and Greece are on the brink of diversistruction and Poland is so scared of even more diversity that it only exports people. Tunisia is another dictatorship.
So really, the only valid example of a country that is not affected by the terrible negativity of diversity is Japan.
And they're doing terrible, too.
Rich vs. Poor, Men vs Women, Japanese vs. Criminals, Able-Bodied vs. Disabled.
You find those divides in diverse countries too (though maybe without the strange capitalisation).
Such as?
Forgotten about the banlieus already?
Languages can be learned, taught even.
You cut out the important bit:
[having common ingual roots] might be more important than it first seems, as it may also include a recent (relatively speaking) common cultural origin.
In other words, the Indo-European cultures of Europe could in theory be sharing some abstract features that many cultures outside of Europe might not share as many of.
That other crime is statistically insignificant, 2 million new Germans of the same socioeconomic group instead of 2 million new immigrants would produce the same "increase".
If you are talking about recent arrivals, that is too early to tell.
And there's a mafia in Japan, too.
The point is that there was mafia in Italy, then the concept or organisation spread to the US with immigration from Italy.
When? 2500? The comparison is completely invalid again on several levels. The native Americans were technologically inferior and killed by diseases they did not know due to their lack of contact with other ethnicities. Today we have plenty of measures to at least dampen the effect of diseases, have fewer diseases we don't know anything about and are technically, monetarily and in most other aspects superior to the refugees and immigrants. They also don't land here with armed and armored soldiers disembarking from warships in case you haven't noticed.
They are about as related as your talk of NSDAP and 'Jewish bankers' is to my posts.
You find those divides in diverse countries too (though maybe without the strange capitalisation).
They are more pronounced in Japan.
Forgotten about the banlieus already?
No.
You cut out the important bit:
In other words, the Indo-European cultures of Europe could in theory be sharing some abstract features that many cultures outside of Europe might not share as many of.
Fantasy argument. Great!
If you are talking about recent arrivals, that is too early to tell.
German police already recorded a decrease in crime among recent arrivals.
The point is that there was mafia in Italy, then the concept or organisation spread to the US with immigration from Italy.
Yes, there are also crabs that spread around the world with trade vessels and then eat all the other crabs.
The point was that the mafia didn't come into existence solely due to ethnic mixing as it existed within a relatively homogeneous group just as well, even began there.
The concept of organized crime and/or gangs came up in many different ethnicities, Japan also has the Yakuza, or were they spawned by Sicilian immigrants as well?
They are about as related as your talk of NSDAP and 'Jewish bankers' is to my posts.
That you did not understand my comparison does not make yours any more valid though, unfortunately.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-13-2017, 22:52
There is actually a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level
You may want to name Tunisia, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Greece and The Netherlands, but especially the latter is already a hellhole due to too much diversity I hear. Korea was out due to the dictatorship thing, which leaves us with Japan. Yemen has a civil war, Portugal is ruined by diversity, Italy and Greece are on the brink of diversistruction and Poland is so scared of even more diversity that it only exports people. Tunisia is another dictatorship.
So really, the only valid example of a country that is not affected by the terrible negativity of diversity is Japan.
And they're doing terrible, too.
Um, Tunisia is a pretty much fully paid up Democracy, sorry.
Um, Tunisia is a pretty much fully paid up Democracy, sorry.
You're right of course, thanks.
They are more pronounced in Japan.
Show the numbers.
Fantasy argument. Great!
Not enough firebreathing dragons with a pro-immigration stance.
German police already recorded a decrease in crime among recent arrivals.
Source? Regardless, you may find the the next 20-40 years more interesting than the previous 2.
The point was that the mafia didn't come into existence solely due to ethnic mixing as it existed within a relatively homogeneous group just as well, even began there.
Duh. You can note that such networks did not come into existence in many homogeneous populations. Maybe some cultures didn't have the right seeds.
That you did not understand my comparison does not make yours any more valid though, unfortunately.
They were both about principles and not so much about the actual processes going on. Marginalisation can have similar end results regardless of whether it is carried out with violence.
Show the numbers.
They're out there, just like your numbers I assume.
We are getting to the point again where we realize again that you haven't proven anything.
Source? Regardless, you may find the the next 20-40 years more interesting than the previous 2.
Source was already provided in the discussion with Greyblades I think, or maybe it was here. Surely you can find it together with sources for all the unsourced things you claim.
Duh. You can note that such networks did not come into existence in many homogeneous populations. Maybe some cultures didn't have the right seeds.
Maybe ethnic diversity is also not the only or most important factor in the calculation...
Shocking, I know!
They're out there, just like your numbers I assume.
What numbers?
We are getting to the point again where we realize again that you haven't proven anything.
I didn't know I was trying to 'prove' anything.
Source was already provided in the discussion with Greyblades I think, or maybe it was here.
Or maybe you remembered it incorrectly. That's why it's nice when specific claims go with specific sources so that it can be easily verified, preferably without going through your post history.
Surely you can find it together with sources for all the unsourced things you claim.
Which statements which you dispute would that be? Be specific.
Maybe ethnic diversity is also not the only or most important factor in the calculation...
Shocking, I know!
:Zzzz:
What numbers?
Nevermind.
I didn't know I was trying to 'prove' anything.
Exactly, so why bring numbers into the game now?
I was just beginning to have fun without using Google too much.
Or maybe you remembered it incorrectly. That's why it's nice when specific claims go with specific sources so that it can be easily verified.
Nah.
Which statements which you dispute would that be? Be specific.
Your statement that nations are better off the less diverse they are.
Your statement that if we don't stop immigration completely right now, we will end up like the Native Americans.
Your statement that crime and gang activities increase mostly when ethnic mixing occurs.
And your seeming statement that ethnic mixing is the most important factor in this or the one we should tackle first.
Then your statement that this complete isolation is somehow viable and worth it.
You may say next that half of these you never claimed, but maybe that's because you're rarely very specific yourself.
You keep making vague claims about how terrible things are, never post a source to back the claim up and then demand sources from me to challenge your claim. Ain't work like that. Begin by backing up your own claims with sources that aren't news items about single events in Malmö.
And if that is too much work for you, it's too much for me as well of course.
:Zzzz:
Sleep well.
Exactly, so why bring numbers into the game now?
Well, what do you think? It could be interesting for me or anyone else reading this thread to see what you are basing your claims on. 'Proving' or 'disproving' things doesn't have to come into that.
Your statement that nations are better off the less diverse they are.
Your statement that if we don't stop immigration completely right now, we will end up like the Native Americans.
Your statement that crime and gang activities increase mostly when ethnic mixing occurs.
And your seeming statement that ethnic mixing is the most important factor in this or the one we should tackle first.
Then your statement that this complete isolation is somehow viable and worth it.
I have provided many sources that back up my views. Of course I cannot provide any source that says "Viking is right"; if such sources existed, we probably wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. The topic we have debated is often both abstract and complex and difficult to reason accurately about. I don't know what kind of sources you would want beyond those that have been provided.
You may say next that half of these you never claimed, but maybe that's because you're rarely very specific yourself.
That's not an invitation for you to fill in details yourself; that's strawmanning. If you want to know if a person has a more specific position, you could just ask.
Begin by backing up your own claims with sources that aren't news items about single events in Malmö.
That's the second time (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152366-French-Presidential-Election&p=2053733612&viewfull=1#post2053733612) in this thread that you have misrepresented the data that I have provided.
Well, what do you think? It could be interesting for me or anyone else reading this thread to see what you are basing your claims on. 'Proving' or 'disproving' things doesn't have to come into that.
That's the thing about your posts as well, I mostly see claims about Malmö and how diverse Russia/Dagestan is. When I look up ethnic diversity, Russia appears to be not that diverse at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level#/media/File:List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level,_List_based_on_Fearon%27s_analy sis.png
What I'm specifically missing from you is anything that backs up the idea that ethnicity is the factor important enough to tackle it, unless we are talking about just finding the simplest solution without any regard for ethics. I found this report for example:
http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/HQ_SF82.pdf
It does factor ethnic diversity in as important, but puts emphasis on language barriers and the lack of contact being the main source for trouble between different ethnicities. As I said before, language barriers can be overcome.
Also note that it finds a strong correlation between poverty (both relative and absolute) and crime and various other factors such as age, urbanization etc., which are partially hard to interprete. It also mentions displaced aggression, which may explain e.g. why many refugees fight among themselves. that would be somewhat consistent with reports of the German police that immigrants were mostly the victims of violent crimes committed by other immigrants:
https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInformationen/StatistikenLagebilder/Lagebilder/KriminalitaetImKontextVonZuwanderung/KriminalitaetImKontextVonZuwanderung_node.html
The report now covers 01.01.2016 - 30.09.2016.
The first graph in the report summary already shows that the numbers of asylum applicants has gone down considerably in 2016 compared to the huge influx of 2015, which is entirely consistent with my point that the huge influx was not an ongoing situation.
The report further states on the topic of criminality in general where at least one immigrant was among the suspects, that property crime has continued to go down and violent crime was consistently on a very low level. Property crime, by the way, is usually among those spawned mostly by poverty and not so much by ethnic diversity.
And then it also mentions that the vast majority of immigrants did not commit any crimes.
On the topic of other people wanting to know, if I were them I wouldn't read all our posts, so I assume most don't really care.
It's why I dropped or "packaged" some of your replies to make the replies a little less fragmented, don't think it helped much though...
I have provided many sources that back up my views. Of course I cannot provide any source that says "Viking is right"; if such sources existed, we probably wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. The topic we have debated is often both abstract and complex and difficult to reason accurately about. I don't know what kind of sources you would want beyond those that have been provided.
A good source would be one that backs up your view that ethnic diversity is the major issue that should be resolved by stopping all migration.
It doesn't specifically have to say you're right, it should provide a good reason for why stopping immigration is the best idea overall.
That's not an invitation for you to fill in details yourself; that's strawmanning. If you want to know if a person has a more specific position, you could just ask.
I'm pretty sure I formulated a lot of questions that I did not get specific answers on, so I continued to guess...
It's not like you didn't misunderstand any of my positions as well, but I won't hold it against you, I happen not to be perfect either. :clown:
That's the second time (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152366-French-Presidential-Election&p=2053733612&viewfull=1#post2053733612) in this thread that you have misrepresented the data that I have provided.
Yes, in this instance I made two mistakes:
1. I forgot that post.
2. I wasn't very clear.
My point is that the statistics for Malmö aren't much use for anything other than Malmö or perhaps Sweden. And they aren't necessarily good guidelines for how to treat refugees on a European level. there are many angles from which one could look at the problem, one is that the problems in Sweden and e.g. France largely stem from bad immigration policies that basically let anyone in and then leave them to themselves for the most part. The difference may be in that the police in Sweden is too nice and lets too many things happen whereas police in France is probably more racist and beats people too much (even the natives from what we previously discussed here). Both approaches are bad. In Germany the statistics clearly seem to show that events such as New Year's eve gropings and rapes in Cologne are mostly outliers for headlines, but not necessarily indicative of a general problem.
Not to forget that the statistics can differ wildly between countries not just because they have different problems, but they record them differently:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/swedens-rape-crisis-isnt-what-it-seems/article30019623/
Once more a report about Sweden counting more rapes than most other countriues do.
And since you may have been waiting for it, police may actually be incentivized to artificially lower crime statistics in Japan:
http://www.nationmaster.com/blog/?p=74
It also just so happens to touch on the gender differences in Japan.
Apparently they solved the issue the same way you want to solve ethnic issues, by seperating the two groups.
Which could be said to be the slippery slope problem of your argument, you end up dividing people more and more because they will always find a new problem that bugs them about others who are different in some way.
Overall I'd take the statistics from a country of 82 million as more indicative than those from a city of not even 400 thousand.
And as a terrorism-comparison-bonus, a japanese man murdered 19 disabled people just because they're disabled: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/japan-disability-rights-massacre-tsukui-yamayuriena-gone-unnoticed-a7217661.html
Which just makes the idea that the terror attacks happen here due to the high diversity seem even a bit more off. Not to forget that Germany is not far from Japan on the diversity scale (check Wikipedia link above) anyway.
That's the thing about your posts as well, I mostly see claims about Malmö and how diverse Russia/Dagestan is. When I look up ethnic diversity, Russia appears to be not that diverse at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level#/media/File:List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level,_List_based_on_Fearon%27s_analy sis.png
There are many ways to measure diversity. This measure evidently doesn't capture the diversity that Russia does have:
Anyone arriving in Russia is immediately impressed by the scale of this immense country, which on its own forms an entire continent. But quite apart from its natural beauty, one is surprised and impressed by its population, a large family of peoples and ethnic groups that have shared this vast expanse for centuries. The Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state. It is inhabited by more than 170 ethnic groups, designated as nationalities. In the Russian language and law, the word nationality refers to ethnic, national or religious affiliation. The population of these ethnic groups can vary enormously, from millions, in the case of Russians and Tartars, for example, to under ten thousand, in the case of Nenets and Samis.
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=846655&direct=true
If the measure was the number of recognised (by the state or some international organisation) distinct ethnic groups, Russia would rank very high. Yet another approach would be to use the same measure, but apply it separately to all of the oblasts, republics and other federal subjects of Russia (perhaps preferably an interactive 3D version with height as total population).
What I'm specifically missing from you is anything that backs up the idea that ethnicity is the factor important enough to tackle it, unless we are talking about just finding the simplest solution without any regard for ethics. I found this report for example:
[...]
A good source would be one that backs up your view that ethnic diversity is the major issue that should be resolved by stopping all migration.
It doesn't specifically have to say you're right, it should provide a good reason for why stopping immigration is the best idea overall.
That's precisely the kind of sources one shouldn't expect to exist at present. It's a very complex issue with many variables. The best I hope for, is to be able to point out certain trends and facts that would agree with my interpretation.
And again, I do not enter such threads with the purpose to 'prove' something, but to argue my position.
Not to forget that the statistics can differ wildly between countries not just because they have different problems, but they record them differently:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/swedens-rape-crisis-isnt-what-it-seems/article30019623/
Another relevant thing here, is the consideration of how crime is reported in immigrant-majority neighbourhoods. You would expect crime there to first and foremost have immigrants as victims, and immigrants could be less likely to report crimes to the police for all sorts of reasons (including language).
Apparently they solved the issue the same way you want to solve ethnic issues, by seperating the two groups.
Which could be said to be the slippery slope problem of your argument, you end up dividing people more and more because they will always find a new problem that bugs them about others who are different in some way.
Slippery slope, eh?
Overall I'd take the statistics from a country of 82 million as more indicative than those from a city of not even 400 thousand.
It's still just one country with one culture, however.
Which just makes the idea that the terror attacks happen here due to the high diversity seem even a bit more off.
I don't think too many people have that idea.
There are many ways to measure diversity. This measure evidently doesn't capture the diversity that Russia does have:
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&id=846655&direct=true
If the measure was the number of recognised (by the state or some international organisation) distinct ethnic groups, Russia would rank very high. Yet another approach would be to use the same measure, but apply it separately to all of the oblasts, republics and other federal subjects of Russia (perhaps preferably an interactive 3D version with height as total population).
Yes, but at that point it seems to tell us little about the relation of ethnicity and conflict since a whole lot of these ethnicities seem to get along well enough.
That's precisely the kind of sources one shouldn't expect to exist at present. It's a very complex issue with many variables. The best I hope for, is to be able to point out certain trends and facts that would agree with my interpretation.
Yes, but why single out ethnicity as the factor to act on?
Another relevant thing here, is the consideration of how crime is reported in immigrant-majority neighbourhoods. You would expect crime there to first and foremost have immigrants as victims, and immigrants could be less likely to report crimes to the police for all sorts of reasons (including language).
Yes, but so are other crimes for other reasons, e.g. when children get touched inappropriately by their own fathers or uncles, etc.
It's still just one country with one culture, however.
And a whole lot of different ethnicities, many of which somehow learned to live together, so?
One could actually even dispute the claim of one culture, if Russia has >100 ethnicities, then Germany has several cultures, unless you want to change the level of abstraction.
Yes, but at that point it seems to tell us little about the relation of ethnicity and conflict since a whole lot of these ethnicities seem to get along well enough.
And a whole lot of different ethnicities, many of which somehow learned to live together, so?
One could actually even dispute the claim of one culture, if Russia has >100 ethnicities, then Germany has several cultures, unless you want to change the level of abstraction.
The picture is complex. Several of these ethnicities form the majority population in their own republic, as is the case in Kalmykia, Chechnya, Tuva, North Osseita and perhaps a few more. Additionally, it's typically ethnic Russians that make up the second largest ethnicity in such republics. So then you have many republics where most of the population belongs to a majority population in some sense.
In addition to this, many of the ethnicities have 'their own' republic without forming a majority of its population (such as Altai).
Then there is the perspective: out of the most violent places Russia, how many are homogeneous; and of these, in how many them are ethnic Russians (the majority population of the country as a whole) forming this homogeneous population?
Yes, but why single out ethnicity as the factor to act on?
Because we don't need (extra) intranational ethnic diversity. There is no point in dividing the population of a country into more fractions that those that already exist (and that may often be more or less unavoidable).
The picture is complex. Several of these ethnicities form the majority population in their own republic, as is the case in Kalmykia, Chechnya, Tuva, North Osseita and perhaps a few more. Additionally, it's typically ethnic Russians that make up the second largest ethnicity in such republics. So then you have many republics where most of the population belongs to a majority population in some sense.
In addition to this, many of the ethnicities have 'their own' republic without forming a majority of its population (such as Altai).
Then there is the perspective: out of the most violent places Russia, how many are homogeneous; and of these, in how many them are ethnic Russians (the majority population of the country as a whole) forming this homogeneous population?
Yes, but that does not explain why ethnicity should be an unavoidable factor and not the behavior of the ethnic groups based on the ethnicity.
There are plenty of areas in the world where ethnic differences do not lead to the same problems. I lived in a very mixed neighborhood myself for almost ten years and did not notice any big ethnic strife, street wars and civil war just because different ethnicities lived in the same neighborhood. There were apparently two big (mafia) families that would sometimes almost start a fight, but that's not quite an ethnic problem, if anything I'd call it tribal.
Because we don't need (extra) intranational ethnic diversity. There is no point in dividing the population of a country into more fractions that those that already exist (and that may often be more or less unavoidable).
That division only happens due to racism or ethnicism or whatever you want to call it. And there are plenty of people who don't feel the need to become violent just because the people around them look a little different, which suggests that the ethnicism can be, and in many cases has been, overcome. You don't see Germany as an ethnically diverse country today and yet it was divided into many ethnic and political groups until 1871. The UK is made up of various ethnic groups that have stopped bashing eachother's heads in, etc. The thing most European countries without internal ethnic problems have in common is that they're quite well off. The poorer ones in the south also get more ethnic problems and the immigrants that come in and cause seemingly ethnic problems also tend to be relatively poor. The neo nazis tend to recruit from the poor as well, with a few middle class people or rich sociopaths mixed in as well for different reasons. If you look at the richer or middle class immigrants, you will probably find that they cause very little trouble and are usually the ones called well integrated.
The underlying issue would be poverty (both relative and absolute) and not ethnicity. The latter seems to be the reason for conflict when the poverty divide tends to be somewhat identical to the ethnic divide. Of course the divide can be intentional (racism) or unintentional (new arrivals have no sufficient job/money/qualifications). The problematic banlieues in France are not exactly middle class areas for example. On the other hand the US often claims to have well-integrated muslim immigrants but also tends to favor wealthier or rich immigrants with its immigration restrictions while officially accepting precious few poor ones and refugees.
All this is somewhat besides the point. If A has a higher tendency of leading to C than B, where C is something strongly unpreferable, then you generally want to avoid A, regardless of why exactly it tends to lead to C.
You would only choose A in such instances where you were almost certain that you could prevent it from leading to C (+ some reason to prefer it over B, of course).
All this is somewhat besides the point. If A has a higher tendency of leading to C than B, where C is something strongly unpreferable, then you generally want to avoid A, regardless of why exactly it tends to lead to C.
You would only choose A in such instances where you were almost certain that you could prevent it from leading to C (+ some reason to prefer it over B, of course).
Exactly, avoid poverty and unfair treatment, not ethnic mixing. :dizzy2:
Exactly, avoid poverty and unfair treatment, not ethnic mixing. :dizzy2:
Ethnic mixing frequently leads to poverty and 'unfair' treatment.
Ethnic mixing frequently leads to poverty and 'unfair' treatment.
No, that is not correct. Look at well-off immigrants, universities where people have similar backgrounds, multinational corporations and countries like Monaco that only really accept wealthy people from everywhere. Ethnic issues barely come up as long as you mix wealthy people, it's when you mix the poor that you get problems. It is the economic problem that leads people to look for a scapegoat and then look for differences.
The unfair treatment may sometimes be a result of ethnic differences, but then the root cause is racism and I strongly disagree with accepting racism instead of fighting it. Why bow to the demands of irrational ideology that belongs in the Middle Ages? Especially if the majority does not follow it unless there are the aforementioned economic issues.
Beyond the first sentence, nothing of what you write there strictly contradicts what I wrote.
Beyond the first sentence, nothing of what you write there strictly contradicts what I wrote.
And why would I have to strictly contradict what you wrote? I'm only here to show that my argument is better supported than yours.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-15-2017, 18:28
Ethnic mixing frequently leads to poverty and 'unfair' treatment.
As can ghettoization.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-15-2017, 18:32
No, that is not correct. Look at well-off immigrants, universities where people have similar backgrounds, multinational corporations and countries like Monaco that only really accept wealthy people from everywhere. Ethnic issues barely come up as long as you mix wealthy people, it's when you mix the poor that you get problems. It is the economic problem that leads people to look for a scapegoat and then look for differences.
The unfair treatment may sometimes be a result of ethnic differences, but then the root cause is racism and I strongly disagree with accepting racism instead of fighting it. Why bow to the demands of irrational ideology that belongs in the Middle Ages? Especially if the majority does not follow it unless there are the aforementioned economic issues.
A good dose of truth to that, Husar, but "haves" and "have lesses" seem to be a norm in all societies and eras. There will always be some potential for conflict in that.
Neither the communist (every one shares equally with none having more) nor 'lift all boats capitalism' (things are unequal, but the have lesses are so well off they don't really mind) approaches to ending this tension have dealt with the issue.
A good dose of truth to that, Husar, but "haves" and "have lesses" seem to be a norm in all societies and eras. There will always be some potential for conflict in that.
Neither the communist (every one shares equally with none having more) nor 'lift all boats capitalism' (things are unequal, but the have lesses are so well off they don't really mind) approaches to ending this tension have dealt with the issue.
Indeed, there is however also a difference between a larger and a smaller wealth inequality. And then there is absolute poverty, which, when bad enough, seems to additionally cause problems.The difference between "only" having last year's flatscreen TV model and worrying about how to feed your children tomorrow while those swimming in money say it's all your own fault anyway.
The elimination of all conflict cannot be achieved with any approach I'd guess.
I'm only here to show that my argument is better supported than yours.
A bit difficult to do that without contradicting me.
Whether it is toxic substances or bacteria (or both) that makes it inadvisable to lick the floor; I won't do it regardless.
In the immigration debate, I remain focused on outcome. I am not focused on whether it is 'racism' or the culture of the immigrants that is leading to problems. I just don't want the problems, whatever the exact cause.
As can ghettoization.
Well, yes; in this context, I was interpreting 'mixing' (as used by Husar) as bringing people from different cultures into contact; i.e. immigration. Segregation is a frequent outcome of this type of mixing, which of course in turn can lead to ghettoisation under the right circumstances.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-16-2017, 01:09
Indeed, there is however also a difference between a larger and a smaller wealth inequality. And then there is absolute poverty, which, when bad enough, seems to additionally cause problems.The difference between "only" having last year's flatscreen TV model and worrying about how to feed your children tomorrow while those swimming in money say it's all your own fault anyway.
The elimination of all conflict cannot be achieved with any approach I'd guess.
Of course it cannot be eliminated. Conflict, in the form of argument, is central to good decision making and avoiding groupthink. We could do with a bunch more folk who had more conflict management tools in their kit aside from "fight or flight" though.
A bit difficult to do that without contradicting me.
Whether it is toxic substances or bacteria (or both) that makes it inadvisable to lick the floor; I won't do it regardless.
In the immigration debate, I remain focused on outcome. I am not focused on whether it is 'racism' or the culture of the immigrants that is leading to problems. I just don't want the problems, whatever the exact cause.
Such lazy attitudes tend to lead to unforeseen or even predictable consequences, I find it by far preferable to use more thorough approaches to problem solving.
And from a moral standpoint it seems rather selfish to, in the worst case, throw others under the bus to solve one's own problems. If our society always solved problems like that, you may find yourself under a bus sooner or later...
Of course it cannot be eliminated. Conflict, in the form of argument, is central to good decision making and avoiding groupthink. We could do with a bunch more folk who had more conflict management tools in their kit aside from "fight or flight" though.
I think that is where education becomes important. And the right social circumstances of course. Which again tend to improve as wealth increases. I'd be careful though to say crime in general decreases with wealth, to some extent it just becomes less visible and less physical, which may still be an improvement of course. Up to the point where things like tax evasion cause poverty and therefore violent crime again etc. :sweatdrop:
Gilrandir
01-25-2017, 12:17
Back to the topic:
it seems Fillon has a scandal with his wife to deal with which may affect the election outcome.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170124-france-french-presidential-candidate-francois-fillon-penelope-paid-wife-aide
A chance for Macron?
Tristuskhan
01-25-2017, 13:44
Macron is currently in Beirut, collecting support within the french embassy with the benediction of our current presidency. Thrills....
Macron is a wet firecracker, as we say here. Lil'bankster Celeb'!
Greyblades
01-25-2017, 16:22
What do you mean by a wet firecracker, wis it anything like pre coalition lib dems or post blair labour?
Tristuskhan
01-25-2017, 18:54
Wet firecracker means the fuse looks promising when lit, but when fire reaches the powder: nihil!
The man has a tremendous ego, but has not displayed any kind of program until now. Howling it must MOVE! is nice, but towards what shall we move is another issue.
As to your questions about libdems and labour, I have ab-so-lu-tly no idea what's going on really on this remote island, my friend, but please, please try to let Corbyn out of this thread :whip: , have mercy!
"wet firecracker," Petard mouillé" in french. Wet black powder can't explode. My translation would be "wet petard", reference to the device (petard) used to open the gates during the late middle ages early renaissance.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/petard
In french petard is used for the old weapon and firecrackers.
Greyblades
01-25-2017, 21:17
Wet firecracker means the fuse looks promising when lit, but when fire reaches the powder: nihil!
The man has a tremendous ego, but has not displayed any kind of program until now. Howling it must MOVE! is nice, but towards what shall we move is another issue.
As to your questions about libdems and labour, I have ab-so-lu-tly no idea what's going on really on this remote island, my friend, but please, please try to let Corbyn out of this thread :whip: , have mercy!
Damnit man, you should know I only understand the world through local comparisons!
Next thing you will be telling me Le pen isnt the female offispring of ronnie corbett and nick griffith after all.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-25-2017, 21:22
Back to the topic:
it seems Fillon has a scandal with his wife to deal with which may affect the election outcome.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170124-france-french-presidential-candidate-francois-fillon-penelope-paid-wife-aide
A chance for Macron?
Oh, a money scandal. I thought it was something earth shattering, like a French politician preferring their spouse over having a lover....
"Oh, a money scandal. I thought it was something earth shattering, like a French politician preferring their spouse over having a lover...." French think that bedroom stories are private matter and should stay private.
It always backfire in France for politicians to use family stories (or lovers, or mistresses).
We are not obsess/shock by sexe so what consenting adults do is their problem...
Now, as some learned, using prostitutes or forcing a woman to sexe is other matter...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-26-2017, 12:28
"Oh, a money scandal. I thought it was something earth shattering, like a French politician preferring their spouse over having a lover...." French think that bedroom stories are private matter and should stay private.
It always backfire in France for politicians to use family stories (or lovers, or mistresses).
We are not obsess/shock by sexe so what consenting adults do is their problem...
Now, as some learned, using prostitutes or forcing a woman to sexe is other matter...
Yes, well I sometimes wonder why you even still have marriage in France...
The French seem immune to scandal though, of the last two heads of the IMF one escaped a sexual assault charge purely due to the Statute of Limitations (and the French willingness to ignore "bedroom antics") and the current one has been convicted of Negligence in a public office. No punishment though, even though in any other country it would be "Misconduct" at least, and she'd be expected to resign.
But no, in France it's acceptable for her to continue running the IMF.
Tristuskhan
01-26-2017, 16:42
No it is not. Acceptable. Both Strauss-Kahn and Lagarde are politically dead here. She -who wants to keep on giving her best to the whole world - will stay abroad, good riddence. And DSK is back to the vacuum he should never had left.
Both would be in jail in the USA, for quite long, I know. And we have other important figures like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lauvergeon
She is bad, very bad in every domain. Areva will become an awful burdain for the state soon, very soon... And she's still here, lying and maneuvering, overpaid while leading a strategic industry to a collapse.
And we can make a whole gallery of such people in France. Fillon and his wife? Uh? The upper class is made of thieves? How can it be so?
Oh and marriage still exists, yes. Just to make proof we're not smarter than others.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-26-2017, 17:35
No it is not. Acceptable. Both Strauss-Kahn and Lagarde are politically dead here. She -who wants to keep on giving her best to the whole world - will stay abroad, good riddence. And DSK is back to the vacuum he should never had left.
Both would be in jail in the USA, for quite long, I know. And we have other important figures like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lauvergeon
She is bad, very bad in every domain. Areva will become an awful burdain for the state soon, very soon... And she's still here, lying and maneuvering, overpaid while leading a strategic industry to a collapse.
And we can make a whole gallery of such people in France. Fillon and his wife? Uh? The upper class is made of thieves? How can it be so?
Oh and marriage still exists, yes. Just to make proof we're not smarter than others.
If the French President and the French press have not demanded her resignation (I confess my French is poor, I do not read the French press) then they have accepted her running the IMF and her position must, therefore, be acceptable.
As regards DSK, I was referring to his alleged assault of Tristane Bannon, which was first reported in 2007 before he became head of the IMF but which was apparently treated with a collective Gallic Shrug until he was prosecuted in the US. Supposedly her mother persuaded her not to press charges, which would make her mother an absolute monster.
I say "alleged" only because he has not been prosecuted and convicted.
Here an accusation of that type would have been investigated as soon as it was made, the Police would have been hammering on doors demanding to know why her mother had persuaded her to keep quiet for five years.
Of course, we have no time-bar on accusations of sexual assault here - so he'd also be prosecuted and convicted even in 2011.
And why in the name of God is Lagarde not in gaol?
Seamus Fermanagh
01-26-2017, 17:56
If the French President and the French press have not demanded her resignation (I confess my French is poor, I do not read the French press) then they have accepted her running the IMF and her position must, therefore, be acceptable.
As regards DSK, I was referring to his alleged assault of Tristane Bannon, which was first reported in 2007 before he became head of the IMF but which was apparently treated with a collective Gallic Shrug until he was prosecuted in the US. Supposedly her mother persuaded her not to press charges, which would make her mother an absolute monster.
I say "alleged" only because he has not been prosecuted and convicted.
Here an accusation of that type would have been investigated as soon as it was made, the Police would have been hammering on doors demanding to know why her mother had persuaded her to keep quiet for five years.
Of course, we have no time-bar on accusations of sexual assault here - so he'd also be prosecuted and convicted even in 2011.
And why in the name of God is Lagarde not in gaol?
For such a solidly socialist country, France is surprisingly "laissez-faire" about some aspects of their leaders' conduct.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-26-2017, 18:07
Let's be honest - France is a very sexist place.
Being a fat man? Fine.
Being a fat woman? On no!
Christine Lagarde is, I believe, notable for being - well - rather tan for a Frenchwoman. Even as girls French females tend to have greater poise, elegance and self-possession than, say, English or American ones. This is a whispered subject among English boys on holiday but quite how it is achieved is a mystery believed known only to the women of France.
Tristuskhan
01-26-2017, 19:15
Let's be honest - France is a very sexist place.
....
Christine Lagarde is, I believe, notable for being - well - rather tan for a Frenchwoman. Even as girls French females tend to have greater poise, elegance and self-possession than, say, English or American ones. This is a whispered subject among English boys on holiday but quite how it is achieved is a mystery believed known only to the women of France.
Do english boys know how to whisper? That's not what we ear when we see them on holidays. English boys on holidays are on par whith southern french when it comes to womanizing. Those qualities of french ladies you admire, are just adaptation to a very very rude environment.
And Mrs Lagarde boasts à very shocking nasty artificial tanning, like many ladies of her caste.
Finally, let's be honest; France is dramatically sexist, has always been and is getting worse for ten years now.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-26-2017, 19:32
Do english boys know how to whisper? That's not what we ear when we see them on holidays. English boys on holidays are on par whith southern french when it comes to womanizing. Those qualities of french ladies you admire, are just adaptation to a very very rude environment.
I did mean "boys" as in 14-15. Young English men abroad are, frankly, dreadful, and very loud.
English girls dress terribly though, they either have far too much makeup or they wear far too little. They get uproariously drunk then stumble down the road carrying their shoes shouting abuse. If any English boy (who they know) tries to help them home they will often attack him with said shoes.
They get over it in their mid-20's and start acting like grown-ups.
And Mrs Lagarde boasts à very shocking nasty artificial tanning, like many ladies of her caste.
I'm rather bad at judging French class, is she from some French very of "New Money."
The tan is very, as we would say here, "striking" especially given that she does not dye her hair.
Finally, let's be honest; France is dramatically sexist, has always been and is getting worse for ten years now.
France is wonderful if you are French, and conform to the correct definition of "French".
Tristuskhan
01-26-2017, 20:09
I'm rather bad at judging French class, is she from some French very of "New Money."
Rather "Old Money". Her father's balls were wrapped in cashmere. And his father's, etc, etc...
"France is wonderful if you are French, and conform to the correct definition of "French"." Definition that no french agree upon. What is to be French. In england, big debate of Englishness... So I could say easily England is wonderful if you are English, and conform to the definition of "English". Can do this for probably all countries...:yes:
About Lagarde, she is the boss of the IMF as she was protected by the USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde
So don't blame France for this one. She was one of the worst Minister of Finances France ever had and still is allowed to give her opinion about finances...
About marriage, do you have evidence that rate of divorces, infidelity or affairs are more numerous in France than say USA, Germany, Sweden or Italy? Not really important for me, as marriage being a social contract, but just to break the idea that marriage is a protection against these behaviors...
This map says USA is in the lead:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-countries-with-highest-divorce-rate/
"Let's be honest - France is a very sexist place:
Being a fat man? Fine.
Being a fat woman? On no!" And to be a fat woman is accepted where, exactly? I mean in the "western civilisation" world? All our countries and sexists, misogenistic, and the US new President is a real good example of this, and how his speeches about women were gladly accepted by his voters.
"Christine Lagarde is, I believe, notable for being - well - rather tan for a Frenchwoman." Don't take it the wrong way, but you can't in one sentence reproach to the French to have a correct definition of French, then to apply the definition you think is to be French. So C Lagarde being French couldn't be tanned.
So, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachida_Dati is not French beccause, well she is tanned...
As I said, no one agree on a "French" definition.
"For such a solidly socialist country, France is surprisingly "laissez-faire" about some aspects of their leaders' conduct." :laugh4: If Holland was a socialist we would know about it... He had a worst social/economical policy than Sarkozy... Reason why now the period is known as Sarkolland.
The planing past in France was due more to Gal de Gaulle time (and gave fantastic results, btw) than the "socialist" time that existed only in imagination...
Gilrandir
01-26-2017, 20:43
About marriage, do you have evidence that rate of divorces, infidelity or affairs are more numerous in France than say USA, Germany, Sweden or Italy?
And I believe one can inquire in kind:
About Lagarde... She was one of the worst Minister of Finances France ever had...
Do you have any figures that can serve as evidence to prove your claim?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-26-2017, 22:45
Rather "Old Money". Her father's balls were wrapped in cashmere. And his father's, etc, etc...
Really, I find that odd, but then I'm English. I find many things odd. Here "old money" never tans.
"France is wonderful if you are French, and conform to the correct definition of "French"." Definition that no french agree upon. What is to be French. In england, big debate of Englishness... So I could say easily England is wonderful if you are English, and conform to the definition of "English". Can do this for probably all countries...:yes:
We've had this discussion before...
You will recall, Bretons are not French - unless they speak French and not Breton. You're also using a false equivalence as England is a Nation but not a State, the correct comparison is Franc and Britain. Speaking English is not, in fact, a pre-requisite for being British and that's even without considering recent immigrants.
About Lagarde, she is the boss of the IMF as she was protected by the USA
She is not, DSK was not. The French Government (Judiciary) chose not to impose a sentence on her.
About marriage, do you have evidence that rate of divorces, infidelity or affairs are more numerous in France than say USA, Germany, Sweden or Italy? Not really important for me, as marriage being a social contract, but just to break the idea that marriage is a protection against these behaviors...
This map says USA is in the lead:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-countries-with-highest-divorce-rate/
The point is not that French Politicians frequently do not contract marriages, it's that in most of the rest of the world infidelity usually leads to a resignation but in France it does not. Infidelity is a very intimate form of dishonesty and dishonesty is usually considered a quality that bars one from any political office.
And to be a fat woman is accepted where, exactly? I mean in the "western civilisation" world? All our countries and sexists, misogenistic, and the US new President is a real good example of this, and how his speeches about women were gladly accepted by his voters.
Italy, Spain, Germany, the UK. Admittedly young women are usually expected to be thin, but then young men are usually expected to be fit and strong as well. In much of Europe it is accepted that "matrons" put on weight after they have their second or third child. Depending on who you ask in Italy or Sapin you might conclude that all married women should be fat as a married woman who is still thin must either be poor and undernourished or unhappy and looking to ditch her husband for a better one.
Don't take it the wrong way, but you can't in one sentence reproach to the French to have a correct definition of French, then to apply the definition you think is to be French. So C Lagarde being French couldn't be tanned.
So, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachida_Dati is not French beccause, well she is tanned...
As I said, no one agree on a "French" definition.
You have misinterpreted my point - as Tristuskhan pointed our Lagarde's tan appears to be fake, or cultivated in a tanning bed at least. I am not saying she is not French, I intimated that the way she presents herself, i.e her personal grooming habits are at odds with what is characteristically seen as French internationally, and (I believe) in France also. She is inelegant.
Rachida Dati is rather the opposite. Indeed, despite being North African a quick Google search for recent images shows her to be less tan than Lagarde. In fact, I would say she looks as though she generally avoids the sun given how pale she appears for someone of North African descent. That would be deemed characteristically French here.
So I'm afraid you've just proved my point - in contrast to other Frenchwomen in the public eye Lagarde seem characteristically un-French, at least from this side of the channel.
"You will recall, Bretons are not French - unless they speak French and not Breton." Ahh, this conversation... It was about local languages and the fact you pretended there were banned in France as you are not aware there are still freely spoken and written in France? Or the one when we discuss your point of view that French was the extension of Paris original language therefore impose by force? I might be mistaken, but I (vaguely) remember telling you than Corsican, Alsatian and others languages are still used in France.
French Army marching:
https://youtu.be/gDTr9CGdUOs
Just not as an official language, so they have no value as legal documents. I also very vaguely remember telling you you should stop having sources in the extreme right literature, especially the britain one... I probably told you that to be French is a political agreement as it not based on languages (as we spoke several and others countries speak French), not thanks to a holy land as French borders did changed during History, not based on religions as France has no official religion and has a lot of them including the 3 monotheistic ones (and sub-divisions)...
And all this have what to do with the actual topic?
"Infidelity is a very intimate form of dishonesty and dishonesty is usually considered a quality that bars one from any political office." That is yours "values" not nime. I don't see why stealing money or evading taxes is less dishonest than having an affair, at least the last one is between consenting adult and cost nothing to the community..
And in France infidelity is not an offense, nor in UK, USA and others civilized countries, contrary to stealing, blackmail and embezzlement. So barring someone for something legal is fine with you...
"Speaking English is not, in fact, a pre-requisite for being British and that's even without considering recent immigrants." :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
in https://www.gov.uk
Become a British citizen:
2. If your spouse is a British citizen
If you’re married to, or the civil partner of, a British citizen, you can apply for citizenship if:
you’re 18 or over
you’re of sound mind, you’re able to think and make decisions for yourself
you’re of good character, for example you don’t have a serious or recent criminal record
you’ve met the knowledge of English and life in the UK requirements
you’ve been granted indefinite leave to stay in the UK (this means there’s no specific date that you have to leave) or permanent residence if you’re an EEA national (and you have a permanent residence card or document that shows you have permanent residence)
in
You should speak with my Indian Colleague when she is told she is not British as she even not speak english... It brings tears in her eyes. When someone tell me this, I just tell them it is quite right as I have no intention to become british any way...
"Depending on who you ask in Italy or Sapin you might conclude that all married women should be fat as a married woman who is still thin must either be poor and undernourished or unhappy and looking to ditch her husband for a better one." Can you add more stereotypes?
"You have misinterpreted my point - as Tristuskhan pointed our Lagarde's tan appears to be fake, or cultivated in a tanning bed at least. I am not saying she is not French, I intimated that the way she presents herself, i.e her personal grooming habits are at odds with what is characteristically seen as French internationally, and (I believe) in France also. She is inelegant." It is a point I can't deny, I might have misinterpreted. For the rest, I can't judge how the World represents the French, being one of them. But I agree she is not elegant.
"Do you have any figures that can serve as evidence to prove your claim?" Google number of unemployed during her ministry and amount of the debt...
And it is an opinion btw...
Tristuskhan
01-26-2017, 23:51
Really, I find that odd, but then I'm English. I find many things odd. Here "old money" never tans.
Your's prefer different flavours of vulgarity. That way you can make different novels when crossing the channel.
Lagarde was Minister of Finances under Sarko. The debt skyrocketted. Something like from 1000 billions to 1600 in two years.
Gilrandir
01-27-2017, 12:20
"Do you have any figures that can serve as evidence to prove your claim?" Google number of unemployed during her ministry and amount of the debt...
I'm not going to google anything, it is your claim, so you are supposed to sustain it.
As for numbers (if you want to present some), they should be comparative for us to judge who was the worst French minister of finance EVER (since the times France started to have ministers of finance). And then you should prove that number of unemployed and the amount of debt are the responsibilities of the minister of finance.
And it is an opinion btw...
Not backed by facts? What about the reality check?
Tristuskhan
01-27-2017, 13:51
I'm not going to google anything, it is your claim, so you are supposed to sustain it.
As for numbers (if you want to present some), they should be comparative for us to judge who was the worst French minister of finance EVER (since the times France started to have ministers of finance). And then you should prove that number of unemployed and the amount of debt are the responsibilities of the minister of finance.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/government-debt-to-gdp for ratio, Lagarde was Ministre des Finances between june 2017 and june 2011.
National debt went from 1252 billons in dec. 2007 to 1753 billons in dec. 2011: http://countryeconomy.com/national-debt/france, something like 40% worse. So my opinion is also that she was the worst, with 500 billions wasted in the pokets of her kin: tax evaders, banksters and happy few.
And she still gives lessons to the planet.
Oh, I don't think it's much different in other countries: a minister of finances has "some" responsability in the debt level.
Gilrandir
01-27-2017, 19:55
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/government-debt-to-gdp for ratio, Lagarde was Ministre des Finances between june 2017 and june 2011.
You mean 2007, not 2017, right?
But the chart you refer to starts in 2007. What about the previous ministers (that is if we go by debt increase as the touchstone of the minister of finance's efficiency which I'm sure is a far-fetched measuring)?
And let's not forget that those were the years of the 2008 crisis and its aftermath. Taking this into account I wouldn't blame it all on her.
Oh, I don't think it's much different in other countries: a minister of finances has "some" responsability in the debt level.
And the unemployment to boot?
Tristuskhan
01-27-2017, 21:32
http://france-inflation.com/dette_publique_france_1950.php , in french. The 2008 crisis was "cured" by a massive gift to the banksters, that accounts for much of the deepening of the debt. Courtesy of Sarko, Lagarde et al. Easy money.
Mine: "She was one of the worst Minister of Finances France ever had..". Yours: "they should be comparative for us to judge who was the worst French minister of finance EVER"; Read the difference...
"Not backed by facts? What about the reality check?" About opinion. Nope. That is the key problem. You mix-up analyse and opinions. Not up to me to explain the difference... I did try in the past and failed...
"I'm not going to google anything, it is your claim, so you are supposed to sustain it." You do what you want. I am not supposed to do anything, nor I am obliged.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-28-2017, 01:14
"You will recall, Bretons are not French - unless they speak French and not Breton." Ahh, this conversation... It was about local languages and the fact you pretended there were banned in France as you are not aware there are still freely spoken and written in France? Or the one when we discuss your point of view that French was the extension of Paris original language therefore impose by force? I might be mistaken, but I (vaguely) remember telling you than Corsican, Alsatian and others languages are still used in France.
French Army marching:
https://youtu.be/gDTr9CGdUOs
Just not as an official language, so they have no value as legal documents. I also very vaguely remember telling you you should stop having sources in the extreme right literature, especially the britain one... I probably told you that to be French is a political agreement as it not based on languages (as we spoke several and others countries speak French), not thanks to a holy land as French borders did changed during History, not based on religions as France has no official religion and has a lot of them including the 3 monotheistic ones (and sub-divisions)...
And all this have what to do with the actual topic?
This has very little to do with the argument at hand - except to point out that the French remain less enlightened than most of the rest of Europe with regards to their national concept of Self. You told me Breton was a dead language (something achieved in a generation or two) and Occitan was inferior to French because French had supplanted it. It's a sort of linguistic and cultural "Might makes Right."
Compare the UK, or Spain.
"Infidelity is a very intimate form of dishonesty and dishonesty is usually considered a quality that bars one from any political office." That is yours "values" not nime. I don't see why stealing money or evading taxes is less dishonest than having an affair, at least the last one is between consenting adult and cost nothing to the community..
And in France infidelity is not an offense, nor in UK, USA and others civilized countries, contrary to stealing, blackmail and embezzlement. So barring someone for something legal is fine with you...
Criminal behaviour is also considered a bar to Political Office, as is financial Dishonesty. Compare the case of David Laws, very briefly the Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury - before it was revealed he had paid his lover for bed and board in an attempt to conceal his homosexual relationship. He promptly resigned and spent several years on the back benches before being given a minor role towards the end of the Coalition Government.
"Speaking English is not, in fact, a pre-requisite for being British and that's even without considering recent immigrants." :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
in https://www.gov.uk
Become a British citizen:
2. If your spouse is a British citizen
If you’re married to, or the civil partner of, a British citizen, you can apply for citizenship if:
you’re 18 or over
you’re of sound mind, you’re able to think and make decisions for yourself
you’re of good character, for example you don’t have a serious or recent criminal record
you’ve met the knowledge of English and life in the UK requirements
you’ve been granted indefinite leave to stay in the UK (this means there’s no specific date that you have to leave) or permanent residence if you’re an EEA national (and you have a permanent residence card or document that shows you have permanent residence)
in
You should speak with my Indian Colleague when she is told she is not British as she even not speak english... It brings tears in her eyes. When someone tell me this, I just tell them it is quite right as I have no intention to become british any way...
I refer you to the monoglot Welsh and Galic speakers (few in number but still British). Whilst it has never been tested I believe that one could sue the government and demand the right to become a citizen if one spoke fluent Welsh in Wales, but not English. Also, again I note the mocking smilies - you need to stop that.
"Depending on who you ask in Italy or Sapin you might conclude that all married women should be fat as a married woman who is still thin must either be poor and undernourished or unhappy and looking to ditch her husband for a better one." Can you add more stereotypes?
Could you try to refute instead of ridicule, please? Is this not an opinion held in parts of those countries?
"You have misinterpreted my point - as Tristuskhan pointed our Lagarde's tan appears to be fake, or cultivated in a tanning bed at least. I am not saying she is not French, I intimated that the way she presents herself, i.e her personal grooming habits are at odds with what is characteristically seen as French internationally, and (I believe) in France also. She is inelegant." It is a point I can't deny, I might have misinterpreted. For the rest, I can't judge how the World represents the French, being one of them. But I agree she is not elegant.
I am shocked you agree with me.
Your's prefer different flavours of vulgarity. That way you can make different novels when crossing the channel.
Lagarde was Minister of Finances under Sarko. The debt skyrocketted. Something like from 1000 billions to 1600 in two years.
We like to hide our vulgarity in public, especially the Upper Classes - in private though...
:whip:
Gilrandir
01-29-2017, 18:54
Mine: "She was one of the worst Minister of Finances France ever had..". Yours: "they should be comparative for us to judge who was the worst French minister of finance EVER"; Read the difference...
Still any claim (either ONE of the worst or the WORST) is to be proved numerically. Otherwise it is just an opinionated and arbitrary judgement.
"Not backed by facts? What about the reality check?" About opinion. Nope. That is the key problem. You mix-up analyse and opinions. Not up to me to explain the difference... I did try in the past and failed...
The latter is not an uncommon thing with you. But I'm shocked to learn that marxists can switch on their fabled skills in some cases and allow themselves ungrounded claims in others.
"I'm not going to google anything, it is your claim, so you are supposed to sustain it." You do what you want. I am not supposed to do anything, nor I am obliged.
I see. When being unable to prove the claim a blunt refusal is always the best tactics. :shrug:
Tristuskhan
01-31-2017, 18:32
Madame Penelope Fillon is now suspected to have been paid as much as 900k € public money in exchange of thin air. Beginning to smell bad for our french Thatcherboy. Love when those people promote christian virtues and austerity for the common citizen.
Guillotine anyone? Mrs Fillon would be a perfectly appropriate Marie-Antoinette for the XXIst century.
"Otherwise it is just an opinionated and arbitrary judgement." Which, as I actually said, is: My opinion. You finally got it.
For the rest of your rant, whatever...
"This has very little to do with the argument at hand - except to point out that the French remain less enlightened than most of the rest of Europe with regards to their national concept of Self." Nonsense, but you know this. I heard enough of debate about St George and Englishness to know exactly French have at least more clues about themselves than the English:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
"Also, again I note the mocking smilies - you need to stop that." No. Definition is laugh4. Not mocking, laughing. Stop pretending things so detached from reality that they make me laugh.
"You told me Breton was a dead language (something achieved in a generation or two) and Occitan was inferior to French because French had supplanted it. It's a sort of linguistic and cultural "Might makes Right" So, i told you a Breton is dead and still alive. Hmm, surprising, but then...
And I never ever speak of language in term of value/valor. How a language can be inferior?
"Compare the UK, or Spain." Don't know Spain, have more clue about England (more than you have about France, obviously).
Absolutely all is in English. Except the Royal Motto which is in French.
"I am shocked you agree with me." You are in systematic opposition, so, yeah, it probably hurts. Don't worry, you will recover, just watch a episode of Sharp, you will fell better.
Gilrandir
02-02-2017, 15:48
Fillon's rating has taken adip:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-idUSKBN15G43I
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-02-2017, 16:09
Brenus, you've been here a decade - start using the quote function - it is really hard to follow this "bold tiny part of previous post, delete the rest" method and it's just as easy to stick quote tags around something as bold it.
"Otherwise it is just an opinionated and arbitrary judgement." Which, as I actually said, is: My opinion. You finally got it.
For the rest of your rant, whatever...
Case in point - I wasn't sure who you were responding to here - I had to use Ctrl + F on "opinion" to work it out.
"This has very little to do with the argument at hand - except to point out that the French remain less enlightened than most of the rest of Europe with regards to their national concept of Self." Nonsense, but you know this. I heard enough of debate about St George and Englishness to know exactly French have at least more clues about themselves than the English:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
As to your point - the concept of "French" is different to the concept of "English". The "English" are an ethno-cultural group primarily living in England. To be French - on the other hand - is akin to being British, it is a political and legal status - not an ethnic one, except that it is also an ethno-cultural identity. The British and the Spanish recognise separate ethno-cultural identities within their national identity and have multiple legally recognised languages as a result.
In France the only recognised language is French, and this is unenlightened because in an age when the other nations of Europe seek to allow space for ethnic diversity within their borders the Frnch continue to impose Frankification on their indigenous cultural minorities.
"Also, again I note the mocking smilies - you need to stop that." No. Definition is laugh4. Not mocking, laughing. Stop pretending things so detached from reality that they make me laugh.
Laughing at someone is a form of mockery. You cannot claim it is a reflex because you are not speaking, you are typing, and in this case you took days to respond. Now,I am asking you as politely as I can to refrain from adding smilies for effect.
"You told me Breton was a dead language (something achieved in a generation or two) and Occitan was inferior to French because French had supplanted it. It's a sort of linguistic and cultural "Might makes Right" So, i told you a Breton is dead and still alive. Hmm, surprising, but then...
And I never ever speak of language in term of value/valor. How a language can be inferior?
I remember the conversation even if you don't - I pointed out that many of the great "French" romances are actually Occitan and you went on a whole thing about your Occitan grandfather (or great grandfather) and how he and his wife made a choice to only teach their children French and this was a good thing. I pointed out that, as a result, you were unable to read the literature of your ancestors and you said words to the effect that it didn't matter, that French was the future.
"Compare the UK, or Spain." Don't know Spain, have more clue about England (more than you have about France, obviously).
Absolutely all is in English. Except the Royal Motto which is in French.
Try visiting Wales - even the pound coins are in Welsh (not Latin) and stop this lazy equation of British and English - they aren't the same thing.
"I am shocked you agree with me." You are in systematic opposition, so, yeah, it probably hurts. Don't worry, you will recover, just watch a episode of Sharp, you will fell better.
So I essay to end on a lighter note after grilling you and you take another opportunity to insult me.
I'm starting to think you just don't like me personally.
Tristuskhan
02-02-2017, 18:40
In France the only recognised language is French, and this is unenlightened because in an age when the other nations of Europe seek to allow space for ethnic diversity within their borders the Frnch continue to impose Frankification on their indigenous cultural minorities.
Glad to react as a breton speaker: France does not have to impose anymore. Harm is done since 1950, at least. The absolute lack of support from the state to the breton language is a bore, but it's been like that for more than 200 years, so... Breton is functionnaly extinct, but paradoxally thrives the way hebrew thrived for 2000 years.
Breton as a litterary language disapeared mid-19th century. Breton as a populart idiom fell apart after 1918 (people began speaking to their kids in a mix of very bad french and very, very bad breton: elders have a nice accent but speak breton like erh... english swines).
Breton is alive again as a litterary language. Making it a popular form again would need state support (probably, but look at Ireland: Irish is supported by the state, every paddy knows it, but how many use it?).
Speakers use breton in pubs on week-ends. When they are lucky enough to live in the breton-speaking part of Brittany (I'm 1000kms away). So breton is not dead (or it stopped dying).
I remember the conversation even if you don't - I pointed out that many of the great "French" romances are actually Occitan and you went on a whole thing about your Occitan grandfather (or great grandfather) and how he and his wife made a choice to only teach their children French and this was a good thing. I pointed out that, as a result, you were unable to read the literature of your ancestors and you said words to the effect that it didn't matter, that French was the future.
Schoolteachers, who were the Black Hussars of the Republic and were paid to destroy local tongues, always said that a kid with zero knowledge of french when arriving in school had much easier time learning proper french than one whose parents tried to teach their poor french. Sorry Brennus, your great-grandparents were not so bright doing what they did, it was a pity for generations of kids (my father is one of those)
BTW, don't expect a french to understand bilinguism is a blessing. Hardcoded.
Back to the topic. Penelope Fillon, assistant of a MP, never had a snipe card nor a mailbox in the Palais Bourbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_Bourbon
My friends, this lady is becoming a legend so fast, that's outstanding.
"Sorry Brennus, your great-grandparents were not so bright doing what they did, it was a pity for generations of kids (my father is one of those)" They didn't speak the same dialogue (patois) than the village 6 kms away. You know as me that French is the official language of the country which doesn't prevent Alsatian, Corsica, Basques and so on to have the right to use their languages. Problem for local languages is of course the French move within France, even going in Africa, Canada and other French speaking countries. In Congo, they speak french, not Britain. We married or have relationship with others belonging to another "cultural" space.
First sister was born in Bamako (Mali), me and 2 brothers in Ain, 2nd sister in Angouleme, 3rd in Orange? What should be our language?
Gilrandir
02-07-2017, 09:47
"French is the official language of the country which doesn't prevent Alsatian, Corsica, Basques and so on to have the right to use their languages.
Like to get education in those languages, to read press and books in them, to address the authorities, to have court sessions, to watch movies and have TV channels?
Tristuskhan
02-07-2017, 16:42
Like to get education in those languages,
Yes, but private education only, so one must pay. In public schools, it's at best a third language (3 hours per week)
to read press and books in them,
Yes, but it's uncommon. You have to be an activist speaker to find some. Hence my comment that breton speakers are like Rabbis.
to address the authorities, to have court sessions,
No and no... one MUST speak Parisian. Or die. Probably if you can prove you're not able to speak a good french you can have an interpreter, but you're then more likely to be a recent immigrant or an old north-african lady than a breton or alsacian (who often speak better french than the french themselves...)
to watch movies and have TV channels?
Who needs TVs anyway? Sorry, I don't have one so I can't say. Movies are confidential. There are a few radios, Radio Kerne http://www.radiokerne.bzh/br/ is breton-speaking only and a very good musical radio, by the way.
Gilrandir
02-07-2017, 18:38
Yes, but private education only, so one must pay. In public schools, it's at best a third language (3 hours per week)
Perhaps I didn't make it clear: I didn't mean LEARNING those languages. I meant other subjects (maths, geography, history, chemistry, etc.) TAUGHT in those languages. Are there such schools that do it?
Generally, having your answer, I wonder greatly how in the West (France including) there could be any speculations on how the Russian language is discriminated in Ukraine if in all the spheres I referred to Russian is used and in some it even dominates (in 2012 two thirds of newspapers and 90% of magazines in Ukraine were published in Russian).
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-08-2017, 01:59
Glad to react as a breton speaker: France does not have to impose anymore. Harm is done since 1950, at least. The absolute lack of support from the state to the breton language is a bore, but it's been like that for more than 200 years, so... Breton is functionnaly extinct, but paradoxally thrives the way hebrew thrived for 2000 years.
Breton as a litterary language disapeared mid-19th century. Breton as a populart idiom fell apart after 1918 (people began speaking to their kids in a mix of very bad french and very, very bad breton: elders have a nice accent but speak breton like erh... english swines).
Breton is alive again as a litterary language. Making it a popular form again would need state support (probably, but look at Ireland: Irish is supported by the state, every paddy knows it, but how many use it?).
Speakers use breton in pubs on week-ends. When they are lucky enough to live in the breton-speaking part of Brittany (I'm 1000kms away). So breton is not dead (or it stopped dying).
The experience is analogues to the experience of the Welsh in the UK sixty years ago. It took a while but eventually we realised what we were doing in Wales was the same as what we were doing in Africa.
Schoolteachers, who were the Black Hussars of the Republic and were paid to destroy local tongues, always said that a kid with zero knowledge of french when arriving in school had much easier time learning proper french than one whose parents tried to teach their poor french. Sorry Brennus, your great-grandparents were not so bright doing what they did, it was a pity for generations of kids (my father is one of those)
BTW, don't expect a french to understand bilinguism is a blessing. Hardcoded.
We had something here called the "Welsh knot". It was a piece of rope the teacher hung around a child's neck for speaking Welsh and the only way to get rid of it was to report another child for speaking Welsh.
Of course, the English believed that Welsh was a "dying language" and they were "helping" these children. Fast forward half a century and there are State Schools that give all instruction in Welsh where English is learned as a second language. Welsh qualifications are actually seen as superior to English ones because Welsh-language instruction is seen as more rigorous.
Back to the topic. Penelope Fillon, assistant of a MP, never had a snipe card nor a mailbox in the Palais Bourbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_Bourbon
My friends, this lady is becoming a legend so fast, that's outstanding.
France seems to be producing a lot of money-related scandals right now. Apparently Sarko has to stand trial, and then there's this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farages-wife-kirsten-reveals-separation_uk_58985dc0e4b0a1dcbd02dd33
"Sorry Brennus, your great-grandparents were not so bright doing what they did, it was a pity for generations of kids (my father is one of those)" They didn't speak the same dialogue (patois) than the village 6 kms away. You know as me that French is the official language of the country which doesn't prevent Alsatian, Corsica, Basques and so on to have the right to use their languages. Problem for local languages is of course the French move within France, even going in Africa, Canada and other French speaking countries. In Congo, they speak french, not Britain. We married or have relationship with others belonging to another "cultural" space.
First sister was born in Bamako (Mali), me and 2 brothers in Ain, 2nd sister in Angouleme, 3rd in Orange? What should be our language?
Parisian French is a patois of Latin, a common language spoken by plebs. To describe other languages in France as patois in opposition to French is incorrect because most of those other languages descend from Latin as well, and not Old or Middle French.
This is particularly disingenuous when referring to Breton as that language is descended from Bythronic, neither Latin nor French.
Yes, but private education only, so one must pay. In public schools, it's at best a third language (3 hours per week)
Yes, but it's uncommon. You have to be an activist speaker to find some. Hence my comment that breton speakers are like Rabbis.
No and no... one MUST speak Parisian. Or die. Probably if you can prove you're not able to speak a good french you can have an interpreter, but you're then more likely to be a recent immigrant or an old north-african lady than a breton or alsacian (who often speak better french than the french themselves...)
Who needs TVs anyway? Sorry, I don't have one so I can't say. Movies are confidential. There are a few radios, Radio Kerne http://www.radiokerne.bzh/br/ is breton-speaking only and a very good musical radio, by the way.
Maybe one day France will enter the modern age.
Tristuskhan
02-08-2017, 12:52
Perhaps I didn't make it clear: I didn't mean LEARNING those languages. I meant other subjects (maths, geography, history, chemistry, etc.) TAUGHT in those languages. Are there such schools that do it?
You did make it clear and I answered. Breton-speaking schools (Diwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diwan_(school) ) are private, breton in the public schools is at best third language, if not absent.
We had something here called the "Welsh knot". It was a piece of rope the teacher hung around a child's neck for speaking Welsh and the only way to get rid of it was to report another child for speaking Welsh.
Same thing in Brittany, if I remember well it was a horseshoe (but I'm not 100% sure). The kid who had it at the end of the day had to clean the classroom. The was also a sign telling "it's forbiden to speak breton and to spit on the ground" in the schoolyards. Charming.
Welsh are a great inspiration (and it's the sister tongue, after all). We just wish their music was less confidential!
Maybe one day France will enter the modern age.
France is also still waiting for her neighbours to enter the modern age by getting rid of their kings. Nothing is full bright or full dark, PFH!
Language policy in France is awful. We have to live with it.
France seems to be producing a lot of money-related scandals right now. Apparently Sarko has to stand trial, and then there's this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0a1dcbd02dd33
Well the VIP quarters of the Prison de la Santé in Paris are ongoing modernization, I heard saying.
Pannonian
02-08-2017, 13:20
You did make it clear and I answered. Breton-speaking schools (Diwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diwan_(school) ) are private, breton in the public schools is at best third language, if not absent.
Same thing in Brittany, if I remember well it was a horseshoe (but I'm not 100% sure). The kid who had it at the end of the day had to clean the classroom. The was also a sign telling "it's forbiden to speak breton and to spit on the ground" in the schoolyards. Charming.
Welsh are a great inspiration (and it's the sister tongue, after all). We just wish their music was less confidential!
It's your lucky day (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfQ0sKxCPyE).
Everybody now: "Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh."
You can sing the other bits as well.
Deffrwch Cymry cysgld gwlad y gan
Dwfn yw'are gwendid
Bychan yw y fflam
Creulon yw'are cynhaeaf
Ond per yw'are don
'Da' alaw'are alarch unig
Yn fy mron
Gwledd o fedd gynhyrfodd Gymraes swil
Darganfyddais gwir baradwys Rhyl
Gilrandir
02-08-2017, 14:10
Same thing in Brittany, if I remember well it was a horseshoe (but I'm not 100% sure). The kid who had it at the end of the day had to clean the classroom. The was also a sign telling "it's forbiden to speak breton and to spit on the ground" in the schoolyards. Charming.
Oh no. This can't be true. Could Brenus have been wrong that
... local languages ... are still freely spoken and written in France?
I can't believe that France is not a paragon of democracy. What about fraternite, liberte, and other tes? Should Breton speakers feel threatened and try to proclaim Britanny People's Republic?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-08-2017, 15:32
Same thing in Brittany, if I remember well it was a horseshoe (but I'm not 100% sure). The kid who had it at the end of the day had to clean the classroom. The was also a sign telling "it's forbiden to speak breton and to spit on the ground" in the schoolyards. Charming.
Welsh are a great inspiration (and it's the sister tongue, after all). We just wish their music was less confidential!
Lovely. I think the spitting thing might have been in Wales too - maybe the English and the French decided to co-operate!
The Welsh are still quite finnicky about their language. Like Breton there are several quite distinct dialects but one year a Cornish team when to the National Eisteddfod and won! Then it was realised that nobody had quite followed the song, and that it was an old Cornish Lay and not Welsh.
They were Disqualified, which I felt was unfair when I heard the story.
France is also still waiting for her neighbours to enter the modern age by getting rid of their kings. Nothing is full bright or full dark, PFH!
Language policy in France is awful. We have to live with it.
The Queen is there to protect us from the likes of Trump and Sarko - the fact that our Nation requires a sort of "National Granny" to wipe our face and rap our knuckles to make democray work is not lost on me. Then I look at America and Trump, and am grateful.
Well the VIP quarters of the Prison de la Santé in Paris are ongoing modernization, I heard saying.
I find the very concept of a VIP Wing bizarre - I looked it up and see you are not joking.
Greyblades
02-08-2017, 16:23
It is somewhat medieval, I'm not sure when was the last time a nobleman was locked in the luxury of the white tower's quarters while common theives languished in a pitch black cells, the late 1700's?
Seamus Fermanagh
02-08-2017, 16:26
It's your lucky day (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfQ0sKxCPyE).
Everybody now: "Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh."
You can sing the other bits as well.
Deffrwch Cymry cysgld gwlad y gan
Dwfn yw'are gwendid
Bychan yw y fflam
Creulon yw'are cynhaeaf
Ond per yw'are don
'Da' alaw'are alarch unig
Yn fy mron
Gwledd o fedd gynhyrfodd Gymraes swil
Darganfyddais gwir baradwys Rhyl
I am a fan of Celtic traditional, even in the gael which I do not speak. This one's charm eludes me.
Greyblades
02-08-2017, 16:43
At this point I just assume that every gaelic phrase is a variation on "screw you England"
Seamus Fermanagh
02-08-2017, 17:22
At this point I just assume that every gaelic phrase is a variation on "screw you England"
At almost any point in history boyo, at almost any point in history you'd care to name....
Tristuskhan
02-09-2017, 20:00
At almost any point in history boyo, at almost any point in history you'd care to name....
Glad to see that bashing the colonial overlords is a shared pastime among celtic nations.
Should Breton speakers feel threatened and try to proclaim Britanny People's Republic?
The only way I could foresee Brittany seeking for independance is in the case of Mme Le Pen winning. Her beloved father was born in Brittany, but bretons in general dislike such ideologies much more than the average french. Apart from that, nationalism has always been very weak, something like between five and ten percent, divided in a residual catholic far-right wing (with a prestigious history, including collaboration with the SS), some christian-democrats and a very strong far-left component (itself divided the way the far-left knows how).
Breton speakers don't feel threatened now. Until thirty years ago, yes, but grudge and resentment are not valid fuels.
The language is not lost and the music thrives, where is the menace?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOgfjKOcCjg
Damn, I forgot that one, especially for you Gilrandir:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl1yS4TvhUQ I suppose the lady sings in Irish, not sure.
I can't believe that France is not a paragon of democracy. What about fraternite, liberte, and other tes?
What do you want to know about Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité:clown:? I'm of french education after all, I may be able to enlighten you with a whole lot of theories. Theories!~;p
Gilrandir
02-10-2017, 14:01
Breton speakers don't feel threatened now.
That's because Russia isn't interested in them so far. If it were, it would make them feel that way.
The language is not lost and the music thrives, where is the menace?
I was referring to some statements here that claimed Russians and Russian-speakers in Ukraine felt linguistically threatened, although Russian in Ukraine is widely used (in some spheres dominating over other languages).
Damn, I forgot that one, especially for you Gilrandir:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl1yS4TvhUQ I suppose the lady sings in Irish, not sure.
:bow:
What do you want to know about Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité:clown:? I'm of french education after all, I may be able to enlighten you with a whole lot of theories. Theories!~;p
Some people here claimed that they aren't theories in France, but a full-fledged comprehensive and ubiquitous practice which makes Musim obscurantists especially enraged.
Tristuskhan
02-10-2017, 19:01
That's because Russia isn't interested in them so far. If it were, it would make them feel that way.
That day we'll probably stand along the Tatars, Kalmuks and Buriats. Bunch of winners.
I was referring to some statements here that claimed Russians and Russian-speakers in Ukraine felt linguistically threatened, although Russian in Ukraine is widely used (in some spheres dominating over other languages).
The close proximity between Russian and Ukrainian makes it much easier to use as a vicious political tool, in my opinion. I remember when I learned Russian in middle school (mid 80's) the teachers told us there was less distance between Russian and Ukrainian than between french practiced in Switzerland and Belgium. Different but well... good old CCCP at that time. Linguistic imperialism from the power in Russia looks more like the efforts of the french republic to wipe out french's dialectal variants (done, and for long, dead with the music and so). I suspect a french invention adopted and enhanced by russian and soviet political philosophy.
Some people here claimed that they aren't theories in France, but a full-fledged comprehensive and ubiquitous practice which makes Musim obscurantists especially enraged.
Social and racial prejudice at home, nice propaganda straight from our precious mid-eastern allies fed the Beast enough it did not have to face this full-fledged etc, etc... to bite hard. Speeches about Jihadis being motivated par our practice of freedom are true for foreigners maybe. But most terrorists here are locals. So they know the truth: full fledge etc etc EXCEPT if you are part of the colored lumpen: everything becomes thrice harder if you're a woman, four times if you are a man (local woman having it twice harder than men to begin with). The bad 10%, sorry.
Must note than the same scale applies to rural areas: Hillbillies in building. Thanks to our sens of Egalité, social prejudice is not restricted to a racial issue anymore. The other bad 10. Crap!
Pannonian
02-10-2017, 19:30
That day we'll probably stand along the Tatars, Kalmuks and Buriats. Bunch of winners.
The close proximity between Russian and Ukrainian makes it much easier to use as a vicious political tool, in my opinion. I remember when I learned Russian in middle school (mid 80's) the teachers told us there was less distance between Russian and Ukrainian than between french practiced in Switzerland and Belgium. Different but well... good old CCCP at that time. Linguistic imperialism from the power in Russia looks more like the efforts of the french republic to wipe out french's dialectal variants (done, and for long, dead with the music and so). I suspect a french invention adopted and enhanced by russian and soviet political philosophy.
What do you think of the adoption of Franglais by the younger age groups in Cameroon? It's apparently developed from the ground up, with children from Anglo and Franco phone areas finding it easier to converse in a mixture of the two rather than the prescribed French.
@Trituskhan:
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/ker-beirhos/blog/050711/il-est-interdit-de-cracher-par-terre-et-de-parler-breton
Hoax.
But then. Britany was French before Les Dombes, annexed by Louis XV le Bien Aimé (Parliament of Trevoux)
Tristuskhan
02-10-2017, 19:46
@Trituskhan:
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/ker-beirhos/blog/050711/il-est-interdit-de-cracher-par-terre-et-de-parler-breton
Hoax.
Interesting. And? Do you want us to count every hoax that was used in the building of every nation? Pointless. If it became so common so fast, it may be because people who had to live under this regime felt it was a very good piece of understatement (litote, in french...). My father, who had to wear the symbole will be stunned when I tell him. Because it's exactly this taste that remains: défense de parler breton et de cracher par terre.
But then. Britany was French before Les Dombes, annexed by Louis XV le Bien Aimé (Parliament of Trevoux)
Wales was part of the United Kingdom long before, anyway what does this have to do with linguistic rights?
Tristuskhan
02-10-2017, 19:49
What do you think of the adoption of Franglais by the younger age groups in Cameroon? It's apparently developed from the ground up, with children from Anglo and Franco phone areas finding it easier to converse in a mixture of the two rather than the prescribed French.
Language in building. Welcome since mankind usually extincts languages much too fast. I dare being racist saying I trust african kids to make it perfectly fit for use. I'll find the first novel published.
Pannonian
02-10-2017, 20:03
Interesting. And? Do you want us to count every hoax that was used in the building of every nation? Pointless. If it became so common so fast, it may be because people who had to live under this regime felt it was a very good piece of understatement (litote, in french...). My father, who had to wear the symbole will be stunned when I tell him. Because it's exactly this taste that remains: défense de parler breton et de cracher par terre.
Wales was part of the United Kingdom long before, anyway what does this have to do with linguistic rights?
Bashing the British is a longstanding French tradition. They mostly can't do it to those living on the island of Great Britain, so they vent their anger on those living on the continent instead.
Tristuskhan
02-10-2017, 20:16
Bashing the British is a longstanding French tradition. They mostly can't do it to those living on the island of Great Britain, so they vent their anger on those living on the continent instead.
Breton's most hated:
3 - english pigs. Been insulting our shores for too long. Stole the Capital God Himslef had given us: Londinum.
2 - parisian dogs, who usually have a Breton Spaniel for father. At work: painful inefficient fragile chatters who claim being craftsmen too much.
1 - untermenschen from Vendée (the ugly depressive place under the Loire). When a man dies in sin, his soul goes in Vendée.
Naturally there is nothing serious in those loathes. Except for Vendéens, and parisians at work, of course.
"défense de parler breton et de cracher par terre." Sauf que c'est faux. Simple à prouver: pas de décret d'application pour interdire le Breton, sauf par Combes en 1904.
For the rare not speaking French: Not true. Simple to prove if this placard is true: Finding the executive power to forbid Briton. There is none. Only one from Combes, forbidding priest to use Briton in Confession and another thing... So, hoax.
"Wales was part of the United Kingdom long before, anyway what does this have to do with linguistic rights?" Absolutely none. Just for the fun and history. Breton dies because a lot of britons speaking French and Breton (small amount) married a lot of French not knowing Briton, kids learned only French.
Classic phenomenon, living in UK, none of my nieces and nephews, or grand children speak French...
"Bashing the British is a longstanding French tradition." Sorry to disappoint by most of the French will bash USA. The French bashing in UK however is real (but not too often, to be fair), as you can say about the French what you couldn't say for other countries. When I write you, it is not you personally.
But, hey, "Honni soit qui mal y pense"...
"and parisians at work, of course." Of course... :yes:
Tristuskhan
02-10-2017, 23:43
"défense de parler breton et de cracher par terre." Sauf que c'est faux. Simple à prouver: pas de décret d'application pour interdire le Breton, sauf par Combes en 1904.
For the rare not speaking French: Not true. Simple to prove if this placard is true: Finding the executive power to forbid Briton. There is none. Only one from Combes, forbidding priest to use Briton in Confession and another thing... So, hoax.
Come on, every teacher was officially missionned to crush local idioms. Official Policy. The Combes decreet is some other thing: prelude to the 1905 law on laïcité. That's another (broader) focus. That's outstanding how such a common thing in Europe, support of the State for local tongues, seems so extravagant for the average french.
"Wales was part of the United Kingdom long before, anyway what does this have to do with linguistic rights?" Absolutely none. Just for the fun and history. Breton dies because a lot of britons speaking French and Breton (small amount) married a lot of French not knowing Briton, kids learned only French.
Classic phenomenon, living in UK, none of my nieces and nephews, or grand children speak French...
Nothing fatal: breton was expelled from my father's generation, by bullying in the schools of the Republic. I speak much much much better than him. In fact, he avoids speaking breton: mission accomplished. I had to learn.
"Bashing the British is a longstanding French tradition." Sorry to disappoint by most of the French will bash USA. The French bashing in UK however is real (but not too often, to be fair), as you can say about the French what you couldn't say for other countries. When I write you, it is not you personally.
But, hey, "Honni soit qui mal y pense"...
... will bash USA if they feel the need to bash a foreign country. Most of time I feel we're more proxy-bashers far from the major cities. Like Alsacians and Lorrains, Ardenese and Champenois, Cevenols and Cantalous, Bretons and Vendéens, Jurassiques and Bressans, 15/16th corsican blooded and 16/16th corsican blooded, people from the plateau and people from the collines... Seen from my deep outback.
Last time I bashed the Brits was when they decided for not one but two shiny new aircraft carriers. Such fun toy could have became the ultimate ships for the building of a EU Navy. And then, poof! Brexit! Sigh....
Gilrandir
02-11-2017, 14:52
I remember when I learned Russian in middle school (mid 80's) the teachers told us there was less distance between Russian and Ukrainian than between french practiced in Switzerland and Belgium.
I don't know anything about different dialects/variations of French and their mutual intelligibility, but as for Ukrainian/Russian intelligibility, according to different estimates it is 40-60%. The safe bet would be around 50%:
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/mutual-intelligibility-of-languages-in-the-slavic-family/
I doubt it is that little for Belgian/Swiss French.
@Trituskhan:
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/ker-beirhos/blog/050711/il-est-interdit-de-cracher-par-terre-et-de-parler-breton
Hoax.
Brenus basing his judgement on social media rather than on personal experience of a witness/victim? Impossible!
Simple to prove if this placard is true: Finding the executive power to forbid Briton. There is none. Only one from Combes, forbidding priest to use Briton in Confession and another thing... So, hoax.
Which means there was/is no grass root/unofficial censure and bullying?
Tristuskhan
02-11-2017, 16:09
I don't know anything about different dialects/variations of French and their mutual intelligibility, but as for Ukrainian/Russian intelligibility, according to different estimates it is 40-60%. The safe bet would be around 50%:
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/mutual-intelligibility-of-languages-in-the-slavic-family/
I doubt it is that little for Belgian/Swiss French.
Looks that it proves my teachers were definitely french teachers of their times... Ukrainian, a language? No! Breton still alive? No! Benefits of early bilinguism? No!
I gave up Russian when I was 18, a pain of a grammar and, at that time, sheer intolerance of Russians towards approximative russian ( did it change since then?) were too much for me. Still the second most singing language I heard after Kinyarwanda.
Frankly did not know about such distance between Russian and Ukrainian. The only ukrainian author I read is Andreï Kurkov translated and he writes in russian (and some poems by Taras Chevchenko translated here and there, maybe some of the soviet novelists I read were also ukrainian, dunno).
Brenus basing his judgement on social media rather than on personal experience of a witness/victim? Impossible!
I don't know that person! He said the language I speak with my cousins when I'm home, while drinking, listening music and smoking pot is dead! Glad to hear about it, I'll tell the family. They'll be as stunned as my Pa when I'll tell him he was not bullied during his childhood.
Always ask a Gaul when you feel ready to learn about some shocking truth about yourself.
Once more, during our presidential campaign, language policy will be mentionned. Just the way legalisation of cannabis will be mentionned. Yes we must seriously think about it and from the beginning conclude it's a big NO. End of the "debate", democracy at it's max and so on, the things that anger jihadists you know.
http://www.marianne.net/affaire-assistants-parlementaires-fn-europe-reclame-339-000-euros-marine-pen-100247390.html
Interesting piece of news (google translate or better: speak french). A summary of corruption affairs shows corruption is as high inside our far-right than among the old parties. Figures even show them a little more corrupt BUT it's probably the same phenomenon that make recent immigrants more likely to get caught in crime statistics: being newcomers to the party they don't know yet how to avoid getting caught.
So Madame Le Pen was using YOUR money, dear EU fellows, to fatten her clan, it seems.
Meanwhile, the polls show no change to Jean-Marine's popularity, that can make one think approval of her is not based on her anti-corruption anti-apparatchik stance but more on her sheer racism. Unsurprisingly.
Gilrandir
02-11-2017, 17:08
I gave up Russian when I was 18, a pain of a grammar and, at that time, sheer intolerance of Russians towards approximative russian ( did it change since then?) were too much for me. Still the second most singing language I heard after Kinyarwanda.
I don't know what you mean by "singing language" - "euphonic/melodious" or "good for singing songs in it". If it is the former, then (an arbitrary claim) Ukrainian rates second after Italian in this aspect.
So Madame Le Pen was using YOUR money, dear EU fellows, to fatten her clan, it seems.
And Russian money as well.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-22/le-pen-struggling-to-fund-french-race-after-russian-backer-fails
Tristuskhan
02-11-2017, 18:36
I don't know what you mean by "singing language" - "euphonic/melodious" or "good for singing songs in it". If it is the former, then (an arbitrary claim) Ukrainian rates second after Italian in this aspect.
I meant the first, indeed. Try to have an ear at Kinyarwanda, it's a ravishment.
And Gil, what about Rusyns?
Gilrandir
02-12-2017, 06:50
I meant the first, indeed. Try to have an ear at Kinyarwanda, it's a ravishment.
And Gil, what about Rusyns?
Rusyns are an ethnic group living in Western Ukraine (mostly Transcarpathia). Some of them claim that their language is apart from Ukrainian, but most scholars call it a dialect of Ukrainian.
"That's outstanding how such a common thing in Europe, support of the State for local tongues, seems so extravagant for the average french." I think it is because French nationaliship is not based on territories, languages or ethnicities. As, I far as I am concerned, the example of Yugoslavia. I don't want a balkanisation of France.
The difference between various French is due to usage. My friend from Lille will use different verbs or words than me, and I don't speak of the accent. French Canadians of course have a much "purest" French than ours, due their position og linguistic minority. When I was sick in Africa, a girlfriend did "offre sa compassion", which is not really used in France. Each French speaking country of course made this language their, same for English.
"Come on, every teacher was officially missioned to crush local idioms" In the XIX century, early XX Century, yes, self missioned, not official as proved by the lack of Executive Power to enforced a law. They were as well committed to hygiene (this about the not spitting on the floor, Pasteur having "invented" the microbes). I personally perfectly remember my female teacher in CP checking our hands above the wrist and our nails to check our state of cleanness!!! So, I can considered I was bullied as well, so my friends forbidden to speak the local language which I am unable to named.
And btw, it was during the XIII century that the Duke of Normandy's administration went from writing in Latin to French, without passing by Briton... Francis the 1st and his ordonnance of Villers-Cotterêts (1539) impose French in all administration of his Kingdom. So much to blame the extension of local languages on the "black hussars of the republic".
I think Fillon is down now. Next!!!! "Qu'ils dégagent"!!!
If not dead, pretty much on it way:
"Selon le sondage TMO de Fañch Broudig réalisé en 2009, il y aurait 172 000 locuteurs actifs dans les cinq départements de la Bretagne historique, ce qui représente 5 % de la population bretonne (mais l'auteur précise que 35 000 personnes seulement le parlent quotidiennement) 3. En effet, le breton est, après le français, la première langue parlée dans la région de la Bretagne4, devant le gallo, ayant sept fois moins de locuteurs. Depuis les années 1980, il n'est plus attesté de brittophone monolingue.
Le breton est reconnu comme langue régionale ou minoritaire de France et comme langue de la région de la Bretagne, aux côtés du français et du gallo. Il est classé comme « langue sérieusement en danger » selon l'Unesco"
5 % of Britanny population know to speak Briton so 172,000... Only 35,000 speak it on daily basis. Well, no comment...
Tristuskhan
02-12-2017, 14:51
"That's outstanding how such a common thing in Europe, support of the State for local tongues, seems so extravagant for the average french." I think it is because French nationaliship is not based on territories, languages or ethnicities. As, I far as I am concerned, the example of Yugoslavia. I don't want a balkanisation of France.
Certes certes. Ordinary cultural rights for Brittany = independance = a wall YOU french will pay for = proxy war to steal Mt St Michel from the Normands = failed genocide of Vendéens (place is so dull we'll give up fast) then we invade Poland to have an access to the sea. All that because breton was given the position most linguistic minorities in Europe already have. That's stupid. Balkanisation of France won't come from cultural rights. Comparison with Yugoslavia would need more substance, please.
"Come on, every teacher was officially missioned to crush local idioms" In the XIX century, early XX Century, yes, self missioned, not official as proved by the lack of Executive Power to enforced a law. They were as well committed to hygiene (this about the not spitting on the floor, Pasteur having "invented" the microbes). I personally perfectly remember my female teacher in CP checking our hands above the wrist and our nails to check our state of cleanness!!! So, I can considered I was bullied as well, so my friends forbidden to speak the local language which I am unable to named.
Yes, Hygiene. What a great comparison to support your logics. Insulting a bit, maybe?
And btw, it was during the XIII century that the Duke of Normandy's administration went from writing in Latin to French, without passing by Briton... Francis the 1st and his ordonnance of Villers-Cotterêts (1539) impose French in all administration of his Kingdom. So much to blame the extension of local languages on the "black hussars of the republic".
Duke of what? Invalid: european nobility were not part of the people they ruled and the Dukes of Brittany, as far as we know, never spoke breton. I again don't see how it makes a point and makes it legitimate to let breton die.
With such logics I'll use the fact that the oldest surviving breton text is a treaty of medecine date c.750. French, 842 if I remember well, sons of Charlemagne dividing his empire. Those, like your's, are interesting facts but have no weight in the debate on linguistic rights today.
I think Fillon is down now. Next!!!! "Qu'ils dégagent"!!!
I'd love to share your optimism but...
Anyway, you're right, let's celebrate a bit, we deserve it.
If not dead, pretty much on it way:
"Selon le sondage TMO de Fañch Broudig réalisé en 2009, il y aurait 172 000 locuteurs actifs dans les cinq départements de la Bretagne historique, ce qui représente 5 % de la population bretonne (mais l'auteur précise que 35 000 personnes seulement le parlent quotidiennement) 3. En effet, le breton est, après le français, la première langue parlée dans la région de la Bretagne4, devant le gallo, ayant sept fois moins de locuteurs. Depuis les années 1980, il n'est plus attesté de brittophone monolingue.
Le breton est reconnu comme langue régionale ou minoritaire de France et comme langue de la région de la Bretagne, aux côtés du français et du gallo. Il est classé comme « langue sérieusement en danger » selon l'Unesco"
5 % of Britanny population know to speak Briton so 172,000... Only 35,000 speak it on daily basis. Well, no comment...
Danger of extinction comes mostly from the lack of official support, again. Official support means survival: Scottish Gaelic would very likely be dead without official support. Well, it is not and that's a good thing, whatever the future can be. Note that there are as many people speaking Gaelic that there are speaking breton, meaning a much lesser proportion of the total population.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-12-2017, 16:01
Tristuskhan is clearly quite capable of of defending his own people, so I'll just make a few final points for everyone's consideration, hopefully Brenus might take note.
1. Whether the sign was real or not is less important that the fact that Breton-speakers from that period are willing to believe it was. This tells you a great deal about the time period, and similar stories comes from most minority groups across Europe (including the UK) from that period. Teachers were not sent in with explicit orders to crush Breton and other regional languages, but they were sent from other parts of France to enforce the learning of French as defined by Paris. What this meant was that the teachers could only communicate with their Pupils in French and therefore had to enforce the speaking of French.
2. It should be pointed out that the enforcing of French as the national language of government and business was an essential building block of a unitary "French" state after the Revolution overthrew what was essentially a quasi-Feudal and quasi-Federal regime. The motto of the Republic is Liberté, égalité, fraternité "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" in French. Brotherhood for those speaking French then, equality and and liberty via the French language. The regional languages were, therefore designates patois and French was designated the Gallic "mother tongue". This was taken to absurd levels even into the mid 19th Century when it was argued by the members of the Academe that French had a Gallic rather than Latin base - the arternative being to admit French was a highly divergent Latin patois.
Now - back to the election.
Seems the immigrant communities in the French suburbs have been rioting for several days now:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/paris-riots-violence-erupts-fifth-night-unrest-young-black-man/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/paris-rally-alleged-police-rape-descends-riot-170211202629347.html
The spark appears to have been the arrest and sodomising of an immigrant youth by Police. He's in hospital and the officers in question have been charged - but apparently riots were continuing as of last night.
I cannot but think this is good for Le Pen - I realise that rioting is a traditional French expression of political discontent but these scenes seem excessive given the perpetrators have been arrested, and apparently the rioters have set a nursury school on fire. Despite the reported damage this doesn't seem to be making the BBC website. That smells a bit fishy.
Tristuskhan
02-12-2017, 16:58
Some of you may ignore the tradition of impunity for the Police, here in France, which is a major and legitimate (in my eyes) cause of rioting. Police hierarchy is currently trying hard to have the charge reverted to simple police brutality from the rape charge chosed by the Justice (a charge that is not so easily forgotten).
The cops have, at least, stopped saying the boy impalled himself voluntarily on the truncheon or that the whole affair was just fully accidental (the boy slipped on the floor and came to rest with 10cms of the thing in his bottom, what? that happens!). Such attitudes alone is well enough to create a minor surge of violence in the banlieues.
Police in France has never been renowned for it's subtlety but recruitments those last years was done at an appalingly low level. Many speak and behave with any citizen like the scum they are supposed to confront.
Edit: hell no, they keep on saying it was an accident. Some never learn.
Greyblades
02-12-2017, 20:38
Despite the reported damage this doesn't seem to be making the BBC website. That smells a bit fishy.
The BBC has a habit of going 2/3 guardian when it comes to minority matters.
"Police in France has never been renowned for it's subtlety but recruitments those last years was done at an appalingly low level. Many speak and behave with any citizen like the scum they are supposed to confront." Agree. The destruction of all aspect of the Service Public (from Post to Police de proximité) by Sarkolland and the systematic destruction of all the tool of creation of citizenship on the name of money didn't improve the situation...
Tristuskhan
02-14-2017, 17:02
"Police in France has never been renowned for it's subtlety but recruitments those last years was done at an appalingly low level. Many speak and behave with any citizen like the scum they are supposed to confront." Agree. The destruction of all aspect of the Service Public (from Post to Police de proximité) by Sarkolland and the systematic destruction of all the tool of creation of citizenship on the name of money didn't improve the situation...
:clown: Take a very good ship, get rid of half the strokers, put twelve captains and two admirals in charge.
Blame the few remaining strokers cos' the ship does not run anymore. I live with that at the ONF (National Forest Office), full of useless managerial clones with absolute despise of the Art.
Montmorency
02-16-2017, 13:51
Advertisement for French Revolution game on the Org.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152513-French-Revolution-Mafia-sign-up-thread
Apparently Le Pen is now favourite to win...
So, Geert Wilders for the Netherlands next? Fragony will be happy.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-20-2017, 04:31
What are the London betting shops giving for odds in this?
Greyblades
02-20-2017, 05:29
Paddy power says Le pen is 2/1 (http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/european-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=487710).
Seamus Fermanagh
02-20-2017, 20:33
Paddy power says Le pen is 2/1 (http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/european-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=487710).
Thanks.
It also shows Fillon at 9-4, so that doesn't seem like a "done deal" yet
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-20-2017, 22:59
Oh look: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/20/marine-le-pen-front-national-headquarters-raided-by-police
Le Pen's headquarters raided by Police - well that'll likely improve her odds further.
Now she can claim she's being harassed as well.
Idiots.
"Le Pen's headquarters raided by Police - well that'll likely improve her odds further.
Now she can claim she's being harassed as well.
Idiots."
So you think that the fact she stole money should be ignored for political reason? She is under investigation...
And her claiming to be harassed is not new, her father used the same technic.
About polls, French journalists infecting foreign journalists. Don't believe them. The result is within the ones who never vote, not on the ones who always vote.
Tristuskhan
02-21-2017, 12:03
Apparently Le Pen is now favourite to win...
Where did you read that? She'll likely rank first on 1st round but shall lose on 2nd round, whoever she'll be facing.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-21-2017, 14:10
"Le Pen's headquarters raided by Police - well that'll likely improve her odds further.
Now she can claim she's being harassed as well.
Idiots."
So you think that the fact she stole money should be ignored for political reason? She is under investigation...
And her claiming to be harassed is not new, her father used the same technic.
About polls, French journalists infecting foreign journalists. Don't believe them. The result is within the ones who never vote, not on the ones who always vote.
No, I think that raiding her headquarters shortly before the election was a political stunt that will backfire.
Where did you read that? She'll likely rank first on 1st round but shall lose on 2nd round, whoever she'll be facing.
The assumption is that there will be a second round. It is possible, though uncommon, for a candidate to win in the first round. So it comes down to electoral habits.
Specifically - how many people unenthused by the two "mainstream" candidates in contention will assume Le Pen won't win in the first round? If Le Pen can mobilise all her supporters in the first round and the other candidates under-perform due to apathy she could win outright. Assuming she doesn't win outright you still have to account for the recent skew in polling suggesting Le Pen's support might be under-represented.
Gilrandir
02-21-2017, 16:10
What are the London betting shops giving for odds in this?
Paddy power says Le pen is 2/1 (http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/european-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=487710).
I wonder what were the odds on Brexit and Trump.
Greyblades
02-21-2017, 16:31
3-1, (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-odds-win-us-election-2016-brexit-betting-votes-hillary-clinton-a7405226.html) either the bookies have cottoned on to the trends of the time or le pen is about to lose the hat-trick.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-21-2017, 19:15
... About polls, French journalists infecting foreign journalists. Don't believe them. The result is within the ones who never vote, not on the ones who always vote.
That's why I was interested in the guesstimates of the London betting houses -- polls are not always as accurate as they claim [not that the math doesn't work out; the problems are usually with question phrasing and or sample selection].
"Specifically - how many people unenthused by the two "mainstream" candidates in contention will assume Le Pen won't win in the first round? If Le Pen can mobilise all her supporters in the first round and the other candidates under-perform due to apathy she could win outright. Assuming she doesn't win outright you still have to account for the recent skew in polling suggesting Le Pen's support might be under-represented." Unlikely. We have roughly 4 or 5 potential 2nd turner. Fillon (Conservative) who is having hard time because paying his family on Taxes payers money... Macron, the air balloon full of helium, favourite and champion of the media. He made a political suicide last week about French Colonisation and Crime against Humanity. Hamon, coming from the actual government, hardly socialist, having no programme but a balance sheet near to bankruptcy statement... Le Pen of course, no programme, but banking on the successive failures of previous government to deliver jobs, and blaming the foreigners... Having problem with taxes, but her base doesn't care. Jean Luc Mélenchon, leftist, against austerity, regain the flag and the symbol of the Republic from the Extreme Right. Born in Morocco, from Spanish ascendant... Black sheep for the media, and the only danger for the upper-class.
They are all around 13-15%.
All will be decided by the 60 % who didn't go to vote the last elections, tired to be betrayed by politicians...
The moods in France is the "great sweep", the "dégagisme", Fillon being the last victim of it. Le Pen can count on her basis, but figures show she didn't increase her base, it is the abstentionist as I who will make the difference if we decide to go to vote. We usually do when Le Pen is on. As Tristuskhan said, 25 % or even 30% is nothing if 75 or 70% vote against.
She was 3rd at the last election, and got 2 Representatives at the National Assembly...
Tristuskhan
02-22-2017, 13:35
We have roughly 4 or 5 potential 2nd turner. Fillon (Conservative) who is having hard time because paying his family on Taxes payers money... Macron, the air balloon full of helium, favourite and champion of the media. He made a political suicide last week about French Colonisation and Crime against Humanity. Hamon, coming from the actual government, hardly socialist, having no programme but a balance sheet near to bankruptcy statement... Le Pen of course, no programme, but banking on the successive failures of previous government to deliver jobs, and blaming the foreigners... Having problem with taxes, but her base doesn't care. Jean Luc Mélenchon, leftist, against austerity, regain the flag and the symbol of the Republic from the Extreme Right. Born in Morocco, from Spanish ascendant... Black sheep for the media, and the only danger for the upper-class.
They are all around 13-15%.
We'll know this afternoon if we can add Bayrou to the list. Someone educated, at least, but with a whole buch of incompetent friends (actual and potential: treason is coming among the smoothly conservatives).
And the thing about Airship Macron crashing on colonial memories: too bad. What does he think, that everyone has a good knowledge of colonial history? The conquest of Algeria was a huge series of crimes against humanity (awful... but few, few really know about it, In France and in Algeria too) but puting all this stuff on the political scene is pure foolishness.
Gilrandir
02-22-2017, 14:09
3-1, (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-odds-win-us-election-2016-brexit-betting-votes-hillary-clinton-a7405226.html) either the bookies have cottoned on to the trends of the time or le pen is about to lose the hat-trick.
I'm not good at gambling business. Does it mean that bookmakers "predicted" Trump's victory and Brexit? If it does, it would be a good idea to replace polling services with bookmakers.
Greyblades
02-22-2017, 17:39
Eh, it means they didnt think it was as unlikely as the polls but a 3-1 odds isnt what you give to what you think is a dead certain.
They thought the risk of victory was low enough to justify offering 3 for every 1 pound people bet on trump winning. The equivalent of a 25-33% prediction, whereas le pen is more 33-50%
Tristuskhan
02-22-2017, 17:41
Alas the last true oracle is dead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Octopus
I mean, London bookmakers? Why not ask the Guild of Togolese Sorcerers instead?
Greyblades
02-22-2017, 18:02
Why not, they have unwittingly become more reliable than the majority of american pollsters after all.
"The conquest of Algeria was a huge series of crimes against humanity (awful... but few, few really know about it, In France and in Algeria too) but putting all this stuff on the political scene is pure foolishness." Hmmm, I am not sure. "Les colonnes sanglantes" in Senegal and even the conquest of Algeria were brutal and bloody. Might qualify as war crimes, but as it was not a policy, these were not genocides. A genocide is a notion invented in 1945 to named the impossible to name, the industrial scale and planning of the final solution. To equal the "colonised" to the "genocided" is stupid.
The problem, imo, is every one wants to be victim of a genocide, and some were.
More stupid from him was the "je vous ai compris"... Every French knowing a bit of his history just cringed at this... The biggest ever betrayal in recent history... Necessary, but still...
"[B]
More stupid from him was the "je vous ai compris"... Every French knowing a bit of his history just cringed at this... The biggest ever betrayal in recent history... Err, excepted perhaps the refusal to implement the NO vote to the European Constitution...
Tristuskhan
02-22-2017, 20:55
"The conquest of Algeria was a huge series of crimes against humanity (awful... but few, few really know about it, In France and in Algeria too) but putting all this stuff on the political scene is pure foolishness." Hmmm, I am not sure. "Les colonnes sanglantes" in Senegal and even the conquest of Algeria were brutal and bloody. Might qualify as war crimes, but as it was not a policy, these were not genocides. A genocide is a notion invented in 1945 to named the impossible to name, the industrial scale and planning of the final solution. To equal the "colonised" to the "genocided" is stupid.
The problem, imo, is every one wants to be victim of a genocide, and some were.
More stupid from him was the "je vous ai compris"... Every French knowing a bit of his history just cringed at this... The biggest ever betrayal in recent history... Necessary, but still...
Genocide? Who said that? Macron?
The first military reports about deep Algeria noted a school in every village and a quite high litteracy rate among adult males (not so different from the litteracy rates in western europe at that time). One of the first policies applied by the Kingdom of France was to have the schools closed. Nasty.
But I never heard anyone talking about genocide.
Apparently Le Pen is now favourite to win...
So, Geert Wilders for the Netherlands next? Fragony will be happy.
No I'm not.
Figured I kinda missed you lot too much so I'm in again
"Genocide? Who said that? Macron?" Might be wrong but "Crimes against Humanity" was coined to describe in Judicial Term the Extermination campaign of the entire Jews (and Tziganes) communities, so a genocide.
"The first military reports about deep Algeria noted a school in every village and a quite high litteracy rate among adult males" This is interesting: Do you have a reference for this (book not internet)?
Gilrandir
02-23-2017, 13:18
No I'm not.
Figured I kinda missed you lot too much so I'm in again
Err, excepted perhaps the refusal to implement the NO vote to the European Constitution...
First the UK exited the EU, then Trump won elections in America. Now Fragony is back and Brenus learnt to use the Reply button. Where is the world going? What's next? Putin will stop being a fascist?
"Genocide? Who said that? Macron?" Might be wrong but "Crimes against Humanity" was coined to describe in Judicial Term the Extermination campaign of the entire Jews (and Tziganes) communities, so a genocide.
"The first military reports about deep Algeria noted a school in every village and a quite high litteracy rate among adult males" This is interesting: Do you have a reference for this (book not internet)?
Oh, thank God. I was too hasty. Some things do remain the same.
Tristuskhan
02-23-2017, 18:37
"Genocide? Who said that? Macron?" Might be wrong but "Crimes against Humanity" was coined to describe in Judicial Term the Extermination campaign of the entire Jews (and Tziganes) communities, so a genocide.
And what? Since the term was not coined at that times, does it mean there was no Armenian or Herero genocide?
We can debate about the quasi-genocidal aspects of french conquest of Algeria, but it's a matter for historians, not a topic to be thrown on today's french electoral arena. Uselessly poisonous in the sad ignorance everyone likes to keep on that issue.
"The first military reports about deep Algeria noted a school in every village and a quite high litteracy rate among adult males" This is interesting: Do you have a reference for this (book not internet)?
Benjamin Stora ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Stora ) on France Culture one year ago, can't say better. I trust the man enough on the matter. May be able to find about it in my collection of the review "L'Histoire". But it spans 15 years.
No I'm not.
Figured I kinda missed you lot too much so I'm in again
I thought you was a Geert Wilders fan, my mistake then. :bow:
Welcome back.
"Since the term was not coined at that times, does it mean there was no Armenian or Herero genocide?" I do not dispute the term of genocide, I think the term Crime against Humanity was inadequate...
Unfortunately, genocide was a system of conquest. Genghis Khan was good at it.
I discussed at long length about the culture of genocide with friends. South and Central America, Africa (see the Belgian Congo), etc... I was convinced by them that this culture lead to Hitler's final solution. A bit long to develop but that is the idea...
And I agree. It shouldn't be in the actual political debate. The war is over... No need to start it again...
I thought you was a Geert Wilders fan, my mistake then. :bow:
Welcome back.
Thx.
Won't deny I like him, Wilders can be incredibly hilarious in a 'what did he just say' kinda way, he can be extremily funny, much to the chagrin of others.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-26-2017, 15:32
"Since the term was not coined at that times, does it mean there was no Armenian or Herero genocide?" I do not dispute the term of genocide, I think the term Crime against Humanity was inadequate...
Unfortunately, genocide was a system of conquest. Genghis Khan was good at it....
Unfettered warfare consists of:
Defeat the opponent in the field.
Defeat the last strongholds/holdouts.
Kill or enslave the military-aged males.
Kill the oldsters.
Rape the conquered women of child-bearing age and make them nurture the generation that will dominate the territory for you.
Warfare which does not go to this level is a Western conceit.
Elmetiacos
03-01-2017, 15:12
So now Fillon is not stepping down after being formally placed under investigation, despite having said that he would step down if he were placed under formal investigation. Instead he's decided on a Trump-like "It's all a conspiracy!" line. The BBC news here in England are saying that Le Pen is the main beneficiary of this scandal, but I totally disagree: the danger with a second round where Fillon was opposing Le Pen would be that he's so far to the Right that voters on the Left wouldn't think it worth turning out to vote at all and the usual anti-fascist consensus would crumble... it would be like telling people over here the only way to keep out Paul Nuttall would be to vote for John Redwood. Macron will restore the consensus and win by about 60/40 unless of course, weird shit happens.
Macron has not a chance to built a consensus. He is the guy who add few millions poor in France by his XIX century policy. He is a media construction and might win but building a consensus, no.
Le Pen doesn't dare to move or speak, as each time she said something either stupid either the complete contrary of what she said 2 days before.
Situation is volatile. We shall see...
I will not vote for Macron. I will not vote for any member of the former government... I will not bow to the usual blackmail Le Pen or else.
The Media and political Parties boosted Le Pen, they will deal with the result.
Tristuskhan
03-01-2017, 22:21
I will not vote for Macron. I will not vote for any member of the former government... I will not bow to the usual blackmail Le Pen or else.
Bad souvenirs 2002 vintage maybe?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-01-2017, 22:50
Macron has not a chance to built a consensus. He is the guy who add few millions poor in France by his XIX century policy. He is a media construction and might win but building a consensus, no.
Le Pen doesn't dare to move or speak, as each time she said something either stupid either the complete contrary of what she said 2 days before.
Situation is volatile. We shall see...
I will not vote for Macron. I will not vote for any member of the former government... I will not bow to the usual blackmail Le Pen or else.
The Media and political Parties boosted Le Pen, they will deal with the result.
This is how Le Pen might get elected.
But how bad would that be really? Is she a genuine Fascist, or did she just use her father's Fascist party to advance her own political vision?
This is how Le Pen might get elected.
But how bad would that be really? Is she a genuine Fascist, or did she just use her father's Fascist party to advance her own political vision?
I think the old party was BNP-style, whilst the party reformed under her is closer to UKIP. A positive change, at least.
LittleGrizzly
03-02-2017, 02:03
I will not bow to the usual blackmail Le Pen or else
.........................................................
It took me years to figure out that is how they get you, Turkeys voting for Christmas in the fear it could be even worse.
Bad souvenirs 2002 vintage maybe?
Indeed.
Gilrandir
03-02-2017, 10:22
I will not bow to the usual blackmail Le Pen or else.
What about fighting nazis wherever and whenever you can?
The Media and political Parties boosted Le Pen, they will deal with the result.
It is not only the media or the parties that will have to deal with the result, I'm afraid.
Tristuskhan
03-02-2017, 15:20
Indeed.
I was in Mongolia at that time, gave my vote to my father. The familly I lived with in the steppe listened to the radio in the morning and suddenly everyone looked at me with very strange eyes. The grandfather came by me, put his hand on my shoulder and said: Le Pen. I had to find a way to tell my father NOT to vote in my name on 2nd round. I'm fine with that and would do the same if it happens again. Voting Chirac has been a trauma for so many, I'm happy (and a bit proud) I did not.
Voting Chirac has been a trauma for so many, I'm happy (and a bit proud) I did not. I still have it here...
Tristuskhan
03-02-2017, 21:02
But how bad would that be really? Is she a genuine Fascist, or did she just use her father's Fascist party to advance her own political vision?
The acorn did not fall far from the oak. Front National is a composite party, one can't know, when in power, which one of the multiple factions would prevail. But there are a lot of brutes down there, eager to hurt.
What about fighting nazis wherever and whenever you can?
I won't fight nazis by giving my vote to a thatcherian. Oh and they are not nazis. Not fascists. Nothing like stinkin' foreign ideologies. All french. Frontists, if one must give it a name.
I still have it here...
Cute english expression I don't know yet or just a crude translation of "je les ai encore là"?
Translation from French.:laugh4:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-03-2017, 09:45
The acorn did not fall far from the oak. Front National is a composite party, one can't know, when in power, which one of the multiple factions would prevail. But there are a lot of brutes down there, eager to hurt.
Well, we shall see or we won't.
I won't fight nazis by giving my vote to a thatcherian. Oh and they are not nazis. Not fascists. Nothing like stinkin' foreign ideologies. All french. Frontists, if one must give it a name."?
I say this to our Americans here often - you are not special. However, that does not make the Front Fascist.
Tristuskhan
03-03-2017, 11:55
Well, we shall see or we won't.
I'm still quite confident a Night of the Long Knives will take place inside the FN... Looks promising. Even better in the likely case of defeat.
I say this to our Americans here often - you are not special. However, that does not make the Front Fascist.
Yep, we are all family. Especially right-wing loons are liable to look much alike nevermind the place (burmese buddhist nutters comes to mind), and still thinking THEY are the best ones.
About the FN beeing "fascist", yes it is. And Nazi. And Christian Fundamentalist. AND xenophobic gay-friendly. And many things else. As a party, it was built by Jean-Marie Le Pen alone. I don't know if his heiress will be able to keep it standing when her father will pass. Doubtful.
Translation from French.
D'oh. Not a good english speaker enough to explain it...
About the FN being "fascist", yes it is. And Nazi. And Christian Fundamentalist. AND xenophobic gay-friendly. And many things else. As a party, it was built by Jean-Marie Le Pen alone. I don't know if his heiress will be able to keep it standing when her father will pass. Doubtful.
You forgot the Maurassiens, the pure lunatics, GUD and similars, Royalists, anti-semitic, anti-islamists (often go with Christian Fundamentalist, I grant you this), the ones who just want to annoy others etc...
Elmetiacos
03-11-2017, 16:25
I think the old party was BNP-style, whilst the party reformed under her is closer to UKIP. A positive change, at least.
It's not Hitler, it's only Putin...
A fresh and long story-format feature (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/marine_le_pen) on Marine Le Pen from the BBC.
Tristuskhan
03-14-2017, 23:54
A fresh and long story-format feature (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/marine_le_pen) on Marine Le Pen from the BBC.
Oh, my..... BBC definitely knows how to lick the Noble's arses.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-15-2017, 02:38
Oh, my..... BBC definitely knows how to lick the Noble's arses.
Oh, they like to do those.
It just means she's abstractly interesting.
Tristuskhan
03-17-2017, 18:44
Nice piece of news from M. Fillon:
http://www.rfi.fr/france/20170317-costumes-francois-fillon-payes-robert-bourgi-le-monde (speak french or google translate...)
Françafrique is not dead!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7afrique#.22Fran.C3.A7afrique.22_today
Having a french-lebanese who is a close "friend" of the Bongo and Sassou - Ngesso families paying for his suits.
Shameless, I say...
I really don't understand why people get so upset about the Front National. Not that there isn't anything questionable about it's roots and a good part of it's voters but they seem pretty decent to me nowadays. They are strongly against EU, good thinking I'd say the EU is getting increasingly totalitarian, more healthy nationalism please.
I really don't understand why people get so upset about the Front National. Not that there isn't anything questionable about it's roots and a good part of it's voters but they seem pretty decent to me nowadays. They are strongly against EU, good thinking I'd say the EU is getting increasingly totalitarian, more healthy nationalism please.
That is because you are not in contact with the reality of this party.
It is not healthy nationalism as this 2 terms are in contradiction. It is pure greed,racism (so some parts, literally) hatred and stupidity.
edyzmedieval
03-19-2017, 18:19
Patriotism is one thing, nationalism is another.
Most likely it will come down to Le Pen and Macron. But the question remains - will Fillon back Macron in the second round?
Seamus Fermanagh
03-20-2017, 00:20
If they propped him up and gave him a nice suit, would Mitterand have a chance of beating the current crop of candidates?
That is because you are not in contact with the reality of this party.
It is not healthy nationalism as this 2 terms are in contradiction. It is pure greed,racism (so some parts, literally) hatred and stupidity.
Perhaps, but I would vote on a questionable party if it gets us out of the EU, what else then the FN would there be there for me
Tristuskhan
03-20-2017, 18:24
Mitterand was talented and would eat today's candidates for breakfast... But it was 35 years ago and the man, being somme great self-seeker, would likely look more like a (talented) Macron nowadays.
Now again Mitterand is a very mixed-up memory for the french left. For me who grew up in a neighbourhood where the Party ruled (i.e: Communist Party, there was never no other one here), his election was a sign of hope. It was only a few months before everyone realised he was a man for the financial powers. I remember that very well, and I was only seven years old at that time.
And there it goes again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2017_%C3%8Ele-de-France_attacks
One more... looks like the man was quite drunk, stoned, and coke'd (to be confirmed).
Tristuskhan
03-20-2017, 18:36
Perhaps, but I would vote on a questionable party if it gets us out of the EU, what else then the FN would there be there for me
Then you should probably vote Melenchon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_M%C3%A9lenchon , didn't read the article, anyway!), he is questionable on a whole lot of matters. JeanMarine beeing sure to be on the 2nd round, why not try to bring another pro-Frexit there?
Seamus Fermanagh
03-20-2017, 20:19
Mitterand was talented and would eat today's candidates for breakfast... But it was 35 years ago and the man, being somme great self-seeker, would likely look more like a (talented) Macron nowadays.
Now again Mitterand is a very mixed-up memory for the french left. For me who grew up in a neighbourhood where the Party ruled (i.e: Communist Party, there was never no other one here), his election was a sign of hope. It was only a few months before everyone realised he was a man for the financial powers. I remember that very well, and I was only seven years old at that time.
I was wondering if the propped up corpse would still best the current crop of candidates....
Tristuskhan
03-20-2017, 23:09
I was wondering if the propped up corpse would still best the current crop of candidates....
If we must go for a corpse let's take Leon Blum. His ghost would win.
edyzmedieval
04-05-2017, 22:34
All right so... I guess last night's debate was quite heated, given that there was a lot of shouting going on.
Tristuskhan
04-07-2017, 06:18
All right so... I guess last night's debate was quite heated, given that there was a lot of shouting going on.
No TV, so all I heard is various people talking about it since then and it looks like here is the "winner": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Poutou , for his well spirited attacks on Fillon and Le Pen. Even right-wingers appreciated his words. Legendary already.
You know the spirit: 3 French speaking politic equal 5 opinions and 7 political parties...
Tristuskhan
04-15-2017, 13:20
Breaking news!
I'm going to vote in eastern France for the last time. Moving back to Brittany once and for all after ten years among the white thrash.
I'm soon leaving a place where Front National is at a routine 40%. And dwelling a place where it will reach an historic high of 15% ten days away.
Political fracture between west/southwestern France and the rest is getting upsetting.
Time for hijack, Brits, the french Corbyn is on the march! Melenchon rules.
Gilrandir
04-15-2017, 13:40
Political fracture between west/southwestern France and the rest is getting upsetting.
France too? It seems that all countries nowadays enjoy the reputation of "a deeply divided nation".
Tristuskhan
04-15-2017, 15:32
France too? It seems that all countries nowadays enjoy the reputation of "a deeply divided nation".
Nothing so bad. France can overcome some. Still...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-16-2017, 14:33
Breaking news!
I'm going to vote in eastern France for the last time. Moving back to Brittany once and for all after ten years among the white thrash.
I'm soon leaving a place where Front National is at a routine 40%. And dwelling a place where it will reach an historic high of 15% ten days away.
Political fracture between west/southwestern France and the rest is getting upsetting.
Time for hijack, Brits, the french Corbyn is on the march! Melenchon rules.
So you want us to annex Brittany, yes?
Can do, just as soon as we finish one of these Aircraft carriers and get some tanks our of storage.
Oh, and we're going to need a LOT of red wool serge.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.