Europe submits voluntarily

[Warpoet]

View attachment 10267

Fingers crossed, this helps get Wilders and Le Pen elected.

Yeah because more insane ultranationalist motherfuckers in power is just what the world needs right now. Fingers crossed!!!!

 

[repoman]

Not to morons like Wilders and King. They are turning it into an existential crisis for all of Western civilization.

White Nationalists are dickheads with or without any agenda though this may excite them a little. By the way one of Wilder's MP's was a black female Somali Atheist MP.

She's a cunt too, on the record calling for Muslim schools to be shut down and the religion essentially banned altogether.

She is missing part of her cunt.

 

[Warpoet]

She is missing part of her cunt.

And this has what to do with her calls for stripping an entire religious group of their fundamental rights?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not to morons like Wilders and King. They are turning it into an existential crisis for all of Western civilization.

White Nationalists are dickheads with or without any agenda though this may excite them a little. By the way one of Wilder's MP's was a black female Somali Atheist MP.

She's a cunt too, on the record calling for Muslim schools to be shut down and the religion essentially banned altogether.

I would say close down those which preach hate and armed revolution but not all. Banning ISIS and the Muslim brotherhood won't defeat their ideologies. Education and freedom to debate will be a better strategy. Jihadis need to be brought into the spotlight and not hidden from view.

 

[Warpoet]

Nutters think that every mosque is "preaching hate." If there is illegal activity or advocation of such then you have a case, but otherwise you're handing the government power to determine which religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nutters think that every mosque is "preaching hate." If there is illegal activity or advocation of such then you have a case, but otherwise you're handing the government power to determine which religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not.

The ultra-right will say that because it only needs one mosque to do this. They only see in black and white and not shades of grey. Shutting down those where there is clear evidence of hate speech (and tried in a court of law) should be the route to this.

In the event of ISIS taking over, Muslims who don't accept this dogma will be amongst the first to be eliminated.

 

[Warpoet]

Shutting down those where there is clear evidence of hate speech (and tried in a court of law) should be the route to this.

But in that case, the hate speech of the ultra-right would have to be shut down as well. But the people agitating for shutting down mosques don't want that; many of them were the same ones who were absolutely seething that Geert Wilders was convicted of hate speech.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Shutting down those where there is clear evidence of hate speech (and tried in a court of law) should be the route to this.

But in that case, the hate speech of the ultra-right would have to be shut down as well. But the people agitating for shutting down mosques don't want that; many of them were the same ones who were absolutely seething that Geert Wilders was convicted of hate speech.

The hard part is differentiating between free speech and the line where this turns into a clear intent to incite violence and discrimination etc. So where a case is brought to a court it can be judged on a case by case basis. A handful of Muslims who are radicals, ultra-right wing and ultra left wing militant groups can frequently fall into that category.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to morons like Wilders and King. They are turning it into an existential crisis for all of Western civilization.



She's a cunt too, on the record calling for Muslim schools to be shut down and the religion essentially banned altogether.

She is missing part of her cunt.

She did undergo female circumcision when she was in Somalia.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are also Muslims who support Le Penn. I've seen articles like this in the past, where the National Front was also 'wooing' Muslims, particular those who are descended from immigrants


http://www.france24.com/en/20120427...n-national-front-french-elections-immigration

Karima, policewoman: “Many of my colleagues of Arab descent vote far right, but don’t dare say so.”

A 33-year-old naturalised French citizen of Moroccan origin, Karima is a mother of three, married to a Frenchman. She arrived in France 15 years ago, and has a diploma in Computer Science from a French university. Now she works as a policewoman in Paris and declined to provide her last name.

Karima says she started becoming interested in the ideas of Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the extreme-right National Front party, in 2002. That was almost a decade before Le Pen handed over the party leadership to his youngest daughter, Marine, in 2011. These days, Karima says she regularly attends party meetings and votes for National Front candidates whenever she can.

“My vote is an expression of my rejection of certain Muslim Arabs [in France], whom I personally consider ‘thugs’. They’ve destroyed French society. At least in the old days, they lived in the same suburbs,” said Karima, referring to the largely immigrant, impoverished “banlieues” of major French metropolises. “But for the last several years, the mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, has done everything in his power to house them in nice neighbourhoods – like the 15th district, where I live.”

She says she is generally furious at these French-born citizens of North African origin who show no consideration for their country. If the National Front ever gets a candidate elected to the presidency, she would like to see people who “don’t deserve” their French nationality stripped of their citizenship.

According to Karima, many of her “colleagues of Arab descent vote far right, but don’t dare say so”.

Farid Smahi, former National Front office employee: “I’m Arab, I celebrate Ramadan, and I vote Le Pen”

Farid Smahi, 59, is a Frenchman of Algerian descent, a father of three children, and graduate of a French university with a degree in French literature. He currently works for an association that offers aid to people in need in the Paris area. His father fought in the French army during World War II, before becoming an activist for Algerian independence.

“You can’t be both Algerian and French,” Smahi noted. His conversion to far-right politics occurred when he returned from a trip to the Palestinian Territories, which he describes as a giant open-air prison. His opposition to French citizens having two passports, coupled with his appreciation for Jean-Marie Le Pen’s criticism of Israel, led Smahi to join the National Front. Though he was once employed by one of the National Front’s bureaus, Smahi no longer works for the party; he was asked to leave after publicly denouncing Marine Le Pen’s “closeness with Zionists”.

Before he joined the party, Smahi confronted then-leader Jean-Marie Le Pen over his stance toward France’s black and Arab residents. He says he wanted to make sure that Le Pen was not planning to expel them. “I looked him in the eye, and he told me that was not his plan,” Smahi recalled. “I saw that he was an experienced and free-thinking politican.”

According to Smahi, most of the Arabs and Muslims who voted for Marine Le Pen in the first round of this year’s presidential election are those who arrived in France recently: doctors and engineers, for example, who had good jobs in their native countries, but decided to flee the repressive dictatorships of these countries.

“These are people who suffered to become French,” Smahi said. “Unlike those others who were born here and continue to vote for the left, when they still don’t understand that it’s the left that dumped them in the ghettos to begin with.”

Smahi expressed his distaste for Arabs and Muslims who have not yet adopted the ways of their country of residence. “I’m Arab, I celebrate Ramadan, and I vote National Front. I don’t like halal meat anymore. I can’t stand women who wear the headscarf, and even less, women who wear the burqa. France is a beautiful country,” he said. “In France, we drink wine and we eat pork. My Muslim compatriots need to calm down, and stop imposing their religion on society.” His bottom line: “We’re in France: love it or leave it.”

Myriam, hotel maid: “The day the National Front is in power, things will be different.”

Myriam, aged 45, is a French woman of Tunisian origin who also declined to provide her last name. Married, with four children, she has lived in the Parisian suburb of Melun for the past 20 years. After dropping out of school because of “family problems”, she began working as a maid in a Parisian hotel.

Myriam does not have kind things to say about her black and Arab compatriots. In her view, they are the cause of all of France’s problems. “If I could change my origins, I’d do it with pleasure,” she admitted.

“The only concern of Blacks and Arabs is looking for a way to get around French law to profit from the social benefits offered here, and to make money without making any effort. They’ve ruined our reputation,” she said. “It’s true that some of them struggle and work hard, but many others…take advantage of the help offered by the government. The day the National Front is in power, things will be different.”

 

[DrZoidberg]

There are also Muslims who support Le Penn. I've seen articles like this in the past, where the National Front was also 'wooing' Muslims, particular those who are descended from immigrants

This is often seen as some sort of evidence of Islamic evil, since who would know best but they themselves. But it's been explained by sociologists hundred times already. The further down we are on the social ladder the more we like looking down on others. And immigrants are always the furthest down on the social ladder.

There's a famous Israeli sketch about where each penultimate wave of Jewish immigrants talk shit about the next lot, as if they are superior.

Targets of racism are more likely to be homophobic. And so on. It's really very sad.

There's plenty of Muslims who support the main Swedish racist party. Which is really quite odd because these guys were openly old-school Nazis just 20 years ago.

 

[angelo]

That doesn't sound right. I thought new arrivals weren't allowed any welfare the first 5 years in Australia?

That's because it is bullshit.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-refugees-cost-australia-100m-a-year-in-welfare-with-an-unemployment-rate-of-97-54395

For refugees, marked here as “humanitarian”, that works out to be an unemployment rate of about 33%

Another longitudinal study from 2011 found that while during the early years of settlement unemployment was high among refugees compared to other migrants, 43% of working age refugees remain unemployed 18 months after arrival in Australia.

Also important are the well-documented factors contributing to these higher rates such as lower levels of English proficiency, discrimination, lack of Australian work experience and referees, and difficulty in getting overseas qualifications recognised.

Interestingly, second generation humanitarian entrants have been found to have higher rates of labour market participation than the first generation, and in many cases higher than for second generation Australians.

See also http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustGovAssistRefugees#_Toc336609242

there is no truth to claims made in emails recently circulated throughout Australia that refugees are entitled to higher benefits than other social security recipients

refugees have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents—they do not receive special refugee payments or special rates of payment

given the circumstances in which refugees come to settle in Australia, they are exempt from the standard waiting period that applies to migrants seeking to access social security payments or concession cards

refugees also receive short-term assistance from DIAC under the Humanitarian Settlement Services program, aimed at helping them settle effectively once they have received permanent residency

DIAC also provides funding to assist asylum seekers living in the community through the Asylum Seekers Assistance Scheme and Community Assistance Support Program. This assistance is provided through NGOs such as the Australian Red Cross. The financial component of such assistance does not exceed 89 per cent of the DHS Special Benefit (which would currently amount to $438.41) and 89 per cent of DHS Rent Assistance (which would currently amount to $71.79). Limited assistance in the form of services is provided in order to assist asylum seekers living in the community to meet basic needs such as access to health and community services

DIAC also provides funding through NGOs such as the Australian Red Cross aimed at ensuring that people placed in community detention are appropriately supported. The financial component of such assistance does not exceed 70 per cent of the DHS Special Benefit (which would currently amount to $344.82). Assistance provided also includes access to housing, health and community services and social support networks

asylum seekers in immigration detention centres do not receive DHS equivalent payments or percentages of such payments. They are entitled to a range of services, including access to health care, religious facilities, television, library services and other educational and entertainment facilities, clothes, footwear, toiletries, hygiene products and other personal items. Detainees also have access to the income allowance program, through which they are allocated points that can be exchanged for small items at the facility shop

provision of services such as those outlined above are consistent with the Government’s immigration detention values, specifically value number 7—Conditions of detention will ensure the inherent dignity of the human person

further, the assistance to refugees and asylum seekers described in this Background Note is longstanding and has bi-partisan support. Such support is consistent with the overall obligation and commitment by Australia to provide protection for refugees and resolve refugee situations.

Of course despite being shown to be at least partly wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME he posts any checkable figures about refugees in Australia, Angelo continues to push the lies he reads as though he didn't know that they were lies; Either he has a very short memory, or his desire for these things to be true overwhelms his knowledge that they are not.

What, Labor and the Greens getting taxpayers to foot the bill for their hair brained ideas is legitimate isn't it! Oh look, there's a money tree!
____________________________________________________________
asylum seekers in immigration detention centres do not receive DHS equivalent payments or percentages of such payments. They are entitled to a range of services, including access to health care, religious facilities, television, library services and other educational and entertainment facilities, clothes, footwear, toiletries, hygiene products and other personal items. Detainees also have access to the income allowance program, through which they are allocated points that can be exchanged for small items at the facility shop

 

[Bomb#20]

And that's been my point all along. The Daily Mail article is formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions. Which no doubt is why Tswizzle posted it in this thread. But there's no grounds to make any assumptions.

Quote what it said that tried to make us make a bunch of assumptions.

The article does. Apart from cars being set on fire, nothing much happened. Nobody got hurt. The police fired a warning shot at nobody. Why is it news? Why news worthy of being reported in international press? Where's the newsworthiness in the article? In Sweden there's 10 000 acts of arson a year. Half of them is the act of children or teenagers, as it was in this case.

That's not a quote. Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all qualifies as it being formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions? Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all justifies your claim that "the article is make believe"?

And the journalists spin on it worked. The fact that it got posted in this thread proves that enough people fell for it.

Quote "the journalists spin on it".

The reasons you have been offering over the years for accusing people of racism have systematically been stupid irrational reasons. "Since mostly dark people are Muslim I think it's fair to say that the target is dark people. That makes it racist." is a typical example of your "reasoning". Your explanations are of a piece with accusing someone of communism for being anti-fascist. You are a modern-day McCarthyist. McCarthyism is unethical.

This is a <expletive deleted> comparison. I only call people racist when they treat Islam as some sort of permanent condition that can't change. Or attribute things to Muslims that are clearly racial attributes and not based on an opinion ...

But that's not true. That's something you just made up about other people to feel good about libeling them. You quite frequently call people racist who didn't do either of those things. And then you trump up more accusations against them as a rationalization for it. I've seen your explanation for how you deduced somebody is treating Islam as a permanent condition that can't change, and it's just as evidence-free as your customary racism accusations. "So when you're worried about Muslims coming here, and you're convinced that they will stay Muslim, and their children will be Muslim you're not talking about what's in their heads. You're talking about something they are. Something intrinsic to them that they cannot change." That is an idiotic assertion. Of course he's talking about what's in their heads. You made a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth.

You accused everyone who wants to ban the burqa of being racist, on the asinine grounds that mostly dark people are Muslim. Your rationalization for it is equally ridiculous. You have no evidence that everyone who wants to ban the burqa treated Islam as some sort of permanent condition that can't change. You have no evidence that everyone who wants to ban the burqa attributed things to Muslims that are racial attributes. If you believe what you wrote, the reason you believe it is because you want to believe it.

Banning the burqa is transparently about changeable behavior and opinion, not about permanent racial attributes. Duh! This is not rocket science. So your opinion that you only call people racist when they treat Islam as a condition that can't change or attribute things to Muslims that are clearly racial attributes is nothing but self-flattery. You don't have any basis for believing that about yourself. You are not the reasonable person you think you are. You persistently impute to your outgroup whatever you need to in order to think well of yourself. So get your head out of your ass and try subjecting your own beliefs to five seconds of critical thought.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's not a quote. Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all qualifies as it being formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions? Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all justifies your claim that "the article is make believe"?

I didn't say it's make believe. But if you pick apart what actually happened it wasn't much to weave into a story. Nobody got hurt! Nobody. Some teenagers were rowdy in a mall and it got sorted. That's the story.

The cops made a bad judgement call. But then they got backup, and then everything was fine again. Too bad about the cars. It's not like we have an epidemic of car arsons in Sweden.

I fail to see how this is interesting to anyone if it wasn't for the fact that Trump has nurtured a delusion about that Sweden has some sort of Islamic crime wave now.

Sweden took in the most Syrian refugees per capita and nothing happened. And people against taking in refugees are trying so damn hard to fine something. But there's nothing. So any minor little incident get spun to insane proportions.

Sweden has no "no-go" zones. The police are safe to patrol wherever in Sweden. There are rare and isolated incidents that call for backup. Which happened here. But that's standard in any country. That's why we have police.

Compare that to what happens whenever there's a football game here. Armies of cops in full riot gear being peppered with stones and all manner of crap, herding the crowds in and out of the stadiums until they disperse. Football supporters descend on the cities like a troupe of monkeys tearing up shit as they go along, piss on every wall and yell drunken slogans.

Yet, Swedes aren't terrified of these people. Because they're not brown. It's not news, because they're not brown. In spite of the regular destruction of these gangs it's tolerated because it's "Swedish culture". Not only that it's encouraged and heavily subsidised, because it's seen as a healthy and wholesome interest for people.

This focus on the refugees and insane negative spin is absurd and out of all proportion.

The reasons you have been offering over the years for accusing people of racism have systematically been stupid irrational reasons. "Since mostly dark people are Muslim I think it's fair to say that the target is dark people. That makes it racist." is a typical example of your "reasoning". Your explanations are of a piece with accusing someone of communism for being anti-fascist. You are a modern-day McCarthyist. McCarthyism is unethical.

This is a <expletive deleted> comparison. I only call people racist when they treat Islam as some sort of permanent condition that can't change. Or attribute things to Muslims that are clearly racial attributes and not based on an opinion ...

But that's not true. That's something you just made up about other people to feel good about libeling them. You quite frequently call people racist who didn't do either of those things. And then you trump up more accusations against them as a rationalization for it. I've seen your explanation for how you deduced somebody is treating Islam as a permanent condition that can't change, and it's just as evidence-free as your customary racism accusations. "So when you're worried about Muslims coming here, and you're convinced that they will stay Muslim, and their children will be Muslim you're not talking about what's in their heads. You're talking about something they are. Something intrinsic to them that they cannot change." That is an idiotic assertion. Of course he's talking about what's in their heads. You made a false damaging accusation with reckless disregard for the truth.
You accused everyone who wants to ban the burqa of being racist, on the asinine grounds that mostly dark people are Muslim. Your rationalization for it is equally ridiculous. You have no evidence that everyone who wants to ban the burqa treated Islam as some sort of permanent condition that can't change. You have no evidence that everyone who wants to ban the burqa attributed things to Muslims that are racial attributes. If you believe what you wrote, the reason you believe it is because you want to believe it.

Banning the burqa is transparently about changeable behavior and opinion, not about permanent racial attributes. Duh! This is not rocket science. So your opinion that you only call people racist when they treat Islam as a condition that can't change or attribute things to Muslims that are clearly racial attributes is nothing but self-flattery. You don't have any basis for believing that about yourself. You are not the reasonable person you think you are. You persistently impute to your outgroup whatever you need to in order to think well of yourself. So get your head out of your ass and try subjecting your own beliefs to five seconds of critical thought.

I can't see you have any arguments here. I don't think The banning of the burqa has to be racist. For example, I'm fine with people getting fired from jobs for insisting on wearing whatever religious garbs. Religious clothing is a uniform, and companies need to be able to control what messages are being conveyed by their staff. So that was an example of me being for the banning of the burkha.

But what people do in their free time, is their business. I'm in favour of legalised public nudity as well. I'm sorry, but if you want to start having a fashion police you better have strong arguments.

There's no evidence women who wear burkhas are being or feeling oppressed. We can think as much as we want to that they should feel oppressed. We can't help people who have no wish being helped. We need to figure out who regulation is intended to help, and then figure out if it does. And above all, we need arguments. If the goal is to force Muslims to stop being Muslims, then it's wrong. Freedom of religion needs to be respected.

I recall a discussion about the burqa ban in France. But that was primarily pushed through by French racists for racist reasons. They weren't even trying to pretend it was for anything but unfrenchness or unfrench behaviours. Which is French newspeak for racism. They have a long history of passing laws to make life complicated for (primarily) Algerian Muslims, for racist reasons. They couldn't be bothered to supply the justifications or mechanics by which that would lead to anything better or different. It was treated as "self evident". To me it looked pretty clearly as primarily motivated by "let's mess with the darkies".The context helps us understand this.

If the justifications for banning something are racist, then it's racism. I don't know if you were talking about the French burkha ban in particular. If it was something else I'm gonig to have some references. I'm going to need examples rather than your interpretation of what "I must have meant".

 

[Bomb#20]

That's not a quote. Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all qualifies as it being formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions? Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all justifies your claim that "the article is make believe"?

I didn't say it's make believe.

Of course you did. Post #4839. You just made something up again, Mr. "I always fact check everything I post here out of respect for my fellow forum members".

But if you pick apart what actually happened it wasn't much to weave into a story. Nobody got hurt! Nobody. Some teenagers were rowdy in a mall and it got sorted. That's the story. <Lecture about Sweden snipped> This focus on the refugees and insane negative spin is absurd and out of all proportion.

Did you not understand the questions, or are you refusing to answer them?

1. Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all qualifies as it being formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions?

2. Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all justifies your claim that "the article is make believe"?

Those are not essay questions. Those are yes/no questions. Are you going to answer them or are you going to duck them again?

If you aren't seriously proposing that carrying the story at all justifies your accusations against the Daily Mail, then don't give me yet another quotationless screed about what awful journalists they are. Either quote them or admit you have no grounds for complaint.

I only call people racist when they treat Islam as some sort of permanent condition that can't change. Or attribute things to Muslims that are clearly racial attributes and not based on an opinion ...

But that's not true. That's something you just made up about other people to feel good about libeling them. You quite frequently call people racist who didn't do either of those things. And then you trump up more accusations against them as a rationalization for it. ... You persistently impute to your outgroup whatever you need to in order to think well of yourself. So get your head out of your ass and try subjecting your own beliefs to five seconds of critical thought.

I can't see you have any arguments here.

You don't want to see I have any arguments here. You have been caught red-handed making trumped-up racism accusations. Stop doing that.

I don't think The banning of the burqa has to be racist. For example, I'm fine with people getting fired from jobs for insisting on wearing whatever religious garbs. Religious clothing is a uniform, and companies need to be able to control what messages are being conveyed by their staff. So that was an example of me being for the banning of the burkha.

Are you saying controlling illegal immigration is racist?

I'm saying banning burkhas are.

So to sum up, banning burkhas in circumstances you approve of is nonracist and banning them in circumstances you disapprove of is racist. Do I have that right?

But what people do in their free time, is their business. I'm in favour of legalised public nudity as well. I'm sorry, but if you want to start having a fashion police you better have strong arguments.
<More expounding on what you're in favor of snipped>

You seem to have lost track of the point in dispute. Your opinion about what makes for good policy is immaterial. You are making trumped-up racism charges. Don't do that. And your claim "I only call people racist when they treat Islam as some sort of permanent condition that can't change. Or attribute things to Muslims that are clearly racial attributes" is an additional trumped-up charge. The people you are condemning as racist didn't do those things. Don't say they did.

If the goal is to force Muslims to stop being Muslims, then it's wrong. Freedom of religion needs to be respected.

There. See? Was that so hard? When you pull your head out of your ass, even you can see this is about religion, not race.

I recall a discussion about the burqa ban in France. But that was primarily pushed through by French racists for racist reasons. They weren't even trying to pretend it was for anything but unfrenchness or unfrench behaviours. Which is French newspeak for racism.

But behavior is changeable. It is neither a permanent condition that can't change nor a racial attribute. So you are inferring racism from something other than your "I only call people racist when ...".

They have a long history of passing laws to make life complicated for (primarily) Algerian Muslims, for racist reasons. They couldn't be bothered to supply the justifications or mechanics by which that would lead to anything better or different. It was treated as "self evident". To me it looked pretty clearly as primarily motivated by "let's mess with the darkies".The context helps us understand this.

If the justifications for banning something are racist, then it's racism.

But the justifications you say they're offering are behavioral and cultural. They want the Algerians to act like French people. Well, that pretty much proves that they do not regard the behaviors they're trying to prevent as racial attributes of Algerians.

I don't know if you were talking about the French burkha ban in particular.

The burkha ban I was talking about in particular was the same burkha ban you were talking about in particular. That's kind of how quoting somebody and pointing out what's wrong with what he said works. And you were talking about the German burkha ban in particular.

If it was something else I'm gonig to have some references. I'm going to need examples rather than your interpretation of what "I must have meant".

Where did I offer an interpretation of what you must have meant? Not quoting people and imputing ideas to them that aren't what they said is more your department. I keep quoting you.

How come the choice to wear or not wear a burqa is an individual choice that has nothing to do with race, religion or creed, but banning them is somehow racist (nevermind that Islam is not a race)?

... I find this ban abhorrent and a violation of women's rights. It's progressiveness going backwards IMHO.

On the racism. General rules that will only negatively impact a minority isn't general rules at all. No matter how generally they are formulated. Since mostly dark people are Muslim I think it's fair to say that the target is dark people. That makes it racist. ...

By that inference rule, a law against hacking someone's arms off is racist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I didn't say it's make believe.

Of course you did. Post #4839. You just made something up again, Mr. "I always fact check everything I post here out of respect for my fellow forum members".

You're so full of shit. That was based on the first reports on the event, from Swedish newspapers. Which were wrong/incomplete. Not until later articles did all the details surface. At which point it turned out to be even less of a drama and reason to be concerned.

What was make-believe was weaving this into a story worth publishing in international press. What was make believe was the implication the reader is supposed to make.

But if you pick apart what actually happened it wasn't much to weave into a story. Nobody got hurt! Nobody. Some teenagers were rowdy in a mall and it got sorted. That's the story. <Lecture about Sweden snipped> This focus on the refugees and insane negative spin is absurd and out of all proportion.

Did you not understand the questions, or are you refusing to answer them?

What are you talking about?

1. Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all qualifies as it being formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions?

2. Are you seriously proposing that the mere fact that they carried the story at all justifies your claim that "the article is make believe"?

Those are not essay questions. Those are yes/no questions. Are you going to answer them or are you going to duck them again?

Yes. Everything I've seen published from the Daily Mail is bullshit. Not only a little bit. But obvious lies. This is no exception.

If you aren't seriously proposing that carrying the story at all justifies your accusations against the Daily Mail, then don't give me yet another quotationless screed about what awful
journalists they are. Either quote them or admit you have no grounds for complaint.

The Daily Mail have been doing this shit since they were founded. They're famous for it. Today they're just continuing to do what they've always done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

It's just been a long list of "patriotic", British, self aggrandising and chauvinist articles. Zero analysis. Zero attempt at presenting any kind of nuance. Everything is black and white, and "they" are always evil and terrible.

Daily Mail is not news, and has never been.

Why would they suddenly start being a serious newspaper today? I haven't seen you make any effort to show that the Daily Mail is a real newspaper? All the evidence I've seen speaks against that claim.

You don't want to see I have any arguments here. You have been caught red-handed making trumped-up racism accusations. Stop doing that.

Yes, I do. You Sir are just talking shit. Make an argument or shut up.

So to sum up, banning burkhas in circumstances you approve of is nonracist and banning them in circumstances you disapprove of is racist. Do I have that right?

I think banning burkhas for racist reasons is racist. Banning them for non-racist reasons isn't. Is it really that difficult to understand?

You seem to have lost track of the point in dispute. Your opinion about what makes for good policy is immaterial. You are making trumped-up racism charges. Don't do that.

Then show me some evidence that I've done it? If you continue to be unable to I'm going to keep calling bullshit.

And your claim "I only call people racist when they treat Islam as some sort of permanent condition that can't change. Or attribute things to Muslims that are clearly racial attributes" is an additional trumped-up charge. The people you are condemning as racist didn't do those things. Don't say they did.

I'm just reading what people write. If they want people to interpret what they write differently they should perhaps write something different.

If the goal is to force Muslims to stop being Muslims, then it's wrong. Freedom of religion needs to be respected.

There. See? Was that so hard? When you pull your head out of your ass, even you can see this is about religion, not race.

See I call racism racist. I call other stuff other stuff. Obviously.

But the justifications you say they're offering are behavioral and cultural. They want the Algerians to act like French people. Well, that pretty much proves that they do not regard the behaviors they're trying to prevent as racial attributes of Algerians.

The French nationalists are constantly moving the goal posts. There's just no way the French Algerians ever will be considered French by them. I doubt they'll be satisfied even if the French Algerians wipe out their entire cultural heritage and paint their skin white. The new proposed rules are always designed around whatever the French Algerians are doing at the moment. And of course it has to be stopped. Lucky for us that Front National have never been in power.

The racists aren't in power. But France has a strong enlightenment heritage, and do in cases require, by law, that their citizens share those values. These aggressive proponents of enlightenment ideals are the majority of the French. This is the camp I also belong to. I'm pretty militant when it comes to this as well. But sometimes the enlightenment crowd's demands overlap with the racists demands, and that's why they manage to push this through. If it hadn't been for the French racists I don't think this ban could have been passed.

This is just based on my understanding of French politics. So some who are for the ban are not racists, and are just anti-Islamist. Some are racist, and are just against Arabs. But if it hadn't been for the racists, I don't believe this could have been passed.

Like I said above, if the reasons to ban something is racist then it's racist. if not it's isn't. It should be that hard to understand?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's another event in the Rinkeby no-go zone where the last riot was. Same place.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/a/Vn2Pp

A cop car gets engine problems and everybody in the vicinity drop what they're doing to help the cops.

Can't wait to read the fair and balanced article in the Daily Mail about how great everything is in Rinkeby, and that there are no no-go zones in Sweden

 

[angelo]

Leaving the Arabic republic of Sweden for a second. It's been reported that a recent poll in France has found that up to 60% of French citizens don't feel safe going out at night since the French terrorist attacks in that country.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Here's another event in the Rinkeby no-go zone where the last riot was. Same place.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/a/Vn2Pp

A cop car gets engine problems and everybody in the vicinity drop what they're doing to help the cops.

Can't wait to read the fair and balanced article in the Daily Mail about how great everything is in Rinkeby, and that there are no no-go zones in Sweden

I read the English translation. The article did indicate

Selim's stepfather caught the entire event on film. The police waited for another car for help.
- It was a beautiful sight, where we got to see. After having heard so many negative things about Rinkeby, it is good that there are good sides also visible.

The article did suggest negative things (reports) but also indicated that most Muslims are like anyone else. Nonetheless my own view is to do with the volume and not the individual. That is to say 1% of bad applies out of 1,000 people is nothing but out of 100,000 it's a different picture.

 

[TSwizzle]

Research suggests that the UK education system should submit to teh islam;

Schools are being urged to move revision classes and consider rescheduling sports days to accommodate the needs of Muslim pupils fasting for Ramadan, MailOnline can reveal. A new report also suggests that schools should also 'show sensitivity' when organising graduation celebrations and change PE lesson plans to make sure that activities are 'less strenuous'. The report - which was authored by 'inclusion specialist' Anna Cole - warns: 'Young people should be made aware that Islam does not require them to put their futures in jeopardy.'

DailyMail

"inclusion specialist Anna Cole".

 

[repoman]

thanks for rebooting this thread