IMMIGRATION thread

[Legs]

What about the "Are you incredibly stupid?"

Well neo nazi marches have been widely coverered on the tv news and in print media.
It would be pretty difficult to not know what flags they like to carry on their protests, unless you knew virtually nothing about the subject you were talking about.
So if a person wanted to make a claim that the flag has no connection with neo nazis in germany it isn't something that is hard to check before they went ahead and made the claim.

So does "ignorant" or "wilfully ignorant" describe it better than "incredibly stupid"? Because the only possible deductions are;
A
a person doesn't know what they are talkling about but is still making claims on the subject.
B
a person does know what they are talking about but is making a claim that is clearly false.

Either one of which can only lead to questions about the level of intelligence being applied by the person.

[Legs]

Sympathising with nazi's is not a crime,

That depends on the different legislation different countries have. It also depends on how the "sympathy" is expressed.
Does Germany have such laws?
Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.


Looks like they do.

[Legs]

lol the Somali left a few months ago he lives in Rotterdam niw, I now have a Syrian gay. Despicable me. Both just weren't safe there, I never asked the Somali why, why the Syrian isn't safe must be pretty obvious. But Legs (Snowhobbit) is absolutily right that I want to kill all muslims. I give them shelter so I can put nails in the door and give them a meal (not just me) so I can eventually poisen them. Syrian gay will be gone in two days. They can/could use my bathroom, kitchen, and we tagged then along with the boat of a friend of mine and gave them dinner at a restaurant a few times, how about you legs, what have you done for others besides having the courtisy to be making a new account to associate me (you know, the guy who wanted to kill you) with a Norwegian psychopath

[ ] uhhhh nothing really
[ ] I make a new account to insult people
[ ] my mother thinks I'm nice
[ ] other,

You can make as many claims about how nice you are to immigrants as you want.
Your own posts on the subjects of race religion ethnicity culture and country of origin provide ovverwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Are you attempting to deny that this.....W/indies E/indies S.American all criminals aren't they, refusing to integrate aren't they, abusing the system aren't they, mooching off welfare aren't they, having lots of babies at the taxpayers expaense aren't they.
..is an accurate summary of views you have stated on this forum about immigrants from former dutch colonies?

[Fragony]

You can make as many claims about how nice you are to immigrants as you want.
Your own posts on the subjects of race religion ethnicity culture and country of origin provide ovverwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Are you attempting to deny that this.....W/indies E/indies S.American all criminals aren't they, refusing to integrate aren't they, abusing the system aren't they, mooching off welfare aren't they, having lots of babies at the taxpayers expaense aren't they.
..is an accurate summary of views you have stated on this forum about immigrants from former dutch colonies?

Are the conversations between you and the voices in your head sometimes actually sometimes captiviting? It would be interesting to be you if they are, I love oddities. Or in more common internet-language, wtf are you talking about. You mia muca should be in a padded-cell with a selfhugsuit before things get (even) worse, who knows, you might even slit your wrists and wonder what just happened. that isn't even meant to be nasty, good intentions even. In short seek help.

[Legs]

Are the conversations between you and the voices in your head sometimes actually sometimes captiviting? It would be interesting to be you if they are, I love oddities. Or in more common internet-language, wtf are you talking about. You mia muca should be in a padded-cell with a selfhugsuit before things get (even) worse, who knows, you might even slit your wrists and wonder what just happened. that isn't even meant to be nasty, good intentions even. In short seek help.

Simple question isn't it?
Are you attempting to deny that this.....W/indies E/indies S.American all criminals aren't they, refusing to integrate aren't they, abusing the system aren't they, mooching off welfare aren't they, having lots of babies at the taxpayers expaense aren't they.
..is an accurate summary of views you have stated on this forum about immigrants from former dutch colonies?

Go on Fragony deny it.

[Gilrandir]

You can make as many claims about how nice you are to immigrants as you want.
Your own posts on the subjects of race religion ethnicity culture and country of origin provide ovverwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Have you ever heard of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_LaPiere

LaPiere spent two years traveling the United States by car with a couple of Chinese ethnicity. During that time they visited 251 hotels and restaurants and were turned away only once. At the conclusion of their travels LaPiere mailed a survey to all of the businesses they visited with the question, "Will you accept members of the Chinese race in your establishment?" The available responses were "Yes", "No", and "Depends upon the circumstances". Of the 128 that responded 92% answered No. The study was seminal in establishing the gap between attitudes and behaviors.

[Legs]

Have you ever heard of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_LaPiere

LaPiere spent two years traveling the United States by car with a couple of Chinese ethnicity. During that time they visited 251 hotels and restaurants and were turned away only once. At the conclusion of their travels LaPiere mailed a survey to all of the businesses they visited with the question, "Will you accept members of the Chinese race in your establishment?" The available responses were "Yes", "No", and "Depends upon the circumstances". Of the 128 that responded 92% answered No. The study was seminal in establishing the gap between attitudes and behaviors.

Ever heard of this?
”I'm not a murderer; some of my best friends are alive."

[Fragony]

Simple question isn't it?
Are you attempting to deny that this.....W/indies E/indies S.American all criminals aren't they, refusing to integrate aren't they, abusing the system aren't they, mooching off welfare aren't they, having lots of babies at the taxpayers expaense aren't they.
..is an accurate summary of views you have stated on this forum about immigrants from former dutch colonies?

Go on Fragony deny it.

Well I'll just deny it simply because I never said that, you may think I did and it might be true to you because you probably really saw that, it's normal that people with mental problems see things that aren't there. I said no such things, there is only one place in the universe and surroundings where it exists and that is in your head. Saying things like that would get me banned. Are Trump and Breivik the same persons in your personal fabrication, don't get me wrong I will immediatly believe that ypu are a very interesting person and all life matters.

A quik look for our numerous guests, https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-harm-or-worse

interesting ain't it. Even makes a new account. I didn't even fuck him and stopped answering the phone. I have no idea who he is. Flattering to have a nemisis though. Never forget that you are special Snohobbit/legs, just like everybody else.

[Fragony]

Keep up with the denials.
Are you also going to deny that you said immigrants are stupid or that you said you were going out at the weekend to beat up immigrants?

I did? You are partially right, it was when the riots in Paris could be spreading to Rotterdam, something that never happened. If they do I still will so what. That was like 5 years ago? And no in that particular I still feel the same way. There is simply no reason tp riot here.

I got a good memory it know what post you mean, I said 'I'll know where I will be if they do'. Can't say if I wouldn't have but it never happened. I would have if it actually did because muslim fanatics booohoooblacks and bored rich kids have nothing that justifies senselesly wrecking things.

I am starting to wonder, aren't you, Snowhobbit and Tribesman the exact same person

[Legs]

No reason to riot eh?
so if you get a crowd rioting about an immigration center is that a reason to riot?
When a black man dies in police custody is that a reason to riot?
Feyernord win the league is that a reason to riot?
Riots against immigration, is that a reason to riot?
So which group of people rioting in Holland is a justification for you to go out and beat up immigrants?

Nice to see you associate rioting with being muslim or black, racist much?

[Fragony]

No reason to riot eh?
so if you get a crowd rioting about an immigration center is that a reason to riot?
When a black man dies in police custody is that a reason to riot?
Feyernord win the league is that a reason to riot?
Riots against immigration, is that a reason to riot?
So which group of people rioting in Holland is a justification for you to go out and beat up immigrants?

Nice to see you associate rioting with being muslim or black, racist much?

There is nobody who wants to, although there have been a few incidents in small communities, stones through windows that sort of thing. I also get these if I move there. Hatred for immigrants is basicly non-existant, some like it to be because it fuels their (bored rich kids) reason to exist, but it just isn't there. Try talking with instead of about.

[Gilrandir]

Ever heard of this?
”I'm not a murderer; some of my best friends are alive."

I see. You deny the results of a pivotal psychological experiment and simple logics ("what people do and what people say may not coincide"). Party on, dude.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is where it gets interesting, he was only one of sixty people who had their computers seized.
He is part of a group yes?
The group is closely monitored by the German domestic security service because it has issued death threats against "traitors".

Okay, if there is any perception of credibility from the threats, THAT would justify investigation and possible prosecution. I just hate efforts to make laws about a person's thoughts and the expression thereof. I believe people have a right to idiotic views (as long as they don't represent a threat to the neighbors).

[Husar]

Okay, if there is any perception of credibility from the threats, THAT would justify investigation and possible prosecution. I just hate efforts to make laws about a person's thoughts and the expression thereof. I believe people have a right to idiotic views (as long as they don't represent a threat to the neighbors).

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

[Fragony]

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

The exreme-right is so marginal in Germany that that isn't a 'what if' worth bothering with

[Husar]

The exreme-right is so marginal in Germany that that isn't a 'what if' worth bothering with

It is a question every society has to ask at some point and I asked it in general, not just about Germany.
I fully understand Seamus' point, it's just that a border may have to be drawn somewhere or does the democratic will of a majority of the population who want a dictator trump the supposedly "universal truth" that a democratic government is best for a people?
A better country to compare with than German would be Turkey. If it is the democratic will of the (majority of) people that Erdogan can do what he wants with all the other people, should someone deny them the realization of that idea? Many or even most modern European democracies would say yes. Trump may actually say no. So yes, I think it is a relevant question because the process of political voting is a process of turning ideas into realities.

[Fragony]

It's pretty baffling what's happening in Turkey (and Turkish organisations and communitiesin Europe) but it's another discussion, it's a matter of law and the guy who's house was searched didn't commit any crime, so it comes close to thought-policing, or already is really. You don't have to like him

[Husar]

it's another discussion
[...]
thought-policing

But isn't that exactly the discussion?

[Fragony]

No I think not, you are more talking about majority rule. Turkey can not be used an example anyway Erdogan is just a madman who makes a coup after an attempted coup

[Husar]

No I think not, you are more talking about majority rule. Turkey can not be used an example anyway Erdogan is just a madman who makes a coup after an attempted coup

So the question whether there should be thought-policing to prevent a majority rule that wants to treat minorities badly has nothing to do with a discussion about majority rule? Okay...

And Erdogan being apparently supported in everything he does by a majority of the Turkish electorate has nothing to do with majority rule and the validity of it in all cases either...hmm, how philosophical of you.

[Fragony]

So the question whether there should be thought-policing to prevent a majority rule that wants to treat minorities badly has nothing to do with a discussion about majority rule? Okay...

And Erdogan being apparently supported in everything he does by a majority of the Turkish electorate has nothing to do with majority rule and the validity of it in all cases either...hmm, how philosophical of you.

Where you want a bigger picture I want to narrow it down, we aproach it differently. I don't care about dangerous views some may or may not have. All I can say for myself is that I don't really know how far that can be stretched but the opposite of taking it too far is also bad. A home searh because someone has ideas I don't find very nice, well...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does it represent a threat to the neighbors if they vote accordingly for a government that is very bad for the neighbors?

Potentially. One of the joys of having a written Constitution as we have in the USA is that the government -- even WERE a group of like-minded skinhead-esque yahoos able to work together long enough and well enough to win a plurality in a significant election -- isn't permitted to just toss aside Constitutional constraints and rule by fiat. In the final analysis, THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment, were our government to try to do so then the government would be changed. We pay a price for that safety from tyranny in lives, but it serves as our ultimate constraint on government and, by extension, the skinhead-fascist who would impose her views on us through force.

We thus can afford to let people express themselves -- even those whose expressions are patent nonsense.

In addition, our courts have long maintained the concept of "clear and present danger" as the standard for free speech. You can call for change, advocate racism, deny the mountains of evidence that confirm the Holocaust, even insist that the only true deity is a wheat noodle. When you call for violence, when you encourage violence, when you sanction violence your speech becomes actionable as a clear and present danger to the rights of the larger community.

I don't know quite how Germany sets things up so that the idiot can express herself AND the community is comfortable with that expression because it is a null as a threat -- your history is much different from ours on this. I just don't think that thought police laws are very enforceable or, in terms of human rights, wise.

Oh, and for those of you gun restriction advocates who read the comment on the 2nd Amendment above and thought..."but the government has all the weapons that count, your hunting rifle is pointless anyway"...you are failing to consider that the government could not convince its military to act against their own people in that way. Our culture simply doesn't foster obedience to superiors in that manner. And even IF the military somehow went along with it, you CANNOT maintain "boot on the neck" control over a nation with more weapons than persons and a ridiculous number of people who love the blow "stuff" up for fun while celebrating holidays. Witness just how problematic it is to try to exert control in Afghanistan even with drones, air support etc.

[Viking]

Oh, and for those of you gun restriction advocates who read the comment on the 2nd Amendment above and thought..."but the government has all the weapons that count, your hunting rifle is pointless anyway"...you are failing to consider that the government could not convince its military to act against their own people in that way. Our culture simply doesn't foster obedience to superiors in that manner. And even IF the military somehow went along with it, you CANNOT maintain "boot on the neck" control over a nation with more weapons than persons and a ridiculous number of people who love the blow "stuff" up for fun while celebrating holidays. Witness just how problematic it is to try to exert control in Afghanistan even with drones, air support etc.

The majority of the people who armed themselves could be supporters of the fascist government rather than opponents of it, lessening or removing the need for military intervention.

[Husar]

Potentially. One of the joys of having a written Constitution as we have in the USA is that the government -- even WERE a group of like-minded skinhead-esque yahoos able to work together long enough and well enough to win a plurality in a significant election -- isn't permitted to just toss aside Constitutional constraints and rule by fiat. In the final analysis, THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment, were our government to try to do so then the government would be changed. We pay a price for that safety from tyranny in lives, but it serves as our ultimate constraint on government and, by extension, the skinhead-fascist who would impose her views on us through force.

We thus can afford to let people express themselves -- even those whose expressions are patent nonsense.

In addition, our courts have long maintained the concept of "clear and present danger" as the standard for free speech. You can call for change, advocate racism, deny the mountains of evidence that confirm the Holocaust, even insist that the only true deity is a wheat noodle. When you call for violence, when you encourage violence, when you sanction violence your speech becomes actionable as a clear and present danger to the rights of the larger community.

I don't know quite how Germany sets things up so that the idiot can express herself AND the community is comfortable with that expression because it is a null as a threat -- your history is much different from ours on this. I just don't think that thought police laws are very enforceable or, in terms of human rights, wise.

Oh, and for those of you gun restriction advocates who read the comment on the 2nd Amendment above and thought..."but the government has all the weapons that count, your hunting rifle is pointless anyway"...you are failing to consider that the government could not convince its military to act against their own people in that way. Our culture simply doesn't foster obedience to superiors in that manner. And even IF the military somehow went along with it, you CANNOT maintain "boot on the neck" control over a nation with more weapons than persons and a ridiculous number of people who love the blow "stuff" up for fun while celebrating holidays. Witness just how problematic it is to try to exert control in Afghanistan even with drones, air support etc.

The majority of the people who armed themselves could be supporters of the fascist government rather than opponents of it, lessening or removing the need for military intervention.

What Viking said is my answer to your first part, Seamus. See Turkey, where the population took to the streets in support of the ever-more dictatorial Erdogan when the military of all things wanted to "save democracy", whatever one may think about that.

Nazi Germany, the GDR/DDR, North Korea and China may also beg to differ on the part where controlling a population is impossible. It doesn't work for the US elsewhere because the US are not willing / cannot afford to create an atmosphere of fear and repression. Even the ragtag ISIS "government" seems to have large areas under control using such fear tactics and public executions. You might even want to say this sort of system worked during the entire Middle Ages all over the world. Fear of death is a strong motivator, just see how muslims are often removed from planes because someone else fears them or how we spent billions on body scanners and other airport security. Both the Nazis and the DDR used that fear through the establishment of secret spy networks within the population. You do not need to control the thoughts, but if people don't dare talk about their thoughts to anyone, you basically prevent the formation of a sizeable resistance in most cases because people either don't dare to organize or get caught and ruthlessly executed before the movement is big and strong enough.

I'd say you need at the very least 20%, better 30% or more of the population in support of such a regime, but with the right incentives you can find such percentages in many countries.

If you assume for a minute that Trump would establish a similar system when elected and have around 50% of the voting population backing him up, where would the armed rebellion come from? The democratic gun control supporters? If those Trump supporters then supported the right of store owners to reject muslim customers for example, and then after two years, Trump and congress would pass a law banning muslims from entering shopping malls because it's just too dangerous to have them there and so on...perhaps they'd have to wear an armband with a crescent on it, too...
You think that could never happen? I would surely hope so, but I'm not so sure.

I mean I see your point and I like it, it's just once a sizeable majority uses the freedom to think what they want to think and express that others should be barred from those same freedoms that I think the freedom sort of defeats itself...

[Fragony]

Just a thought the Hus, isn't it kinda ironic that you are the one who thinks up doomsday scenarios

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
I mean I see your point and I like it, it's just once a sizeable majority uses the freedom to think what they want to think and express that others should be barred from those same freedoms that I think the freedom sort of defeats itself...

I cannot argue that what you say is impossible. I can assert that USA culture, from inception to present, does NOT lend itself to such. A tyranny of the majority would have to be profound majority to re-cast things in a fascist mold given our system. And yes, it is the cultural difference above all that spells the difference.

Different places, with different traditions and cultural views HAVE taken the "boot on the neck" approach and used it successfully for decades at a stretch. That is why I expressed myself as I did -- I am not going to claim that I am so knowledgeable of your culture that I could judge the rightness of such laws in that context. I only expressed reservations.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
If you assume for a minute that Trump would establish a similar system when elected and have around 50% of the voting population backing him up, where would the armed rebellion come from? The democratic gun control supporters? If those Trump supporters then supported the right of store owners to reject muslim customers for example, and then after two years, Trump and congress would pass a law banning muslims from entering shopping malls because it's just too dangerous to have them there and so on...perhaps they'd have to wear an armband with a crescent on it, too...
You think that could never happen? I would surely hope so, but I'm not so sure....

You might be surprised....

Link

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The majority of the people who armed themselves could be supporters of the fascist government rather than opponents of it, lessening or removing the need for military intervention.

Mathematically possible, but would hinge on a cultural "sea-change" that seems exceedingly improbable.

[Husar]

I cannot argue that what you say is impossible. I can assert that USA culture, from inception to present, does NOT lend itself to such. A tyranny of the majority would have to be profound majority to re-cast things in a fascist mold given our system. And yes, it is the cultural difference above all that spells the difference.

Different places, with different traditions and cultural views HAVE taken the "boot on the neck" approach and used it successfully for decades at a stretch. That is why I expressed myself as I did -- I am not going to claim that I am so knowledgeable of your culture that I could judge the rightness of such laws in that context. I only expressed reservations.

I don't think we have much of a "boot on the neck" approach, and I would even agree that our ban of Nazi symbols and the likes is probably a bit outdated and/or just makes them organize in secret and hide behind statements that are more tame than what they really mean.
On the other hand though, a democratic society should defend its democracy and sometimes a rising tide can be stemmed with a ban, or can it not? I mean that in the sense of "evil happens because good people watch and do nothing against it". I don't think Hitler could get elected in the USA tomorrow, it always starts small and it is often something basic like fear that convinces people to support it until it is too late and they fear what they supported...

I mean the tactics to convince people to hate others have been tested in US schools as well and no culture prevented the students from going along with them. See also the internement of the Japanese during WW2. It's almost as though culture doesn't count for anything once you appeal to the lizard-part of the brain.

In general I think the differences between modern Germany and the USA are not so big. Surely there are plenty of details that are different and the USA are ahead on quite a few curves, but in the end our modern constitution was co-authored by Americans and in terms of business and everyday life, well, we both have what we call "Western culture" and a lot of trends from the US swap over here sooner or later while you also copy some of ours, like the Oktoberfest. Not to forget that many of the products we buy are sort of international. So when I say something like that could happen in the US, I think it could happen anywhere. The question is just, should the government crack down on a movement once it becomes large enough to threaten the democratic constitution or is it more democratic to have a country democratically turned into a dictatorship by popular vote? In Germany, a party that runs on the idea of abolishing our democratic constitution can be banned.

The question was just whether you'd think it would be more democratic to allow them to get elected and then abolish democracy based on "60% of the population voted for it" for example? It's a bit of an extreme example, I'm aware, but some would say that this is what happened in Turkey, Erdogan got reelected several times and slowly changed the country into a different one where he "accidentally" holds more power than before.

I'm not feeling in any way bad about what you said, I just want your philosophical view of sorts on whether you'd think such a tyranny of the majority should be stopped by harsher measures if necessary or whether you think it should be allowed to run its course.
I'm also sorry for writing so much.

You might be surprised....

Link

That Republicans have more guns on average is not surprising at all. They they are more likely to kill innocent animals isn't either.

[Legs]

I see. You deny the results of a pivotal psychological experiment and simple logics ("what people do and what people say may not coincide"). Party on, dude.

Where on earth do you reach that conclusion from?
Do you understand that it cuts both ways?
Plus of course social desirabliity was very different in the 1930s than it is today