4 ms·

> why this 'migrant' has more than them etc Instead of framing it as “why does this migrant have more than others”, maybe it’s worth looking at the real issue:

by sumedh 1y ago

> why this 'migrant' has more than them etc Instead of framing it as “why does this migrant have more than others”, maybe it’s worth looking at the real issue: why is my job being outsourced to someone overseas? Democracy took away that person's job and now those voters want someone authoritarian who will bring it back.

akimbostrawman 1y ago
Or why do migrant do over proportional amount of crime or why do they get millions in government taxes while there are natives struggling.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  People in more extreme situations or with trauma backgrounds are more likely to commit crime, we don't have to wonder about that. Maybe if we actually thought about it we would consider that offering support instead of destabilisation directly in places like Syria would save us more headaches long-term than receiving those populations after their societies have collapsed.
  - akimbostrawman 1y ago
    If that is your framing leaving out the part where they are also that way at home for literal millenia, why import known traumatised and violent people that are cultural incompatible? The current plan seems to be using the meddling in the middle east in the name of the greatest ally as an excuse to effectively replace the current population of europe. One has to wonder if the "crazy people" from 10 years ago maybe had a point with the thing they said would happen, when they are being proven right again and again but that can't be because that would be [bad-ism] like the news told us.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      > they are also that way at home for literal millenia We going to pretend the crusades didn't happen? > why import known traumatised and violent people that are cultural incompatible? Who is "importing" anyone? We accept people who are fleeing because we aren't heartless. But maybe we should export Europeans who are culturally incompatible? We tried it in the past though, and it worked out to be easier just to gas them. You want to skip onto that step or do you want to talk about other solutions? People want to come to Europe for a better life because things aren't working where they were born. You can build the walls higher and higher but you're just building more and more resentment, a resentment that will inevitably lead to those walls being broken down, and violently so. It's a much wiser idea to think about how to improve the situation outside of Europe so that both the strain and the comfort can be spread out. Or is sharing your good fortune and caring about your neighbours' lot in life is culturally incompatible with your European ideals?
      - instig007 1y ago
        > We going to pretend the crusades didn't happen? > Christian and Muslim states had been in conflict since the establishment of Islam in the 7th century. In the span of approximately 120 years after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632, Muslim forces conquered the Levant (including Jerusalem), as well as North Africa and most of the Iberian Peninsula, all of which had previously been under Christian rule. By the 11th century, Christians were through the Reconquista gradually reversing the 8th-century Muslim conquest of Iberia, but their ties to the Holy Land had deteriorated. Muslim authorities in the Levant often enforced harsh rules against any overt expressions of the Christian faith. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade You can't play the crusades card in this context.
        AlecSchueler 1y ago
        Sorry, what can't I do? I'm not sure what "card" I'm playing. I said there was instability in the region causing issues and the response was "but those issues were already there 1000 years ago." Your own link is about the conflict in the region at that time and your quote points to that conflict having already been quite entrenched for some time.
orwin 1y ago
You misspelled 'capitalism'. As long as capital owners decide who work, on what, without inputs for workers and local population, you'll have the same issues.
- sumedh 1y ago
  You misspelled 'democracy', in the end politicians make the law, you can make the argument that capital owners then decide what laws to make, now you know why voters want an authoritarian who will "fix" it.
  - orwin 1y ago
    In the end, politicians, in a democracy, do not make the law, people do, else you're at best in a representative democracy, at worst in an oligarchy. The fact that capital is so, so tied to power (over who work or don't, who get paid, who produce what and where) have nothing to do with democracy. Allow workers to vote on board decisions (give them like 30% of votes), over CEO pay and strategic decisions (like off-shoring some production or not, new product, selling part of a company... or stopping wage growth for a year or two if the time are tough), i guarantee you we would not have been so deep in authoritarianism.

by sumedh 1y ago

akimbostrawman 1y ago

Or why do migrant do over proportional amount of crime or why do they get millions in government taxes while there are natives struggling.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
People in more extreme situations or with trauma backgrounds are more likely to commit crime, we don't have to wonder about that. Maybe if we actually thought about it we would consider that offering support instead of destabilisation directly in places like Syria would save us more headaches long-term than receiving those populations after their societies have collapsed.
- akimbostrawman 1y ago
  If that is your framing leaving out the part where they are also that way at home for literal millenia, why import known traumatised and violent people that are cultural incompatible? The current plan seems to be using the meddling in the middle east in the name of the greatest ally as an excuse to effectively replace the current population of europe. One has to wonder if the "crazy people" from 10 years ago maybe had a point with the thing they said would happen, when they are being proven right again and again but that can't be because that would be [bad-ism] like the news told us.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    > they are also that way at home for literal millenia We going to pretend the crusades didn't happen? > why import known traumatised and violent people that are cultural incompatible? Who is "importing" anyone? We accept people who are fleeing because we aren't heartless. But maybe we should export Europeans who are culturally incompatible? We tried it in the past though, and it worked out to be easier just to gas them. You want to skip onto that step or do you want to talk about other solutions? People want to come to Europe for a better life because things aren't working where they were born. You can build the walls higher and higher but you're just building more and more resentment, a resentment that will inevitably lead to those walls being broken down, and violently so. It's a much wiser idea to think about how to improve the situation outside of Europe so that both the strain and the comfort can be spread out. Or is sharing your good fortune and caring about your neighbours' lot in life is culturally incompatible with your European ideals?
    - instig007 1y ago
      > We going to pretend the crusades didn't happen? > Christian and Muslim states had been in conflict since the establishment of Islam in the 7th century. In the span of approximately 120 years after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632, Muslim forces conquered the Levant (including Jerusalem), as well as North Africa and most of the Iberian Peninsula, all of which had previously been under Christian rule. By the 11th century, Christians were through the Reconquista gradually reversing the 8th-century Muslim conquest of Iberia, but their ties to the Holy Land had deteriorated. Muslim authorities in the Levant often enforced harsh rules against any overt expressions of the Christian faith. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade You can't play the crusades card in this context.
      - AlecSchueler 1y ago
        Sorry, what can't I do? I'm not sure what "card" I'm playing. I said there was instability in the region causing issues and the response was "but those issues were already there 1000 years ago." Your own link is about the conflict in the region at that time and your quote points to that conflict having already been quite entrenched for some time.

orwin 1y ago

You misspelled 'capitalism'. As long as capital owners decide who work, on what, without inputs for workers and local population, you'll have the same issues.

sumedh 1y ago
You misspelled 'democracy', in the end politicians make the law, you can make the argument that capital owners then decide what laws to make, now you know why voters want an authoritarian who will "fix" it.
- orwin 1y ago
  In the end, politicians, in a democracy, do not make the law, people do, else you're at best in a representative democracy, at worst in an oligarchy. The fact that capital is so, so tied to power (over who work or don't, who get paid, who produce what and where) have nothing to do with democracy. Allow workers to vote on board decisions (give them like 30% of votes), over CEO pay and strategic decisions (like off-shoring some production or not, new product, selling part of a company... or stopping wage growth for a year or two if the time are tough), i guarantee you we would not have been so deep in authoritarianism.