5 ms·

Wanting to protect your own civilization and way of life doesn't make one a bastard. It's this kind of divisive rhetoric that has spurned the division we see t

Wanting to protect your own civilization and way of life doesn't make one a bastard. It's this kind of divisive rhetoric that has spurned the division we see today and the rise of hard-right nationalism. Please learn to be somewhat more rational and civil in your discourse.

aminecodes 7y ago
Refusing to accept people fleeing from death, torture and sorrowful life, because you are afraid they might interfere with your way of life, is a bastard move, to say the least.
- cmdshiftf4 7y ago
  The ultra-wealthy Middle East, USA and China should start doing their part so.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    China, which is busy stuffing Muslims into re-education camps? Why would you ever think they would open their arms to a bunch of unruly military-age Muslim males (the overwhelming demographic of refugees fleeing to Europe)? https://popula.com/2018/08/27/baizuo/ https://popula.com/2018/08/27/baizuo/ https://theintercept.com/2018/08/13/china-muslims-uighur-detention/ https://theintercept.com/2018/08/13/china-muslims-uighur-det...
  - jjcc 7y ago
    I don't know ME but China has a policy of not meddling other's internal fare. It didn't bomb Libya while Europa did. But it's more than that: Even China didn't cause the refugee disaster of ME but since the disaster was caused by good intention of Europeans with the naive human rights view,and it's already happened, China still should share some responsibility from humanity point of view. However there's another reason at the opposite side that is always misunderstood as selfishness by westerners : Accept a lot of refugee will definitely cause the internal turmoil because of the collision between bastards and non-bastards. That would be a bigger concern by government. Direct cost of settling refugee should be trivial given the size and wealth of China. The same situation is applicable in Europa. The direct social cost of settling refugees is a relatively smaller problem. The internal conflicts and political polarization is a high-order problem.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  How many refugees are living in your spare bedrooms?
  - dane-pgp 7y ago
    Is this argument equivalent to "You can't say you support single-payer healthcare unless you run a hospital from your garage" or "You can't say you support NASA unless you have an orbital rocket launch pad in your garden"?
    - cheese4242 7y ago
      Not really. With his pithy comment, lawnchair_larry touches on an interesting aspect of this discussion. Many of those who support mass 3rd-world immigration (engaging in much grandstanding and moral preening in the process) are entirely removed from the actual consequences of it. They have no "skin in the game" so to speak as they know 3rd-world immigrants will not be settling in their neighborhoods (or guest bedrooms) anytime soon.
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        Utter BS, a specious argument we've heard a million times before (often from Larry, who has been here a long time). You should go for a more subtle sty;e, right wing trolls are always endorsing pithiness, perhaps because of Andrew Anglin's fondness for that adjective in his Daily Stormer trolling guides. I'm sure you would not wish to be mistaken for keeping such noisome company.
        cheese4242 7y ago
        Sounds like you are the expert. Will have to take your word on it. It's interesting phenomena though, isn't it? Those who praise diversity and immigration the loudest are often those most insulated from it. Why is that? Why don't those people move to those diverse, ethnic neighborhoods they claim to love so much? They seem to only care for the abstract idea of it all, not the reality.
matt_j 7y ago
The US conflict with Iraq was unjustified and based on blatant lies. Whatever their reasons for invading, they were certainly to further their own interests, the economic boost of a war machine and rebuilding infrastructure, geo-politics, etc. The interests of the "poor Iraqi people" come about dead last on the list of reasons the wars occurred. So "protecting your civilisation and way of life" from the fallout of an unjustified war that one's country (coalition of the willing?) participated in, does make one a bit of a bastard, and that's putting it lightly. Last time I checked we're all humans and until we all live in relative comfort there's a bunch of fatties on one end consuming more than their fair share.
- cmdshiftf4 7y ago
  The social costs of the US directly meddling in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere, along with the subsequent fallout that came from this meddling, has not fallen on the USA. It has fallen almost solely on Europe. If the US were providing adequately for its victims, the Middle East taking in their fellow Muslims, and China showing some semblance of humanity in offering a home to some, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of nationalism in Europe that we now are.
  - sangnoir 7y ago
    > If the US were providing adequately for its victims, the Middle East taking in their fellow Muslims, and China showing some semblance of humanity in offering a home to some, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of nationalism in Europe that we now are. I don't think you can pin the rise of nationalism solely on migration - non-European countries are also experiencing sharp increase in (right-wing) nationalism - including the US which you noted hasn't bourne the social cost. My pet theory is that nationalism is on rise due to economic frustration post-great recession, as well as a loss of social memory on how awful war is. I remember reading that the big wars tend to happen every 3 generation - I bet nationalist sentiment would closely track that, and our last big war was WWII
    - cheese4242 7y ago
anigbrowl 7y ago
Extremists always whine 'you made me do it' rather than take responsibility for their actions. It's just a gambit to increase their rhetorical leverage and need not be taken seriously.

aminecodes 7y ago

Refusing to accept people fleeing from death, torture and sorrowful life, because you are afraid they might interfere with your way of life, is a bastard move, to say the least.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago
The ultra-wealthy Middle East, USA and China should start doing their part so.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  China, which is busy stuffing Muslims into re-education camps? Why would you ever think they would open their arms to a bunch of unruly military-age Muslim males (the overwhelming demographic of refugees fleeing to Europe)? https://popula.com/2018/08/27/baizuo/ https://popula.com/2018/08/27/baizuo/ https://theintercept.com/2018/08/13/china-muslims-uighur-detention/ https://theintercept.com/2018/08/13/china-muslims-uighur-det...
- jjcc 7y ago
  I don't know ME but China has a policy of not meddling other's internal fare. It didn't bomb Libya while Europa did. But it's more than that: Even China didn't cause the refugee disaster of ME but since the disaster was caused by good intention of Europeans with the naive human rights view,and it's already happened, China still should share some responsibility from humanity point of view. However there's another reason at the opposite side that is always misunderstood as selfishness by westerners : Accept a lot of refugee will definitely cause the internal turmoil because of the collision between bastards and non-bastards. That would be a bigger concern by government. Direct cost of settling refugee should be trivial given the size and wealth of China. The same situation is applicable in Europa. The direct social cost of settling refugees is a relatively smaller problem. The internal conflicts and political polarization is a high-order problem.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
How many refugees are living in your spare bedrooms?
- dane-pgp 7y ago
  Is this argument equivalent to "You can't say you support single-payer healthcare unless you run a hospital from your garage" or "You can't say you support NASA unless you have an orbital rocket launch pad in your garden"?
  - cheese4242 7y ago
    Not really. With his pithy comment, lawnchair_larry touches on an interesting aspect of this discussion. Many of those who support mass 3rd-world immigration (engaging in much grandstanding and moral preening in the process) are entirely removed from the actual consequences of it. They have no "skin in the game" so to speak as they know 3rd-world immigrants will not be settling in their neighborhoods (or guest bedrooms) anytime soon.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Utter BS, a specious argument we've heard a million times before (often from Larry, who has been here a long time). You should go for a more subtle sty;e, right wing trolls are always endorsing pithiness, perhaps because of Andrew Anglin's fondness for that adjective in his Daily Stormer trolling guides. I'm sure you would not wish to be mistaken for keeping such noisome company.
      - cheese4242 7y ago
        Sounds like you are the expert. Will have to take your word on it. It's interesting phenomena though, isn't it? Those who praise diversity and immigration the loudest are often those most insulated from it. Why is that? Why don't those people move to those diverse, ethnic neighborhoods they claim to love so much? They seem to only care for the abstract idea of it all, not the reality.

matt_j 7y ago

The US conflict with Iraq was unjustified and based on blatant lies. Whatever their reasons for invading, they were certainly to further their own interests, the economic boost of a war machine and rebuilding infrastructure, geo-politics, etc. The interests of the "poor Iraqi people" come about dead last on the list of reasons the wars occurred. So "protecting your civilisation and way of life" from the fallout of an unjustified war that one's country (coalition of the willing?) participated in, does make one a bit of a bastard, and that's putting it lightly. Last time I checked we're all humans and until we all live in relative comfort there's a bunch of fatties on one end consuming more than their fair share.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago
The social costs of the US directly meddling in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere, along with the subsequent fallout that came from this meddling, has not fallen on the USA. It has fallen almost solely on Europe. If the US were providing adequately for its victims, the Middle East taking in their fellow Muslims, and China showing some semblance of humanity in offering a home to some, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of nationalism in Europe that we now are.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  > If the US were providing adequately for its victims, the Middle East taking in their fellow Muslims, and China showing some semblance of humanity in offering a home to some, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of nationalism in Europe that we now are. I don't think you can pin the rise of nationalism solely on migration - non-European countries are also experiencing sharp increase in (right-wing) nationalism - including the US which you noted hasn't bourne the social cost. My pet theory is that nationalism is on rise due to economic frustration post-great recession, as well as a loss of social memory on how awful war is. I remember reading that the big wars tend to happen every 3 generation - I bet nationalist sentiment would closely track that, and our last big war was WWII
  - cheese4242 7y ago

anigbrowl 7y ago

Extremists always whine 'you made me do it' rather than take responsibility for their actions. It's just a gambit to increase their rhetorical leverage and need not be taken seriously.