IMMIGRATION thread

[Myth]

So, any new rapes in Germany lately?

[Fragony]

So, any new rapes in Germany lately?

Police isn't allowed to report them in Germany, Collogne got a bit too big. Been plenty all over Europe, the little children of the childless mutti are to her astonishment not behaving all that well. I envisiion her laying in her bed with an iceback on her head muttering 'wir schaffen das... wir.. schaffen...das'

[Husar]

So, any new rapes in Germany lately?

Most likely according to Pape's (or any other) statistics. Why do you ask?

Police isn't allowed to report them in Germany

Where do you always get this bullhonkey from?
There are apparently cases of no or underreporting but how can you say everything is swept under the rug when politicians of the current government openly talk about it on TV? I guess mr De Maiziere has been fired already for disobeying Merkel since we all know that nothing in Germany is done without her approval and she wants this swept under the rug.

Or how about we you stop with the dramatic, exaggerating blanket statements?

[Greyblades]

[Beskar]

youtube

It is a decent opinion piece. I learnt a new word, Taharrush. Reminds me of similar incidents that have happened in Japan where they do it on trains (for example). Group of people do a wall on a carriage, isolating a woman, then assault her.

[Montmorency]

It is a decent opinion piece. I learnt a new word, Taharrush. Reminds me of similar incidents that have happened in Japan where they do it on trains (for example). Group of people do a wall on a carriage, isolating a woman, then assault her.

In Korea, they call it "Zerg Rush".

[Fragony]

What's so nice about racism that you need to exist it Monty, comfort zone?. Didn't know you are black, don't care either

[Montmorency]

None of that has anything to do with the post.

[Greyblades]

What's so nice about racism that you need to exist it Monty, comfort zone?. Didn't know you are black, don't care either

"Exist it"?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is a decent opinion piece. I learnt a new word, Taharrush. Reminds me of similar incidents that have happened in Japan where they do it on trains (for example). Group of people do a wall on a carriage, isolating a woman, then assault her.

it's worth noting that a lot of the pieces he references are from the first week or so after the attacks, before we knew the majority of the attackers thus far identified were recent immigrants from the North African and Levantine "refugee" nations.

So, essentially, he has more information available to him than the Feminists he lambastes.

With that said, however, he is exactly right when he attacks them for conflating "Feminism" and Marxist social thought. Feminists should not necessarily defend minority groups, now should they be concerned with racism or post-Colonialism due to their being Feminists.

The suggestion from British feminists that Germany is a "rape culture" is, from what I know, quite ignorant because it specifically isn't in the same way Scandinavia isn't, more advanced socially than the US and even the UK.

By contrast, most Arab nations are rape cultures, or contain rape sub-cultures. I had to live with a Syrian at one point in university housing. In the end we got him thrown out because he and his friends were a bunch of disgusting animals. They smoked Pot, played Dubstep at all hours at insane volumes, literally lived in filth and the girls in the flat didn't feel safe. I remember being in the corridor once and hearing one of his friends say, out loud "shock her! Rape her!". It was something about a girl he wasn't getting on with - the response stuck with me.

[Montmorency]

With that said, however, he is exactly right when he attacks them for conflating "Feminism" and Marxist social thought. Feminists should not necessarily defend minority groups, now should they be concerned with racism or post-Colonialism due to their being Feminists.

One of the cruxes of contemporary feminism is "intersectionalism", meaning they view all the familiar 'isms' as being interlinked, or even fundamentally the same phenomenon. Moreover, contemporary feminism in the world - including in the United States - draws mostly from post-war Continental philosophy, which on its own developed various elements of old-school Marxist thought in ways that the old-school Marxists themselves disliked (and still disagree with, wheresoever they remain).

In other words, you are out of touch. The classical (now "conservative") feminism you have in mind is overshadowed by the dominance of post-modernists.

[Greyblades]

One of the cruxes of contemporary feminism is "intersectionalism", meaning they view all the familiar 'isms' as being interlinked, or even fundamentally the same phenomenon.

indeed, that mode of thought is generally responsible for several ideological splits.

The Internet athiesm community did not weather intersecionality well; internet community leaders and forum admin started demanding followers conform to otherwise unrelated ideological standards of behavior and ended up driving away a majority of thier membership

In other words, you are out of touch. The classical (now "conservative") feminism you have in mind is overshadowed by the dominance of post-modernists.

Which is one of the reasons more and more people refuse to identify as feminists, moving on to more classical terms like egalitarian.

[Gilrandir]

The Meyer classification gives the characteristics of apposition and formally distinguishes them from other grammatical relations.

I encountered different classification of grammatical relations within a sentence which divided them all into parataxis, hypotaxis (which includes what Meyer terms complementation, modification, apposition and so on) and predication. So it is a matter of taste.

BUT once again, I spoke not of RELATIONS, but of a SENTENCE PART. The same relations may connect different sentence parts. For example, the relation of coordination/parataxis may connect homogeneous subjects, predicates, objects, etc.

To highlight the difference in perspectives then, "the poet Burns/Pushkin" is not considered appositive here.

Those excerpts that you cite seem to expose total agreement between my and Meyer's opinion on apposition AS A SENTENCE PART, since he (she?) considers both Burns/Pushkin examples the cases of apposition.


As for a different perspectives, I absolutely agree with the wording NOW. We should have spoken about PERSPECTIVES, or VIEWS of the phenomenon in which case such words as "wrong" or "invalid" are not applicable.

I had to live with a Syrian at one point in university housing. In the end we got him thrown out because he and his friends were a bunch of disgusting animals. They smoked Pot, played Dubstep at all hours at insane volumes, literally lived in filth and the girls in the flat didn't feel safe. I remember being in the corridor once and hearing one of his friends say, out loud "shock her! Rape her!". It was something about a girl he wasn't getting on with - the response stuck with me.

Now you will see something like "it's a separate/nonsymptomatic case that proves nothing" as a response.

[Fragony]

Most likely according to Pape's (or any other) statistics. Why do you ask?



Where do you always get this bullhonkey from?
There are apparently cases of no or underreporting but how can you say everything is swept under the rug when politicians of the current government openly talk about it on TV? I guess mr De Maiziere has been fired already for disobeying Merkel since we all know that nothing in Germany is done without her approval and she wants this swept under the rug.

Or how about we you stop with the dramatic, exaggerating blanket statements?

German police said so themselves.

[Sarmatian]

German police said so themselves.

Really? Suddenly an unsourced, off the record statement by a few unnamed police officers on social media is "German police said so"?

Or how about we you stop with the dramatic, exaggerating blanket statements?

If he could do that, he wouldn't be a bigot.

[Fragony]

Hey, I am a bigot in your eyes anyway so there's nothing to gain, seek sources yourself

[Montmorency]

The sources you cite try to draw the line between apposition and (pre)modification. It is nonsense. Apposition (as a grammatical construction) may stand in pre-position (premodifying the antecedent) and post-position (post-modifying the antecedent). But it doesn't change its NATURE.
The classification that your sources offer reminds me the classification of animals in one old Chinese "encyclopaedia". According to it all animals are divided into embalmed ones, suckling piglets and those that belong to the emperor.

The Meyer classification gives the characteristics of apposition and formally distinguishes them from other grammatical relations. The classification you favor is, like what, that all animals are divided into - animals? That isn't much of an insight into the nature of animals.

Perhaps this overview diagram from Meyer will help:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, here's a recent full treatment that also uses Dutch as a case language, though it's even further from your preference than my previous reference, Meyer.

(4) a. My brother Peter is still at college.
b. My brother, Peter, is still at college.

(5) a. The poet Pushkin was born in Moskow.
b. The poet, Pushkin, was born in Moskow.

The restrictive example (4a) suggests that the speaker has several brothers and picks
out the one called Peter. In the appositive variant (4b), however, the anchor refers to
only one brother and the apposition just adds that this brother is called Peter.
Similarly, in the restrictive (5a), the poet Pushkin can be used to introduce someone
the speaker did not know before, whereas the poet in itself does not have a referent
yet. In (5b), on the other hand, a poet must have been introduced in the previous
discourse. Therefore, the poet directly refers to this person and the apposition just
adds that his name is Pushkin

Though almost everyone mentions both close and loose apposition
nowadays, the main focus is on the loose, or non-restrictive, construction. This
construction is usually taken as apposition proper. In the common view, loose and
close apposition are not considered two variants of one construction, but two
different constructions with a different structure and meaning. Still, a relatively new
work like Meyer (1992) views the two as just two classes of the same grammatical
phenomenon. However, I think that close and loose apposition do not only differ in
intonation and meaning, but also in structure.

To highlight the difference in perspectives then, "the poet Burns/Pushkin" is not considered appositive here.

Taking the arguments above into account, together with the clear difference in
intonation and meaning, I conclude that close and loose appositions are structurally
different constructions. I therefore exclude the restrictive construction from the class
of appositions. For more details on the restrictive construction, I refer to De Vries
(2008a), who analyses most of its subtypes as attributive modifying direct speech. In
the rest of this thesis, I will only be concerned with the non-restrictive variant.

As we saw above, an appositional construction conveys its own proposition,
separate from the main proposition. The next question is then how this proposition is
built from the underlying structure. The first step in answering this question is to
show that appositions have the properties of nominal predicates, not of arguments.

Doron’s third argument to analyze appositions as nominal predicates is
based on the possibility for some nominals to appear without an article in predicate
position. Whereas this possibility is rather restricted in English, bare nominals as
predicates are quite common in many other Germanic and Romance languages (De
Swart et al. 2007). These predicates usually relate to capacities like professions,
religions, nationalities and titles. Here are some Dutch examples, illustrating that
bare nominals occur in appositions and in predicate positions, but not in argument
positions. Note that (46c) and (47c) would be acceptable in newspaper headlines,
where determiners are often left out. Such telegram style writing is irrelevant for our
purposes, however.

(46) a. Drs. Mallebrootje, uitvinder van de automatische [Dutch]
MA Mallebrootje inventor of the automatic
appositieontleder, doet mee aan de verkiezingen.
apposition.analyser does with at the elections
‘Mallebrootje MA, the inventor of the automatic apposition analyser,
takes part in the elections.’

b. Drs. Mallebrootje is uitvinder.
MA Mallebrootje is inventor
‘Mallebrootje MA is an inventor.’

c. * Uitvinder doet mee aan de verkiezingen.
inventor does with at the elections
Intended: ‘An/The inventor takes part in the elections.’

(47) a. Hadassa, jood van geboorte, eet geen varkensvlees.
Hadassa jew of birth eats no pork
‘Hadassa, a jew by birth, does not eat pork.’

b. Hadassa is jood van geboorte.
Hadassa is jew of birth
‘Hadassa is a jew by birth.’

c. * Jood van geboorte eet geen varkensvlees.
jew of birth eats no pork
Intended: ‘A/The jew by birth eats no pork.’

Hey, I am a bigot in your eyes anyway so there's nothing to gain

'Hey, I am a negro in your eyes anyway so there's nothing to gain'

I think this is an important and revealing juxtaposition, especially as it relates to the "pluralism saturation" I discussed earlier.