IMMIGRATION thread

[Husar]

Cultural enrichment in France:

https://www.facebook.com/FREI.statt....1121288934347/

Can you explain how this is cultural enrichment?

[Fragony]

I most certainly couldn't

[Beskar]

Here is an answer provided by reddit.

Many times when someone is accused of being racist, they're accused of not having experience with the black community, and told that spending time there might be culturally enriching for them (as per actual definition).

These folks want to hold up the riots as evidence that supporters of the black community are the ones who don't understand it to try to turn that accusation around. In essence, they believe that they know more about the problems there than we do.
The reason that they're wrong is that they're judging day to day life by the standards of 5 minutes of cherry-picked violence that they falsely believe is representative of everyday life there.

Which is not unequivocal proof that there isn't a problem in black communities. There is. But solving those problems requires the 'cultural enrichment' and in depth knowledge that comes from getting to know the people who live there, and how and why those problems come about.

[Gilrandir]

Self-defense militia - the Cologne style?
http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschl...d_5196236.html

[Fisherking]

Here is an answer provided by reddit.

I do hope you are not trying to defend the actions of those perhaps half civilised creatures just because of their race!

Denying that racism classes colour and cultural lines on perpetuates it and exacerbates it.

[Beskar]

I do hope you are not trying to defend the actions of those perhaps half civilised creatures just because of their race!

My post doesn't defend anything.

[Fisherking]

My post doesn't defend anything.

Good!

Can you tell us what logical fallacy is being used in that post from reddit? It's pretty subtile.

[Fisherking]

Somewhat objective analyses but several F bombs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCLSZm4-LA

[Montmorency]

Can you tell us what logical fallacy is being used in that post from reddit? It's pretty subtile.

What do you see?

[Greyblades]

Not a rape accusation, but a public circus over a public accusation, usually before any charges are filed or considered. So, no.

Except you dont even need a media circus. As you said "Most employers overreact at any legal trouble on a low-level employee's part", even if it doesnt end up in the paper; if an employer gets wind of a rape allegation that employee is prone to being jettisoned just to make sure future developments cant damage the company.

I am trying to be generous to you, but do you really not understand that in legal terms and in statistical terms "sexual assault" and "rape" are indeed two distinct crimes that are treated differently, but that both fall under the broader category of sexual crime?

Except when it doesnt: "In some places, such as New South Wales, the crime of sexual assault has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex"
Some places also include Texas, a part of the USA, explaining my confusion over which definbition the FBI uses.

Not that any of this matters, if the FBI reports include rape the statistics Don Corleone used are too broad to be of use as I said earlier. If it doesnt include rape: it is fundamentally useless in determinining the existance of rape culture.

Let me be more straightforward: municipalities pay for rape kits and their testing. Don't be obtuse.

Go back and read the argument step by step; Don Corleone used the fact that rape kits needed to be bought until 2 years ago as proof of a rape culture, I challenged it by saying it's a problem of free market medicine, not rape culture.

Could you explain what your problem with that is? Four posts later I still have no goddamned idea, nor why you are still going on about it.

No - the legal standard is that, like juveniles and animals, an intoxicated individual is incompetent to give consent. When intoxication results for a given individual under given circumstances, or the wider philosophical questions surrounding the nature of law in light of philosophy of mind, do not change that this is the given legal standard that we rule by.

"No, it's not rape, except yes it is" Which is it?

[Greyblades]

Here is an answer provided by reddit.

Many times when someone is accused of being racist, they're accused of not having experience with the black community, and told that spending time there might be culturally enriching for them (as per actual definition).

It's official, the word Racist had lost all meaning.

[Myth]

I'm a backwards thinking "shady balkans subject". Here's my thought:

- Are you educated and willing to be a productive member of society? Welcome to Europe.
- Are you uneducated but willing to put effort into improving yourself and becoming a productive member of society at some point? Welcome to Europe.
- Are you uneducated and unwilling to change and instead demand that we accept you as you are and by proxy we must also accept your tribal and base culture that thrives on physical violence? Or your backwards religion that imposes strict rules that affect our lifestyle? Or are you unwilling to be a productive member of society and prefer to live on benefits and loiter about? Then you are not welcome in Europe.

All that other sugar coating is simply not necessary.

[Greyblades]

Does everyone ignore this part of the article?

The pretty Christmas market and medieval setting may look idyllic, but at Christmas and New Year the area around Cologne Cathedral is a notorious danger zone when it comes to pickpockets and theft.

I missed this earlier but I gotta ask: Does the BBC really think a trend of domestic theft is comparable to an influx of molestation gangs, or make it any less shocking?

[Beskar]

Good!
Can you tell us what logical fallacy is being used in that post from reddit? It's pretty subtile.

What do you see?

I got to agree with Monty here as I am curious as to what you are seeing in the post. But since you asked first, I will say my opinion then answer your question.

If I am honest, I have only read "cultural enrichment" as tongue-in-cheek remark as depicted by Myth above, and used in posts from Fragony, and not used in any kind of serious discourse from a proponent who actually believes in it as a term. My understanding of the term is that is used ironically by people, usually referring to people who believe in cultural discourse in a derogative manner because they dislike the other culture entirely on an almost xenophobia level for many reasons which range from legitimate concerns to misconstrued facts.

Just for definition purposes, I view cultural discourse as being where cultures interact with each other, and generally benign aspects of them are incorporated into another culture, ranging from things such a curry houses, pyjamas, blue jeans, and jazz music, or the introduction of political concepts such as freedom/liberty/democracy, welfare state, and unfortunately sometimes negative concepts (such as fascism) can enter a culture consciousness as well. Either way, a culture may adapt and change due to the discourse, but they are not dominated (that is something else).

But back more on topic, I was interested in other opinions and this was linked to a basic google search by myself on the subject where I found a proponent who ended up explaining the meaning, including the tongue-in-cheek version as well.

From what I gather from the reddit post directly, I will break it down as followed:

Even in a world filled with many cultures, not everyone has experience with them. Due to reasons, this could involve someone making a statement which is unfortunately comes across as either: ignorant or very uninformed. Proponents of the terms suggest that such people should "culturally enrich" themselves so they are better informed.
- I agree, the term 'cultural enrichment' sounds horrible, which is probably part of why I thought it was only ironically used, however, the sentiment behind it is that people who are ignorant/uninformed should go out of their way to have a better understanding of it. I think it is fair to say, this not a bad principle.

With the second paragraph, it is saying that there are those who disagree with proponents use the term tongue-in-cheek to say they are better informed than those who suggest otherwise, suggesting they should 'culturally enrich' themselves with the negatives.
- There are some legitimate concerns being raised. If you are homosexual for example, I don't think by 'cultural enriching' yourself openly in a hostile environment such as Russia or Iran for example would be a good idea.
- However, again, there are people who are ignorant of others, who make statements which are simply not true and just plain offensive to innocent people. There are many people I know for example who are Muslim and they are very tolerant of other people, they work hard, they pay their taxes, they don't stigmatise others, and they don't want to implement sharia law or impose their faith on others. Should these people get through into a grouping which doesn't reflect them or their values in the slightest? This is not rejecting the fact there are those of extreme opinions, just like there are non-muslims of extreme opinions, but it is worrying when people use these extreme examples such as being the 'norm' for people who are assigned an abstract social category they have no say in.

As for the second part of the second paragraph, this goes more indepth explaining there are time that people use extreme examples, or '5 minute clip of a violent incident' to start attributing labels to people who are not even linked with the incident as being their typical behaviour.
- I think Myth's post is a perfect example of this. He linked a video of a group of black teens harassing a woman with antisocial behaviour, then he clearly says "Cultural enrichment in France". What is really being said here? What is being heavily implied is that "Black people/Immigrants/Label-Here (whole) are antisocial". (I will go for first for sake of brevity)
- Finding an issue with this statement "Black People (whole) are antisocial" does not condone the behaviour of those individuals involved in this incident, or defending the individuals of the people involved in the clip (as you very eagerly suggested FisherKing, you jumped fast into making that a point). The behaviour in the clip is not warranted or acceptable, and if you look in the Backroom video topic, I recently made a post which explicitly stated that being from another culture/label does not make certain behaviour acceptable.
- What 'finding an issue with the statement' really means is finding an issue in that statement, the main issue being a very gross misrepresentation of black people as a whole being made on the basis of a minute clip. The clip does not represent day-to-day life, it does not represent the views of a people or their culture. It is an extreme.

The 3rd paragraph then goes into what I mentioned earlier, yes, there are problems in different cultures, yes, there are incidents and challenges that people face, but these are not the majority. Then it expands that people should get to know the issues involved in the relative societies.
- It could be as someone commented earlier, that in another country they don't see women in such revealing clothes and they don't understand the social norms of a different culture so they act inappropriately towards them, and as such, that Norwegian article explains how education helped people understand the differences so they know how to act and in what way.
- Above example is identifying the problem, and it gives a solution to the problem which addresses it.
- Saying that they should be shot out of the water and their villages bombed to the ground does not address the issue or is a solution to the problem.


Now, to the fallacies part... there isn't much of one by any measure, but you even say as such with statement "subtle", which makes me curious to what you think it is, and why you jumped very eagerly to suggest I was making a point which i wasn't approaching.
Only ones which come close as a streeeeetch from guessing what you may be looking for are the following: Strawman, Black-or-White, Composition/Division, Anecdotal, Personal Incredulity.

[Montmorency]

if an employer gets wind of a rape allegation that employee is prone to being jettisoned just to make sure future developments cant damage the company.

And how does the employer get wind?

Could you explain what your problem with that is? Four posts later I still have no goddamned idea, nor why you are still going on about it.

My point is that police crime labs test rape kits, although if they're out of money they try to find ways to bill insurance providers, not test the kit, or just not collect materials for a kit at all. A rape kit itself is just some bags, sleeves, folders, cotton swabs, documents, and glass slides. There is no meaningful "free-market" component.

Not that any of this matters, if the FBI reports include rape the statistics Don Corleone used are too broad to be of use as I said earlier. If it doesnt include rape: it is fundamentally useless in determinining the existance of rape culture.

Rape is a subset of sexual assault. Figures given regarding rape are distinct from figures given regarding sexual assault. Here is an FBI link indicating that 74K rapes were "cleared", with a 40% clearance rate for reports, giving fewer than 200K reports for that year. "Clearance" is, crudely speaking, when a police department calls it 'case closed', whether or not an arrest is involved. This is to say nothing of charges filed, court sessions held (i.e. prosecutions), and finally, convictions or sentences laid down. What is absolutely clear is that the number of defendants contesting (usually among other) charges of rape is always in the low tens-of-thousands.

The real problems in assessing the issue come at many levels:

• Individual states have their own definitions of rape. Individual police departments have their own individual policies on how to handle reports and proceedings, which they may or may not follow depending on discretion.
• A couple of years ago, the federal government began to collect rape data where cases involved anal or vaginal penetration, or oral penetration with a sexual organ; the old standard was 'unwanted carnal relations with a woman'.
• The federal government always included cases of attempted and "incomplete" rape in rape figures.
• In other words, even the number of allegations of rapes within the legal system is incalculable at any level, regardless of what definitions one uses.
• Statutory rape is not usually included in rape statistics. It is often treated under sexual assault statutes, or as a lower degree of rape if rape is divided into degrees for a given state. Typically, fewer than a thousand individuals are convicted on a statutory rape charge in any given year.
• What is "consent"?

Here is an article touching on why all attempts to provide an estimate for "false reports" have been meaningless.

In essence, rape appears with striking rarity in the justice system, largely due to the complete inability to agree on epistemological or legal or procedural standards, due to the deeper philosophical questions around consent and the nature of law.

No, it's not rape, except yes it is" Which is it?

Ask the legal philosophers. Any answer is bound to have profound consequences for the wider role of consent in law, so be careful.

To make this simpler for you, here is the general direction of feminist agendas:

1. Libertarian emphasis on "consent" and "autonomy".
2. More stringent definition rape.
3. Conformity toward reevaluated conceptions of consent and rape as well as institutional support such that reporting is encouraged.
3. Cultural change away from beliefs and attitudes that lead individuals to fall afoul of the above.

Please try to understand on what grounds you contest feminist narratives. The idea that the narratives should be contested because accusations of rape are especially likely to be damaging, or spurious, or open to public discovery, is what we call an utter moron horseshit lie.

[Greyblades]

And how does the employer get wind?

Does it matter? Whether through the machinations of a vindictive accusor, the digging of a sensationalist press or the failure in legal confidentiality the very knowledge that one is accused of rape is enough to lose a person thier job in western society.

That those accused will be ostracised or punished by most who hears of it, regardless of evidence presented, puts a great hole in the idea that our society is one "trivializes, rationalizes, or even condones rape and other acts of sexual violence" which is the core of the idea that is rape culture.

My point is that police crime labs test rape kits, although if they're out of money they try to find ways to bill insurance providers, not test the kit, or just not collect materials for a kit at all. A rape kit itself is just some bags, sleeves, folders, cotton swabs, documents, and glass slides. There is no meaningful "free-market" component.

Don said:

Until a federal spending bill 2 years criminalized the practice, hospitals used to bill the victim for their rape kits in most jurisdictions.

No mention of crime labs or the composition of the kit, only that the hospitals charge victims for thier use.

I asked if this was really proof of a rape culture or an example of privatised medicine, aka that the hospitals charged out of a desire to make money, not to hurt rape victims.

Is there a problem with his very premise of hospitals charging for rape kits? Did it never happen at all? Take it up with him. I'm pointing out that even taking it as fact it does not clearlt indicate rape culture as he presents it. Your responses have been so irrelevant to that as to nearly constitute non sequitur.

Rape is a subset of sexual assault. Figures given regarding rape are distinct from figures given regarding sexual assault[...]

[...]In essence, rape appears with striking rarity in the justice system, largely due to the complete inability to agree on epistemological or legal or procedural standards, due to the deeper philosophical questions around consent and the nature of law.

Way to waste 5 paragraphs worth of space by addressing none of my issues with Don's figures.

Or have I misread and you agree with me and just suck at expressing approval?

Ask the legal philosophers. Any answer is bound to have profound consequences for the wider role of consent in law, so be careful.

To make this simpler for you, here is the general direction of feminist agendas:

1. Libertarian emphasis on "consent" and "autonomy".
2. More stringent definition rape.
3. Conformity toward reevaluated conceptions of consent and rape as well as institutional support such that reporting is encouraged.
3. Cultural change away from beliefs and attitudes that lead individuals to fall afoul of the above.

Please try to understand on what grounds you contest feminist narratives. The idea that the narratives should be contested because accusations of rape are especially likely to be damaging, or spurious, or open to public discovery, is what we call an utter moron horseshit lie.

I take back "nearly" in nearly a complete non sequitur. I have no goddamn idea how any of that relates to my post.

Do you even read what I say any more?

[Fragony]

Doesn't matter what consitutes to rape, what matters is that the little children of the childless mutti don't give a crap about their host countries values

They weren't just touched but also robbed, just saying. Apoligists say that they are just confused because women and men are in seperate worlds where they come from (which is nonsense), but surely they must know that they cannot rob.

[Montmorency]

Does it matter? Whether through the machinations of a vindictive accusor, the digging of a sensationalist press or the failure in legal confidentiality the very knowledge that one is accused of rape is enough to lose a person thier job in western society.

So? Aside from the fact that such cases are vanishingly rare outside the university or celebrity world, what's the difference from me marching into your workplace and loudly accusing you of assaulting me and stealing my bike? If you're of very little value to your employer, you might be let off with few questions or followup. Rise a little higher up the ladder, and I would be ignored or even banned from the premises. You make too much of a trivial hypothetical.

That those accused will be ostracised or punished by most who hears of it, regardless of evidence presented, puts a great hole in the idea that our society is one "trivializes, rationalizes, or even condones rape and other acts of sexual violence" which is the core of the idea that is rape culture.

Not true at all; in very public cases, the accused routinely receive an extraordinary outpouring of public support. Friends, family, and industry colleagues (if the accused is a member of some profession or civil service) lock arms in their defense. You seem to have this strange paradox underlying your reasoning, that the fact feminists make an issue of rape means that society takes rape very seriously or even overreacts to it, which means that feminists have no cause to make an issue of rape. In other words, you use feminism to minimize or rule out the existence of the things feminism opposes.

I take back "nearly" in nearly a complete non sequitur. I have no goddamn idea how any of that relates to my post.

I'm afraid I can't help you then. Come back to it later if you like.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Monty, you realise Greyblades is in the UK and not the US, right?

In the UK, as in Germany, rape is probably a more socially unacceptable crime to commit or be accused of than some forms of murder. Our society will actually forgive some murderers, or at least sympathise with them. Rapists get nothing.

[Greyblades]

There is nothing probable about it. In modern Britain murder can be excused in times of war sympathyised with when done through strife, and even glorified if the killing happened for good enough reason.

There is no time or reason good enough for a full on rape to ever be excused. I cant imagine why it would be any different in the USA

So? Aside from the fact that such cases are vanishingly rare outside the university or celebrity world, what's the difference from me marching into your workplace and loudly accusing you of assaulting me and stealing my bike? If you're of very little value to your employer, you might be let off with few questions or followup. Rise a little higher up the ladder, and I would be ignored or even banned from the premises. You make too much of a trivial hypothetical.

A hypothetical with a series of high profile precidents. To normal people this is called a valid trend.

Also I wonder what world you live in where petty theft holds the same social stigma and provokes the same response as a rape accusation. An accusation for a crime such as that is akin to a social suicide attack; two enter but it only ends once one is reduced to a social pariah and noone escapes completely unscathed in the eyes of witnessess.

I have to ask; why do you think there is anyone valuable enough to a company to afford becoming known as the guys who protected a rapist

Not true at all; in very public cases, the accused routinely receive an extraordinary outpouring of public support. Friends, family, and industry colleagues (if the accused is a member of some profession or civil service) lock arms in their defense.

You pay too much heed to appearances.

An accusation from outside will always result in the family locking arms but there is allways an impact on the accused. Onlookers cannot see it but the doubt is always present in the minds of all but the closest of relations. Every friend and family member on the lookout that the trust they hold in that person is not being betrayed and even the hint of those fears being vailid will be seized upon in thier heads and the relationships are never left unaffected.

When the accusation comes from inside the family or circle of friends things get a lot less composed.

Take it from one who has witnessed two cases first hand; Such lingering doubts, left unresolved, will hang over everyone involved for decades. Even after the death of the accused it does not dissapear and I can assure you it is an unplesant state for a family to be in.

You seem to have this strange paradox underlying your reasoning, that the fact feminists make an issue of rape means that society takes rape very seriously or even overreacts to it, which means that feminists have no cause to make an issue of rape. In other words, you use feminism to minimize or rule out the existence of the things feminism opposes.

You are the only one in this thread who has mentioned feminism.

I'm afraid I can't help you then. Come back to it later if you like.

A poor teacher is one who cannot make himself understood. You are a very poor teacher.

[Sarmatian]

Doesn't matter what consitutes to rape, what matters is that the little children of the childless mutti don't give a crap about their host countries values

They weren't just touched but also robbed, just saying. Apoligists say that they are just confused because women and men are in seperate worlds where they come from (which is nonsense), but surely they must know that they cannot rob.

And how do you explain that the police report says that those involved were intoxicated and high on drugs? That's forbidden in their culture? Did they already accept western cultural values? So quickly? You should rejoice if that's true.

[Fisherking]

@Beskar I was a little surprise buy you in-depth analysis, which I will read as soon as I have a spare moment. (wife in hospital) so no irony intended.
I don’t disagree with the underlying message the poster intended. Only in how it was done.

I first noticed the “no true Scotsman” but there is also a bit of a “special appeal” and “genetic” in the way it was expressed.

[Fragony]

And how do you explain that the police report says that those involved were intoxicated and high on drugs? That's forbidden in their culture? Did they already accept western cultural values? So quickly? You should rejoice if that's true.

What can I say I don' know. I am not the only one who just doesn't know. I am no expert in these things but I don'tt expect others to be experts either, more like library-worldtravelers. But I would like to keep the argument that robbery is not ok. They couldn't have not known that it's not ok. Why talk about the sexual dimension in the debate if they certainly were doing something they knew was wrong? Mi casa su casa, not. Looks more like planting a flag to me. Without saying thats's the case.

mi casa su casa, going to shelter a Syrian gay/christian/woman in the room below me. Not classy but safe.

only them, no muslim no matter how nice.

[Gilrandir]

And how do you explain that the police report says that those involved were intoxicated and high on drugs? That's forbidden in their culture? Did they already accept western cultural values? So quickly? You should rejoice if that's true.

There is high probabiltity that they hadn't followed the code back there where they belong.

My mother's colleague moved to Israel 20 odd years ago. Her husband (both are Jewish) was much upset by the fact that he couldn't find any pork there. At first. When they found their way about the place they found out that it was called something like "white meat" and could be bought at certain places. So much for religious tenets: you follow them when it suits you, and when it doesn't - you evade them.

[Beskar]

In the UK, as in Germany, rape is probably a more socially unacceptable crime to commit or be accused of than some forms of murder. Our society will actually forgive some murderers, or at least sympathise with them. Rapists get nothing.

PVC is correct here. People who go to prison on rape-charges lie and say they are in for murder, not to be 'harder', but because there is a very strong taboo against it. The way it has been explained to me in the past is that people are in prison for crimes against society, they either crimes of passion, or crimes against property, or gang related. These prisoners are still people and all have families back at home, so when a rapist or child molester comes, it isn't just some guy who stole a TV, or killed someone they had a grudge with, but these are people who preys on their sisters and mothers, or who would prey on their children, nephews and nieces. So to these prisoners, the rapists and molesters are viewed as the ultimate scum of society.

[Beskar]

I don’t disagree with the underlying message the poster intended. Only in how it was done.
I first noticed the “no true Scotsman” but there is also a bit of a “special appeal” and “genetic” in the way it was expressed.

I don't really see the "no true Scotsman" myself, but that might be because I am reading into it differently than you. Nothing stands out to me as being 'no true Scotsman' unless you are meaning the argument but then they go out of their way to say there are problems in other cultures, so it wouldn't be one...
I agree it puts together two opposing viewpoints loosely, which I will concede author bias, which at a stretch would be a loose Strawman of the opposing opinion. I am curious as to what you read into it (doesn't have to be as tl;dr as mine).

(I hope your wife is gets well soon)

[Myth]

Hey, I'm not saying that all Africans or Muslims are bad. I'm saying that we have enough degenerates in our own countries to import more exotic flavours of degenerate from generally underdeveloped and backwards thinking countries.

Does not the UK have football hooligans and chavs? Yes they do. Do they need more of that type coming from Africa and the Middle East? No. What I want is strict control on who is allowed to come to Europe and stay here, instead of liberal morons standing with "refugees welcome" signs or making videos like the "mix it up" video that Swedish girl made.

If generalizations are bad then going on an "accepting all" spree is just as bad. Muslims demanding shariah law and the banning of pork in school cafeteria should just pack up and leave, they should not try to change the way the citizens of their host country live. African men who think rape is just a leisurely way to pass the time should be loaded on boats and sent back to the mud hut they crawled out of.

Are there doctors, dentists, engineers and kindergarten teachers amongst the refugees, migrants and other assorted rabble that tagged along from Africa, Afghanistan, Lybia and so on? Yes. Let them come. But degenerates need not apply, we have our local brand, thank you very much.

[Fragony]

There aren't any usefull people among the regugees, the usefull oned can go to an embassy and ask for asylum there, and take the plane from Damascus. Not that there aren't any real refugees, but most are welfare-tourists who don't want to ask asylum in the first safe coutry. Who behave badly on tops.

[Husar]

https://krautreporter.de/1242--was-f...er-koln-denken

Someone asked some actual refugees what they think about the incident, I'm sure you can be creative to read it if you want to.

I also agree that it would be much better if criminals had the word "criminal" in easily-readable letters on their forehead, maybe we can soon make that happen through genetic modification.

[Fragony]

https://krautreporter.de/1242--was-f...er-koln-denken

Someone asked some actual refugees what they think about the incident, I'm sure you can be creative to read it if you want to.

I also agree that it would be much better if criminals had the word "criminal" in easily-readable letters on their forehead, maybe we can soon make that happen through genetic modification.

Obviously of good will. But they also highlight the problem, a completily different way of looking at women.