Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,714
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
I wasn't disparaging your source, just telling you why I didn't know whether it contained the information I requested. You could have just said "No." Yes, the link worked in a different browser; good idea, thanks. It doesn't contain any such statistics; all it implies is that if they were to choose European names they'd benefit*. So it provides no empirical support for your contention that immigrants keep the superior parts from both cultures, not even going by a narrow-goal-oriented definition of superior. This isn't the first time you asserted this, and declined to provide evidence for it. In fact, you even provided empirical evidence against it.
"We had plenty of gypsy visitors. They're not bad people. But they do steal. They steal because they have nothing and they're effectively shut out of society. If you give someone no options but stealing, they're going to steal. And you can't really blame them for it. People respond to incentives.
Because they are so marginalised and such targets by racists they are extremely tight knit. This is good and bad. Good because they help each other. Bad because they pressure each other into a life of crime. And weirdly they have extremely strong moral codes. Extreme. And punishments are extreme."
So I'll ask you again. Were the stealing, the pressuring each other into crime, and the extreme punishments the best parts of the culture of India, the best parts of Swedish culture, or the best parts of the culture of one of the intermediate countries Gypsies' ancestors migrated into and then out of?
(* And Forbes doesn't even show that much -- it's a poorly written article. It says,
"All six resumes detailed identical work experience. The only differentiator was language skills on two of the resumes.
The two French-sounding names received 70% more callbacks than the other four names...",
leaving the reader to wonder if the problem was four resumes with non-French names, or two resumes displaying more skilled French.)
Well, the obvious reason for us to be blind to Swedish misogynists is their evident failure to exist in large enough numbers or determination even to stop government social policy from being orchestrated by radfems, let alone in large enough numbers to get women jailed, flogged or executed for suspicion of stepping outside of culturally ordained gender roles.
We certainly should see that. The question, though, is not whether we should see that. It's whether we do see that. The French experience suggests otherwise. According to a leaked internal government report their grade schools are full of Muslim girls year-by-year behaving more and more conservatively, because their brothers keep beating them up or ratting them out to their parents if they act western. Do you have statistics showing that second-generation Swedish Muslim men's misogynist values have melted away?
A hundred years ago Sweden had virtue police who'd shove a woman back into a burning building for not being dressed modestly enough for outdoors?
Can? Sure. Will? Show us the evidence.
Swedish men didn't change in 60 years because misogyny has a natural half-life. There was some specific cause, some cultural process which by interacting with Swedish men's typical thought patterns made them evolve in a particular direction. If the same process isn't operating any more, or if it interacts differently with Muslim men's typical thought patterns, then this time it won't declaw the misogyny. So we need to identify the cause.
For example, one obvious possible reason for feminism to have rapidly transformed Sweden is because Sweden started out behind the curve, and Swedes looked abroad to some place they admired that was on the leading edge. Did Swedes in the 60's perhaps typically regard the U.S. or Britain as more advanced societies that should be emulated? Did you pick up feminism along with the rest of the Anglosphere's cultural exports? If that's what happened, one has to wonder whether the average 21st-century Swedish Muslim regards the U.S. and Britain as admirable societies.
Exactly what I said, in the part of my post you snipped and didn't reply to. I posted two examples of groups of people opposing mass Muslim immigration -- China, and previous rounds of middle-eastern immigrants to Europe -- where the blatantly obvious motivation was their perception of what was in their own self-interest, and where you had ignored that explanation out of hand and instead accused those people of being motivated by racism. You quite evidently did not trust their ability to figure out what is best for them. So I urge you to take your own advice, and let them do their thing and trust their ability to figure out what is best for them.
