EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

«‹›959 »

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

steinrokkan posted:

Referendums in a liberal democracy are overwhelmingly an arbitrary decision by a minority of polarized voters.

Tyranny of the majority (of whoever got real angry over a dumb thing)

# ? Apr 8, 2016 23:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 21:57

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

blowfish posted:

Tyranny of the majority (of whoever got real angry over a dumb thing)

I'm also in favor of oligarchy because of my misanthropy.

# ? Apr 8, 2016 23:30

Pochoclo: Feb 4, 2008; No...; Clapping Larry

Referendums would only sorta work if voting was mandatory with threat of heavy fines if you don't vote (unless you have a valid, certified medical reason), AND if the public was properly informed of the consequences. When neither happens, it's a loving stupid form of deciding things.

# ? Apr 9, 2016 01:23

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

I was speaking to a very nice East German girl at temple about the migrant crisis and her volunteer work with refugee resettlement agencies, when we got to talking about her experience of racism when she was in Israel by Sephardim and Mizrahi Jews against Russian-origin Jews, and Germany's relative acceptance.

What I'm wondering is, do Germans and other European nations treat or regard Jews of Russian or otherwise Eastern European/Communist Bloc ethnic origin and heritage differently than they treat or regard non-Jews from similar backgrounds?

# ? Apr 9, 2016 02:59

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

^

Here in Slovenia, most of our population isn't nearly educated enough (at least not past high school) to bother with those kinds of distinctions. And I honestly think that's often the case the world over, a few higher margins of education or living aside. But over here, if you're a city-slicker, they look at you sideways and if you're of a different ethnicity/nationality, you're considered a curiosity at first, until the first friction happens due to differences, and then rather than working it out like adults, you're considered to be the devil. Although there was recently an incident, where two black persons (nicely dressed too) came over to give a presentation in a moreso rural area and some dumbass called the cops on them as 'suspicious looking.'

So yea...it's pretty bad here if you look different is the bottom line I'd say and they don't care about the minute distinctions. But at least it's mostly still passive/aggressive of a lot of bitching and calling cops on the dumbest poo poo ever, since most of us also don't got the balls for public lynchings or beatings and whatnot. We're far too 'civilized' for that. :P

Pochoclo posted:

Referendums would only sorta work if voting was mandatory with threat of heavy fines if you don't vote (unless you have a valid, certified medical reason), AND if the public was properly informed of the consequences. When neither happens, it's a loving stupid form of deciding things.

Well, there is at least one thing about them that they do - they manage to illustrate which sorts of people are stupid for what reasons. For example, last year a referendum for LGBT marriage rights was held and (predictably) every big city person voted for while every rural person voted against in a 1:2 ratio.

So it does serve to illuminate and paint you a much clearer snapshot of your country, at least. Just yeah...no way in hell should decisions be made based on said snapshot.

CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Apr 9, 2016

# ? Apr 9, 2016 07:14

KoldPT: Oct 9, 2012

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/718682538785533952

Good morning!

# ? Apr 9, 2016 10:03

Antifa Poltergeist: Jun 3, 2004; "We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you"

KoldPT posted:

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/718682538785533952

Good morning!

i thought nothing would top 2015's insanity, but 2016 really is off to a great start.

# ? Apr 9, 2016 12:51

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Ministers are dropping like flies.

# ? Apr 9, 2016 12:58

heard u like girls: Mar 25, 2013

Xoidanor posted:

Ministers are dropping like flies.

Good.

# ? Apr 9, 2016 19:42

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

CrazyLoon posted:

^

Here in Slovenia, most of our population isn't nearly educated enough (at least not past high school) to bother with those kinds of distinctions. And I honestly think that's often the case the world over, a few higher margins of education or living aside. But over here, if you're a city-slicker, they look at you sideways and if you're of a different ethnicity/nationality, you're considered a curiosity at first, until the first friction happens due to differences, and then rather than working it out like adults, you're considered to be the devil. Although there was recently an incident, where two black persons (nicely dressed too) came over to give a presentation in a moreso rural area and some dumbass called the cops on them as 'suspicious looking.'

So yea...it's pretty bad here if you look different is the bottom line I'd say and they don't care about the minute distinctions. But at least it's mostly still passive/aggressive of a lot of bitching and calling cops on the dumbest poo poo ever, since most of us also don't got the balls for public lynchings or beatings and whatnot. We're far too 'civilized' for that. :P

Well, there is at least one thing about them that they do - they manage to illustrate which sorts of people are stupid for what reasons. For example, last year a referendum for LGBT marriage rights was held and (predictably) every big city person voted for while every rural person voted against in a 1:2 ratio.

So it does serve to illuminate and paint you a much clearer snapshot of your country, at least. Just yeah...no way in hell should decisions be made based on said snapshot.

That's an interesting perspective. Could you talk more on the part where you say:

quote:

until the first friction happens due to differences, and then rather than working it out like adults, you're considered to be the devil

?

What I'm wondering is, why do you think your culture developed this reaction? How has it worked out in your culture's past?

# ? Apr 9, 2016 19:50

pigdog: Apr 23, 2004; by Smythe

Stumbled upon this article on Haa'retz titled a little clickbaitily Why the American 'multicultural' model falls apart in Europe and Israel. I'm not very familiar to Israel's internal struggles, so I'm not sure about the application there, but the author makes a some great points to help untangle why are people in eachother's throats over "<insert category> rights" all the time. Copied for posterity because it might be paywalled.

quote:

Why the American 'multicultural' model falls apart in Europe and Israel
The multicultural view rests on the moral kitsch that identifies victimization with justice. Unfortunately, in the real world, victims are not necessarily saints, still less saintly liberals
Gadi Taub

So routine has the use of the word �multiculturalism� become, that it is now invoked to described a variety of different things. In some of its popular usages, it is merely a synonym for pluralism. There is of course no problem with this from a liberal democratic point of view. Originally, though, the term referred to something far more drastic, an offshoot of postmodern ideology. Thus, as postmodernism maintains that there is no truth, multiculturalism claims that all cultures are on par. In its own eyes, the multicultural stance is actually a broadening of democracy from human beings to values. It is not enough to acknowledge that all human beings are equal; true equality requires that we respect their cultures equally too.

This simple argument contains a contradiction: According equal value to cultures can have the effect of undermining equality among human beings, not only of expanding it. Granting equal status to a culture in which women are the property of men, or in which slavery is permitted, is not a broadening of democracy. But despite this flagrant contradiction, multicultural rhetoric has taken hold among large segments of the Western elite and has become the cornerstone of political correctness. Of �the Other,� one may speak only in terms that are (to a liberal ear) positive. In this conversation, the Other is usually perceived only as victim and as saint.

A close listening to the discourse of the progressive elements in Europe about the refugee question shows how deeply entrenched this viewpoint has become. What one is allowed to say is that cultural encounters are productive, that diversity enriches and that contact with otherness expands our horizons.

But there is something deceptive about this paean to multiplicity. It talks about otherness but refuses to look at it, declares diversity but presumes uniformity. In other words, it is a form of self-deception. Its (misleading) name notwithstanding, the posture known as �multiculturalism� rests on a unicultural assumption: that beneath all the misunderstandings, we all share the same basic liberal beliefs. In fact, the colorful cultural mosaic that espousers of such approaches create in their mind�s eye works only when it is not actually colorful. Or, it is perhaps better to say, the mosaic can exist only when all its parts are themselves enthusiastic about mosaics � only when all its elements share the same passion for multiplicity, and are equally delighted with diversity.

Paradoxically, when everyone believes in diversity, it does not really exist. Beneath the thin veneer of talk of multiplicity we find the liberal assumption of unity. Of course, if all �cultures� are liberal, there is no problem with this stance. However, if one of them is not liberal, this stance offers no solution. Thus multiculturalism offers us a solution only when we don�t have a problem.

Along with the rest of the West, we in Israel bought this misleading view, by which liberalism presents its unity as multiplicity, from the United States, under the auspices of academic fashions that come under different headings but are related. Of these the most widespread are postmodernism (the versions that gained traction in Western academia are saliently more American than French), critical theory (the most widespread versions are more American than Marxist), culture studies, gender studies, postcolonial studies and more. All of them are embedded in American liberalism, and with them we have also bought American liberalism's lack of self-awareness. For American academics liberalism is so self-evident that it's presence, like the air we breathe, is transparent and intangible.

God is a liberal

American liberalism, which developed within a migrant society, had to wrestle with the question of creating unity from multiplicity from its very inception. And it also found effective solutions. In America, too, the multicultural view involves self-deception. But in its case the self-deception was beneficial, juxtaposed as it was on the bedrock of a deep and far-reaching consensus.

The assimilationist forces in America are tremendous, and the pressures they exert on people to conform are powerful. In various ways, both de facto and de jure, assimilation demands that migrants accept the country's basic moral values: individualism, natural rights, gender equality, democracy, capitalism and a contractual conception of society and human relations. This is a precondition for becoming part of the American dream. If you have other dreams, America will shatter them quickly and efficiently, lest they endanger the moral consensus. True, diversity has a place beneath this uniform liberal umbrella but there is no place outside its purview.

One of the important progenitors of the American formula that so adeptly transformed multiplicity into unity was Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786. By shifting the emphasis of the arguments for freedom of religion, Jefferson found a way to square the circle. He was not alone in believing in freedom of religion, of course. Most of the liberals of his time agreed that it was wrong for the state to intervene in the citizens� beliefs. But their reasoning was, generally, that none of us has direct access to God�s intentions. As the government, too, lacks such access, it must not decide for us what to believe.

Jefferson, however, stood the formula on its head. His statute opens with the resounding declaration, �God hath created the mind free.� In other words, freedom of religion itself is divinely ordained. The reason we should enact it is not because we lack access to God�s intention, but precisely because we do. And so we know that God himself is a liberal. Thus was unity sanctified through the language of multiplicity.

Jefferson�s formula underwent multiple transformations. However, the relevant version for our purposes is the one that emerged from the failure of the student revolt movement in the 1960s, in the wake of young Americans� serious disappointment with their country. It thus remains tinged with the bitter taste of that disappointment; and it brought with it the moral kitsch that turned self-flagellation into an easy, theatrical substitute for genuine self-criticism.

One great campaign

The revolt of the 1960s in the United States was many different things. But for a moment it seemed as though all its factions were one common outcry against a single adversary: "the system.� It was believed that the system, meaning the establishment, creates many types of wrong wherever it is involved: discrimination against blacks in the South, the war in Vietnam, male chauvinism, classification of gays as psychiatric patients or offenders deserving punishment, and so on. All these ills would be cured when the masses � the people � shook off its shackles. And then, in place of the uniform gray concrete of establishment oppression a thousand flowers would bloom, each with its own color and in its own way. The student movement, the civil rights movement, feminism, the gay community�s Stonewall demonstrations and the protest against the Vietnam War � all were part of one great campaign. Or so it seemed.

The first deep shock to this assumption of partnership came in 1966, when Martin Luther King, Jr.�s civil rights movement was taken over by advocates of �black power� and �black pride.� Stokely Carmichael was elected leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (the young branch of King�s movement) and immediately demanded that all its white supporters be expelled. The Black Panthers began to occupy front stage, and Malcolm X became a celebrity. Whereas King spoke in the name of common values and espoused integration, the generation of leaders who succeeded him derided him as a type of new Uncle Tom who kowtowed to the establishment in order to be accepted by whites. Integration itself became a pejorative, a symbol of forgoing self-respect and identity. Instead of integration, the young leaders called for voluntary segregation, pride in their distinctive identity, a separate culture.

Afterward came clashes between Black Power advocates and the feminist movement. In the last convention of the organized student movement, held in Chicago in 1969, the Black Panthers disparaged the feminists as �pussy power.� Furious, the women stalked out.

The protest against the war in Vietnam had a dynamic of its own. On its fringes, it morphed into unreserved support for the fanatic communism of North Vietnam. Some of the movement�s leaders sought, in effect, a military defeat for their own country, an approach that cost them the support of the moderate peace advocates. Shortly after the end of the decade, the diverse tributaries of the revolt appeared to have flowed into any number of directions. Everyone went his own way, and to his own struggle. For a time.

In the following two decades, they gradually regrouped under the auspices of academia and the banner of postmodernism. From social and political activism, the protest movement became an academic theory, and in theory all the struggles could again be seen as one. The postmodernist framework, as it was understood in America, would again conjure up the Jeffersonian magic: All beliefs have an equal place, on condition that they accept the equality of all beliefs. Pluralism would thus become a unifying force. The God of the new discourse, it seems, is himself pluralistic.

At first, the new postmodern spirit appeared to have a different impact on different veterans of the different 1960s� struggles. The participants in the turbulent demonstrations against the Vietnam War found in Edward Said a new formulator of their opposition to imperialism and colonialism. According to the historian and literary scholar, the roots of Western colonialism and imperialism in all their incarnations lie in the patronizing Western discourse that �constructs� the West as a rational scientific subject and the East as a primitive object of �our� knowledge. In this way �we� justify our rule there. For those who had read Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s and Foucault in the �70s, this was easy to accept.

Feminism, in the wake of a crisis of its own, adopted what its advocates initially called �standpoint theory.� It too shifted the weight to the discourse and prioritized the concept of �gender� (which had made the rounds among the cognoscenti already at the end of the 1960s). As with Said, according to this view, knowledge concerning femininity and masculinity is produced by men from a masculine standpoint, and as such is intended to justify the existing inequality. And as with Said, here, too, discourse constructs Man as the subject and Woman as the object.

In the same manner, the Stonewall Inn struggle, in which the gay community demanded that the police get off their case, found renewed expression in the deconstruction of the psychiatric discourse and reincarnation in a new academic field that branched off from gender studies: queer studies.

The civil rights movement, the oldest of the �60s revolt�s manifestations, had no trouble adapting black separatism to the new terminology. The "hegemonic discourse" is �white,� and the way to uproot oppression is to extricate black culture from its influence. Social, political and economic problems were reincarnated as a discussion of identity, culture and discourse.

One by one, imperceptibly, all these notions converged, identified themselves in one another and started to rebuild, brick by brick, the old image of the common struggle against the �system.� That term was supplanted by a new one � �hegemonic discourse� � in which all the marginalized groups are victims, and therefore all are partners in the struggle to dismantle it. In this way, the separate distinctiveness of each movement became a basis defining what they all have in common. Black separatism, the feminine viewpoint, queer singularity and the thrust for self-determination in the Third World all fused into one vision by positing a common adversary and a strategy of struggle against it.

Hegemonic monopoly

Though the jargon was inflated and the formulations tangled, the thesis itself was catchy and simple. The core of the new paradigm is the idea that the dominant group (defined, in the wake of Antonio Gramsci, as �hegemonic�) possesses a monopoly on the manufacture of knowledge. This group creates the discourse that constructs the social world, in the service of its continued rule. The discourse styles itself �universal,� but this is only a way to justify its desire to impose itself on all the others.

Imagine, if you will, a central circle that contains the hegemonic group: white males who are European and straight. They are the ones who manufacture our knowledge, and that knowledge is intended to justify their dominant status. Now draw smaller circles outside the main hegemonic circle, each representing a group: women, blacks, gays and the Third World � and you have the format of the multicultural conception. Each of these groups needs to storm the center from a different direction, dismantle its discourse and replace it with a different, liberating discourse whose pluralism contrasts with the uniformity of hegemony.

It�s a model of alluring clarity. It's elegant and spare. But what it gains in elegance, it loses in its inability to illuminate the complex reality of cultural encounters. Without a multiplicity of cultures, and when all cultures share a broad, deep consensus, as in the case of liberalism in the United States, the problems arise less frequently. But once one leaves the United States and enters realms in which such a consensus does not exist � Europe, for example, or Israel�s immigrant society � the model falls apart. There is no reason to assume, to put it cautiously, that the struggle of a Muslim migrant in Germany to preserve his identity in the face of the hegemonic center makes him a natural ally of German gays who advocate same-sex marriage.

The insularity of the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim, in Israel in the face of the hegemony of the Zionist discourse does not necessarily advance the aspirations of Haredi women. Just as the campaign of Egyptian women against female circumcision is not necessarily a natural companion for those seeking to protect Egyptian identity against Western influences. Because, elegant models notwithstanding, not all forms of oppression emanate from the �hegemonic center.�

The confusion that the multicultural model creates can be glimpsed from within its own geometric pureness. It is analytically misleading. This is because the marginal groups it portrays � women, blacks, indigenous Third World peoples, gays, etc. � are not separate �groups,� but intersecting social categories. The model doesn�t work because the categories crosscut. It turns out, surprisingly, that there are women who are black, lesbians who are Arab, Haredim who are gay and so on. This is how the model conceals a simple fact: that some types of oppression emanate from the margins. But the margins are off-limits for criticism, of course.

In fact, when one peels the jargon off multicultural rhetoric, one finds an absurdity at its core. Saturated as it is with the liberal spirit, it nevertheless somehow assumes that liberalism itself is not liberal enough, whereas all the adversaries of liberalism are for some reason more liberal than it is. It�s not surprising, then, that an obfuscating jargon is needed to hide such a simple contradiction.

The Black Panthers were not feminists, Ho Chi Minh was not one of the Righteous Among the Nations, the Shas party�s rabbis are not defenders of the gay community�s rights, and the conclusion of Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip did not make Hamas a human rights organization. The assumption that democratic pluralism and liberal freedom will necessarily emanate from the margins has no foundation in reality. The logical fault can be formulated in brief: The whole model rests on the moral kitsch that identifies victimization with justice. Unfortunately, however, in the real world, victims are not necessarily saints, still less saintly liberals.

Conscience of elites

But the multicultural model is not about reality, it�s about the conscience of elites. It ignores the fact that in a migrant society multiplicity is first of all the problem, not first of all the solution. For a society of this kind needs, in the first place, to lay the common foundations without which solidarity is untenable, a functioning political arena impossible and an equal access to resources inconceivable. Only afterward is basking in multiplicity meaningful. Contrary to the impression created by the rhetoric of multiculturalism, it�s an ideology that originates in the center, not at the margins.

In the current climate, it is prohibited, as we know, to say anything good about the Israeli melting pot. Indeed, its implementation is susceptible to criticism. But it should be remembered that its other side is equality and a sense of belonging, and that the two sides are interdependent. A common identity means solidarity, mutual responsibility, a shared destiny.

Mapai, the forerunner of Labor in Israel, also enforced economic equality aggressively. In contrast, the multiculturalists� attack on the Israeli melting pot is part of the zeitgeist of the market society. The �privatization of identity,� as Prof. Daniel Gutwein termed these tendencies, is the cultural mirror of economic privatization, and the attack on the common ethos is an attack on the most important bulwark of the weak: widespread solidarity.

Multiculturalism is thus actually an attack on concrete equality, beneath a smokescreen of symbolic equality. It markets indifference as concern for others, narcissism as empathy, and preoccupation with the conscience of the elite as imaginary responsibility for the margins of society.

pigdog fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Apr 9, 2016

# ? Apr 9, 2016 22:33

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

pigdog posted:

Stumbled upon this article on Haa'retz titled a little clickbaitily Why the American 'multicultural' model falls apart in Europe and Israel. I'm not very familiar to Israel's internal struggles, so I'm not sure about the application there, but the author makes a some great points to help untangle why are people in eachother's throats over "<insert category> rights" all the time. Copied for posterity because it might be paywalled.

this is actually a good post

# ? Apr 9, 2016 23:03

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

pigdog posted:

Stumbled upon this article on Haa'retz titled a little clickbaitily Why the American 'multicultural' model falls apart in Europe and Israel. I'm not very familiar to Israel's internal struggles, so I'm not sure about the application there, but the author makes a some great points to help untangle why are people in eachother's throats over "<insert category> rights" all the time. Copied for posterity because it might be paywalled.

Leftist multiculturalism and Popper-style pluralist liberalism aren't the same thing. But it's no surprise that Israeli and European racists don't understand the difference

Popper's argument is explicitly not that one ideology is superior, it's that all-encompassing ideologies are far too narrow to possibly accurately describe the full breadth of human existence, and that therefore pragmatism is the best solution. Pluralist liberal democracy is based on the fact that pluralist liberal democracy has worked well for a long time, and that's it

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Apr 9, 2016

# ? Apr 9, 2016 23:44

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

pigdog posted:

Stumbled upon this article on Haa'retz titled a little clickbaitily Why the American 'multicultural' model falls apart in Europe and Israel. I'm not very familiar to Israel's internal struggles, so I'm not sure about the application there, but the author makes a some great points to help untangle why are people in eachother's throats over "<insert category> rights" all the time. Copied for posterity because it might be paywalled.

That's an interesting article, and some of his intellectual criticisms of multicultralism seem on point, but it's incredibly simplistic and reductive to try and attribute 40 years of cultural changes to a conspiracy by former 60s radicals now ensconced in academia. A couple mild revisions and this could be some kind dark enlightenment screed about the Cathedral.

Not to mention the fact that the whole article has this glaring hole in the centre of it that he never addresses. The author is a zionist, so presumably he celebrates the survival of a distinct Jewish identity over 2,000 years. Yet in this article the upshot seems to be that it can be quite logical for a government to try and suppress or dissolve distinct ethnic and religious identities into a single hegemonic culture, such as Turkey attempted to do after World War I. If European governments in previous centuries had followed through more completely and successfully on those kinds of objectives there wouldn't have been a Jewish people around in 1945 capable of forming a new state.

This section of the article is really fascinating:

quote:

But the multicultural model is not about reality, it�s about the conscience of elites. It ignores the fact that in a migrant society multiplicity is first of all the problem, not first of all the solution. For a society of this kind needs, in the first place, to lay the common foundations without which solidarity is untenable, a functioning political arena impossible and an equal access to resources inconceivable. Only afterward is basking in multiplicity meaningful. Contrary to the impression created by the rhetoric of multiculturalism, it�s an ideology that originates in the center, not at the margins.

In the current climate, it is prohibited, as we know, to say anything good about the Israeli melting pot. Indeed, its implementation is susceptible to criticism. But it should be remembered that its other side is equality and a sense of belonging, and that the two sides are interdependent. A common identity means solidarity, mutual responsibility, a shared destiny.

Mapai, the forerunner of Labor in Israel, also enforced economic equality aggressively. In contrast, the multiculturalists� attack on the Israeli melting pot is part of the zeitgeist of the market society. The �privatization of identity,� as Prof. Daniel Gutwein termed these tendencies, is the cultural mirror of economic privatization, and the attack on the common ethos is an attack on the most important bulwark of the weak: widespread solidarity.

This sounds an awful lot like the justification for communist dictatorships to target pogroms against Jews. The idea that advocating for pluralism is some kind of elite plot is stupid and at times this guys article comes off as a form of special pleading where we're supposed to just ignore how recently the Jews were in the exact same plight as some of these other groups that he is implicitly targeting as being a "problem".

Its nice to see multiculturalism coming in for some well deserved criticism but I don't think the proper solution is to advocate for states rooted in what amounts to an ethnic or religious identity, and it's particularly ironic when that identity was, within living memory, exactly the kind of transient culture-within-a-culture that the author here suggests is a problem in need of a solution.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 00:38

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

icantfindaname posted:

Leftist multiculturalism and Popper-style pluralist liberalism aren't the same thing. But it's no surprise that Israeli and European racists don't understand the difference

Popper's argument is explicitly not that one ideology is superior, it's that all-encompassing ideologies are far too narrow to possibly accurately describe the full breadth of human existence, and that therefore pragmatism is the best solution. Pluralist liberal democracy is based on the fact that pluralist liberal democracy has worked well for a long time, and that's it

I think one of the issues is that, in America, we have a clear idea of what it means to be a success in life, and a clear idea of what failure looks like. We have one dominant, white, priviledged culture, and a history of ethnic out-groups assimilating into being as white as anyone else regardless of their skin color.

How does one act 'Slovakian'? It's a pretty common phrase in America to say 'How white of you,' or 'That's so white' as a compliment. What would it mean if I told you 'That's so Slovak of you' in response to something you'd done?

# ? Apr 10, 2016 02:50

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

e: oops, wrong thread

Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 04:00

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Helsing posted:

Not to mention the fact that the whole article has this glaring hole in the centre of it that he never addresses. The author is a zionist, so presumably he celebrates the survival of a distinct Jewish identity over 2,000 years. Yet in this article the upshot seems to be that it can be quite logical for a government to try and suppress or dissolve distinct ethnic and religious identities into a single hegemonic culture, such as Turkey attempted to do after World War I. If European governments in previous centuries had followed through more completely and successfully on those kinds of objectives there wouldn't have been a Jewish people around in 1945 capable of forming a new state.

That's not what I'm getting from it. The point seems to be that you can retain some level of diversity in a country, as long as you share some specific liberal beliefs. Which, in the case of at least German Jews, they absolutely did. Problem being that German society in general did not, which is why it didn't work out. In short, the single hegemonic culture that should have been enforced on Germany should have been one that went completely counter to the Nazis, as opposed to enforcing "Germaness" on the Jew.

Of course the same sorta applies to Israel presently, with there being far too many Israeli Jews who would likewise need to have their ideology realigned for a pluralistic society to function. (Though the Palestinians/Israeli Arabs probably aren't as assimilated into Israeli society as the German Jews were, for obvious reasons.)

My Imaginary GF posted:

I think one of the issues is that, in America, we have a clear idea of what it means to be a success in life, and a clear idea of what failure looks like. We have one dominant, white, priviledged culture, and a history of ethnic out-groups assimilating into being as white as anyone else regardless of their skin color.

Being as white, or acting as white? Which group in the US has overcome skin color to the point that they're treated as white by the majority?

# ? Apr 10, 2016 08:11

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

My Imaginary GF posted:

That's an interesting perspective. Could you talk more on the part where you say:
?

Well, what I meant by that is, basically, that the first reaction over here (and I suspect also in Europe in general, as opposed to America - someone's comment of how racism in France differs, but still is very real, than in the US would confirm this anyway) is not quite outright irrational fear/hostility, but instead a patronizing sorts. As in: "Dohoho, look at this weird creature that's come in our neighborhood, let's try and treat it as human." It is a step up at least from the straight up open hostility, since it at least gives a chance for some kind of interaction that isn't violent...but unfortunately, in its function it is still very much the same, just as I said supposedly more 'civilized.' And that function is singular: Try to rob the 'other' of their human dignity. So in France (according to one other poster) black people are just 'naturally more happy, the little scamps don't need much'. And over in this country Croats, Bosnians, Serbs coming up to work in our factories for the labor our own people don't feel like doing? Aw, they can manage just fine, nevermind they keep getting laid off by our criminal in all but name industrialists, to the point where in one story one sad dude couldn't even return to his wrecked family in BiH, since the boss utterly exploited his foreign worker status.

Of course...this does not last. Sooner or later, every person grows angry and frustrated when their human dignity gets this maligned (sometimes also very openly) and violence happens. And that is the moment when this place (and Europe in general) feels entitled to say: "gently caress it, we gave you a chance and now you're behaving like animals! Purge!" What I've observed happen with the German invitation to the refugees fits this perfectly BTW. Everything about how it was presented, planned and structured doesn't read to me as humanitarian at all, but only patronizing while masquerading itself as 'progressive'. And then, when said refugees report of being cooped up and locked in all those camps in Germany, going literally insane as they have nothing to do (except ofc being recruited by the many criminal organizations that are more than happy to capitalize on this error) and when they lash out? Yea...suddenly it's 'proof' of how they were rotten all along. :rolleyes:

As hypocritical as this is, though, I have to say it's still preferable to everything I've observed in the US. You guys are still struggling with poo poo in such a retarded way, like 'black reparations' and every loving thing being politicized, asking all the wrong questions and applying yourself in the most impractical of ways that only serve to pump your egoes, while actual results on the other hand are hard to come by when people like Trump are even allowed as a candidate. There are only two reasons for why it holds itself together: Your founding fathers nailed nationalism in your mostly horrible public schools, so it tends to stick more across all ethnicities, and you have the base manpower from your vast array of collected ethnicities (the Irish very much so were the Muslims of late 1800s, for example) that either have integrated already after 100 years and help to hold it together now (by comparison, Sweden's blind progressive open-door policy has lasted only about 40 years so far and they very much were at the tip of our immigration spear, so to speak) or, if they haven't, are a bit busier beating on each other, rather than ganging up on the government. I just laugh to myself as I remember George Carlin's quote to be very true: "Being born is a ticket to the freakshow. And in America you get a front row seat."

My Imaginary GF posted:

What I'm wondering is, why do you think your culture developed this reaction? How has it worked out in your culture's past?

I can only speak for my little 2 million country specifically so...you have to understand that, in our most basest of concepts, our nation is one of peasants pretending to be important. My own favorite analogy is a rooster climbing up on top of a dung heap to crow each morning, thinking he's the king of the world. So we have a great deal of self-importance, that makes us think far more highly of ourselves than we should, coupled with a mostly uneducated and rural mindset of 'traditional values', most of which we also stole from the Bavarians who colonized us for 1000 years lol. The one thing we did not steal, though, is our own unique language, which is pretty frikking exotic and tricky to learn, so naturally few foreigners came and stayed around here. Why would they? Hard language to learn and, very accurately said by one Scandinavian diplomat recently: "One of the most beautiful lands I've ever seen...and some of the worst, most passive/aggressive people ever."

Funnily enough, our government is actually still mostly onboard than not with the whole refugee resettlement idiocy being proposed so, unless said refugees ofc decide there ain't poo poo for them here after being forcibly resettled, it's bound to become comedy central in the next year or two...or however long it takes for the EU to unfuck itself on this mad scheme, if at all.

CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 08:36

GaussianCopula: Jun 5, 2011; Jews fleeing the Holocaust are not in any way comparable to North Africans, who don't flee genocide but want to enjoy the social welfare systems of Northern Europe.

The core thesis of the article boils down to

quote:

The Black Panthers were not feminists, Ho Chi Minh was not one of the Righteous Among the Nations, the Shas party�s rabbis are not defenders of the gay community�s rights, and the conclusion of Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip did not make Hamas a human rights organization. The assumption that democratic pluralism and liberal freedom will necessarily emanate from the margins has no foundation in reality. The logical fault can be formulated in brief: The whole model rests on the moral kitsch that identifies victimization with justice. Unfortunately, however, in the real world, victims are not necessarily saints, still less saintly liberals.

which is spot on. A lot of people in Germany are happy about the refugees coming to Germany, because they think it will make the society better, not understanding that most of the refugees coming to Germany are far more conservative in their values than even the most regressive CSU member.

CrazyLoon posted:

Of course...this does not last. Sooner or later, every person grows angry and frustrated when their human dignity gets this maligned (sometimes also very openly) and violence happens. And that is the moment when this place (and Europe in general) feels entitled to say: "gently caress it, we gave you a chance and now you're behaving like animals! Purge!" What I've observed happen with the German invitation to the refugees fits this perfectly BTW. Everything about how it was presented, planned and structured doesn't read to me as humanitarian at all, but only patronizing while masquerading itself as 'progressive'. And then, when said refugees report of being cooped up and locked in all those camps in Germany, going literally insane as they have nothing to do (except ofc being recruited by the many criminal organizations that are more than happy to capitalize on this error) and when they lash out? Yea...suddenly it's 'proof' of how they were rotten all along.

First of all, refugees are not locked into camps, but accommodated in larger groups because there simply was no infrastructure to do anything else. Those shelters are not locked and the refugees are free to spend their time outside of them, if they wish so. They are not allowed to take up work, because they entered Germany illegally and applied for asylum, which because there were a lot of applications and German bureaucracy is rather thorough, to the benefit of the applicants in this case, takes some time. Additionally the believe that they could just find a job and earn money if the bureaucracy would just let them is naive beyond believe, given that most of them have no formal qualification and the best language skills you can hope for are some words of broken English.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 09:26

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

You know, I'm probably gonna regret this but here goes anyway...

GaussianCopula posted:

First of all, refugees are not locked into camps, but accommodated in larger groups because there simply was no infrastructure to do anything else.

Right. And WHY wasn't there any infrastructure set up in advance to anticipate this? You really think the fault for that lies in the masses, that naively responded to an open invitation by Merkel?

GaussianCopula posted:

Those shelters are not locked and the refugees are free to spend their time outside of them, if they wish so. They are not allowed to take up work, because they entered Germany illegally and applied for asylum, which because there were a lot of applications and German bureaucracy is rather thorough, to the benefit of the applicants in this case, takes some time. Additionally the believe that they could just find a job and earn money if the bureaucracy would just let them is naive beyond believe, given that most of them have no formal qualification and the best language skills you can hope for are some words of broken English.

Again, why was this not anticipated, as it most certainly could have been when that invitation was issued? Why were they happily waived through, as if they were legal, and then told only upon arrival that they are not? Again, is this their fault or our own for misleading them and pretending to be humanitarian, when the truth is far more likely that it was just about cheap labor/political points, as usual. As for education, cripes, if Fawlty Towers figured this out, I can't believe people in power nowadays couldn't have. John Cleese put it best: "The joke with Manuel isn't that he's some sort of idiot, that wasn't my point at all. It's the fact that employers are keen on cheap labor, but utterly unwilling to invest in time or effort to educate them so they could actually be good workers."

If Germany had spent half a year or one full year beforehand preparing in advance while factoring this, setting up programmes, recruiting people to educate the basics to them ect., then maybe we'd be able to hear more stories like this.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 10:07

GaussianCopula: Jun 5, 2011; Jews fleeing the Holocaust are not in any way comparable to North Africans, who don't flee genocide but want to enjoy the social welfare systems of Northern Europe.

CrazyLoon posted:

You know, I'm probably gonna regret this but here goes anyway...

Right. And WHY wasn't there any infrastructure set up in advance to anticipate this? You really think the fault for that lies in the masses, that naively responded to an open invitation by Merkel?

Again, why was this not anticipated, as it most certainly could have been when that invitation was issued? Why were they happily waived through, as if they were legal, and then told only upon arrival that they are not? Again, is this their fault or our own for misleading them and pretending to be humanitarian, when the truth is far more likely that it was just about cheap labor/political points, as usual. As for education, cripes, if Fawlty Towers figured this out, I can't believe people in power nowadays couldn't have. John Cleese put it best: "The joke with Manuel isn't that he's some sort of idiot, that wasn't my point at all. It's the fact that employers are keen on cheap labor, but utterly unwilling to invest in time or effort to educate them so they could actually be good workers."

If Germany had spent half a year or one full year beforehand preparing in advance while factoring this, setting up programmes, recruiting people to educate the basics to them ect., then maybe we'd be able to hear more stories like this.

They were never invited by anyone relevant (activists don't count), the only thing Merkel did was to not let them starve on Hungarian highways (~20k at that time). It took only about 2 weeks after that statement for Germany to reintroduce border checks, making it abundandly clear that refugees are not invited or welcome. You insinuations that they were invited to Germany to get cheap labor is just silly, given that Germany could simply send invitations to Southern Europeans, who have a much better education and are not traumatized.

I will grant you that the wave of refugees was predictable given that it was apparent in February that Greece would stop doing it's duty and just send them up North, it was just a question of time until the news that you could reach Northern Europe this easily spread in the refugee community.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 10:20

CrazyLoon: Aug 10, 2015; "..."

So it's just a big loving coincidence, that right after Merkel did her public 180 about face for political points (do note I mention that on top of cheap labor), and word of it got around their social media, that the first 10,000-a-day waves started showing up and being waived through my country last September, huh? It just all happened randomly, spontaneously and all at once, donchaknow? Also, speaking as someone who knows a fair few of them (and live in a country that was once deemed a part of it), lol if you think 'south european' countries are better educated in any way or were considered as 'more desirable.' With the whole Balkan wars, and when they too started looking for work (legal or otherwise) exactly in Germany, they were looked at as every bit the savages that people like yourself now look upon these latest arrivals, and that was just two decades ago lol.

CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 10:32

GaussianCopula: Jun 5, 2011; Jews fleeing the Holocaust are not in any way comparable to North Africans, who don't flee genocide but want to enjoy the social welfare systems of Northern Europe.

CrazyLoon posted:

So it's just a big loving coincidence, that right after Merkel did her public 180 about face for political points (do note I mention that on top of cheap labor), and word of it got around their social media, that the first 10,000-a-day waves started showing up and being waived through my country last September, huh? It just all happened randomly, spontaneously and all at once, donchaknow?

Let me explain to you how this worked:

February 2015: SYRIZA decides to open the refugee camps and to simply hand all illegal immigrants papers that state they are free to move around in Greece
May 2015: ~18k refugees arrive in Greece compared to just ~3k in Febuary (note that 57k arrived in Febuary 2016, weather is a factor but not the only one)
July 2015: UNHCR & WFP have to cut rations to refugees due to under funding, 54k refugees arrive in Greece
27 August 2015: 71 dead migrants are found in a food truck near Vienna, 108k refugees arrive in Greece during the month of August
4 September: Merkel and Faymann declare that illegal migrants, who are already on a highway in Orban's Hungary, will be able to enter Austria and Germany. 147k illegal migrants will land in Greece during September

Could this have been predicted? To some degree yes, but in that case European leaders would have had to face the problem and you can be certain that the solution would not have been to increase reception capacities.

CrazyLoon posted:

Also, speaking as someone who knows a fair few of them (and live in a country that was once deemed a part of it), lol if you think 'south european' countries are better educated in any way or were considered as 'more desirable.' With the whole Balkan wars, and when they too started looking for work (legal or otherwise) exactly in Germany, they were looked at as every bit the savages that people like yourself now look upon these latest arrivals, and that was just two decades ago lol.

The point is that the economic needs could have been satisfied by importing labor from EU member states, which is a lot cheaper and given that they at least attended school regularly and might even have a college degree, they are better qualified than most Syrians (remember 5 years civil war), Africans (who might also be drug addicted to deal with the hardships of their journey) or Afghanis, who actually lived in Iran for most of their live, where they are not allowed to attend school.

GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 10:45

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

Maybe, MAYBE, just maybe Germany shouldn't have watched Greece burn all those months ago.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 13:24

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Being as white, or acting as white? Which group in the US has overcome skin color to the point that they're treated as white by the majority?

At this point, pretty much every European ethnicity other than Turks. Hell, even Iranian expats who escaped the revolution are white in America. Germans, Swedes, Norgies, Finnmarks, Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians, Baltics, Greeks, Hungarians, Germans, Swabians, Hessians, Irish, Italians, Austrians, Romanians, and Croats are all ethnicities which have become white in America whereas they were originally one step above slaves or just as out-group.

Also white these days: 3rd generation and beyond Asian-Americans from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, non-communist China, sometimes even Vietnam and the Phillipines!

# ? Apr 10, 2016 14:46

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Regarde Aduck posted:

Maybe, MAYBE, just maybe Germany shouldn't have watched Greece burn all those months ago.

You mean that there are consequences to bullying a nation state for years with no end in sight? No way.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 14:57

GaussianCopula: Jun 5, 2011; Jews fleeing the Holocaust are not in any way comparable to North Africans, who don't flee genocide but want to enjoy the social welfare systems of Northern Europe.

Regarde Aduck posted:

Maybe, MAYBE, just maybe Germany shouldn't have watched Greece burn all those months ago.

The debt crisis only affected the developments as it got SYRIZA into power, but other than that, even capitulating to Varoufakis would not have changed much, as it goes against SYRIZA's DNA to close borders and stop refugees from freely moving.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 15:03

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

pigdog posted:

Stumbled upon this article on Haa'retz titled a little clickbaitily Why the American 'multicultural' model falls apart in Europe and Israel. I'm not very familiar to Israel's internal struggles, so I'm not sure about the application there, but the author makes a some great points to help untangle why are people in eachother's throats over "<insert category> rights" all the time. Copied for posterity because it might be paywalled.

The whole essay can be dismissed out of hand for just the simple fact that it attempts to claim the situation is the same in Europe and in Israel.

In Israel, the government systematically builds walls between farmers and their fields or orchards, to prevent them from working, so that immigrants can then illegally build settlements on the agricultural domain. In Israel, being a native of the land, whose family has been present for over ten generations, is enough to make you a non-person devoid of rights.

The idea that Israel would even try to be a pluralistic liberal democracy is risible, since Israel is built on ethnoreligious supremacism and colonialism. Israel is pluralistic in the same way that the USSR was libertarian.

The article's main goal is to push forward the thesis that Arabs are bad, and therefore should be oppressed, because not oppressing Arabs would be a defeat for democracy. Really, that's all there is to it; all the rest is just padding.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 15:20

LochNessMonster: Feb 3, 2005; I need about three fitty

mobby_6kl posted:

Why are the Dutch so mad at EU anyway?

They are not just mad at the EU. The current government in The Netherlands managed to promise a lot and breaking a lot of those promises really quick or without seeming to even care. The whole parliament is basically being viewed as charlatans who only care about sitting outtheir 4 years and cashing in.

The EU is viewed by many as even worse. We pay a shitload to the EU and the last year we got an extra bill afterwards for several hundred million euros or something. This is while the EU spent more than they budgeted but footed the countries with the bill. Since our representatives meekly accepted the bill and payed it without question, people are pissed off.

Voting about anything EU related is seen as a perfect opportunity to gently caress with the politicians ambition and will be shot down either way. The topic wasn't the real issue, although all the Eastern Europeans "stealin' mah jobz" sentiment and the referendum being about the Ukraine didn't help either.

Edit:
The EU just has a really bad rep here. It has been in decline ever since the introduction of the euro which basically doubled all prices (but not the wages).

Politicians and the president of the dutch bank lied through their teeth about not knowing this beforehand but in recent years the truth came to light and showed they knew perfectly wellthat this would happen.

LochNessMonster fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Apr 10, 2016

# ? Apr 10, 2016 15:46

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

My Imaginary GF posted:

At this point, pretty much every European ethnicity other than Turks. Hell, even Iranian expats who escaped the revolution are white in America. Germans, Swedes, Norgies, Finnmarks, Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians, Baltics, Greeks, Hungarians, Germans, Swabians, Hessians, Irish, Italians, Austrians, Romanians, and Croats are all ethnicities which have become white in America whereas they were originally one step above slaves or just as out-group.

You claimed they'd overcome skin color, but most of the people you've mentioned are about as pale as Brits. Yes, the White label was expanded to include more people than Englishmen, that does not mean Swedes had to overcome skin color to be classified as white as opposed to swarthy, they just had to largely abandon their roots and assimilate.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Also white these days: 3rd generation and beyond Asian-Americans from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, non-communist China, sometimes even Vietnam and the Phillipines!

This does not align well with what I've read from Asian-Americans. Model minority, not white, seems to be the general gist of their experience in the US.

Cat Mattress posted:

The article's main goal is to push forward the thesis that Arabs are bad, and therefore should be oppressed, because not oppressing Arabs would be a defeat for democracy. Really, that's all there is to it; all the rest is just padding.

Yeah. It's a neat trick really, using padding that people will argue about to let the message that Israel is democratic and good slip under the radar and become an accepted truth by default.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 15:54

OhYeah: Jan 20, 2007; 1. Currently the most prevalent form of decision-making in the western world

2. While you are correct in saying that the society owns

3. You have not for a second demonstrated here why

4. I love the way that you equate "state" with "bureaucracy". Is that how you really feel about the state

CrazyLoon posted:

Of course...this does not last. Sooner or later, every person grows angry and frustrated when their human dignity gets this maligned (sometimes also very openly) and violence happens. And that is the moment when this place (and Europe in general) feels entitled to say: "gently caress it, we gave you a chance and now you're behaving like animals! Purge!" What I've observed happen with the German invitation to the refugees fits this perfectly BTW. Everything about how it was presented, planned and structured doesn't read to me as humanitarian at all, but only patronizing while masquerading itself as 'progressive'. And then, when said refugees report of being cooped up and locked in all those camps in Germany, going literally insane as they have nothing to do (except ofc being recruited by the many criminal organizations that are more than happy to capitalize on this error) and when they lash out? Yea...suddenly it's 'proof' of how they were rotten all along.

Everyone who is not a leftist activist or part of the establishment (political class, media and so on) already knows what the situation is. They see it in their everyday life. This is evident also from the way that far-right parties across Europe are gathering ground. Remind me again which party is the most popular one in Sweden now?

You can have a politician and a member of the World Without Borders movement who will get raped by a Somali immigrant and he will still later break down and cry because he felt that ultimately the immigrant was just a victim of his upbringing and he should not have deported. This is a mental illness and total inability to see the world and society through a rational lense. You can literally get rear end-raped and still see your rapist as the true victim.

CrazyLoon posted:

John Cleese put it best: "The joke with Manuel isn't that he's some sort of idiot, that wasn't my point at all. It's the fact that employers are keen on cheap labor, but utterly unwilling to invest in time or effort to educate them so they could actually be good workers."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxm1mqbgxcM

Yeah he is a right old progressive, that Cleese guy.

CrazyLoon posted:

If Germany had spent half a year or one full year beforehand preparing in advance while factoring this, setting up programmes, recruiting people to educate the basics to them ect., then maybe we'd be able to hear more stories like this.

Educating them on what, Western way of life?

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:04

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

A Buttery Pastry posted:

That's not what I'm getting from it. The point seems to be that you can retain some level of diversity in a country, as long as you share some specific liberal beliefs. Which, in the case of at least German Jews, they absolutely did. Problem being that German society in general did not, which is why it didn't work out. In short, the single hegemonic culture that should have been enforced on Germany should have been one that went completely counter to the Nazis, as opposed to enforcing "Germaness" on the Jew.

I'd argue a pretty basic liberal value is not caring whether your child marries and reproduces with people of the same ethnicity as you. If that had been a widely held Jewish value prior to the 20th century it's hard to imagine how the Jews would have lasted for long enough to eventually establish a zionist movement.

His points about multiculturalism often ignoring how reactionary and anti-liberal other cultures can be is fair enough, but this is coming from someone who thinks a state where one in five people are Arab should be explicitly identified as Jewish rather than secular.

OhYeah posted:

You can have a politician and a member of the World Without Borders movement who will get raped by a Somali immigrant and he will still later break down and cry because he felt that ultimately the immigrant was just a victim of his upbringing and he should not have deported. This is a mental illness and total inability to see the world and society through a rational lense. You can literally get rear end-raped and still see your rapist as the true victim.

It's hardly unheard of certain types of victims (rape survivors, kidnapping victims, battered spouses) to develop bizarrely sympathetic attitudes toward their abusers.

That guy choosing to view his rapist as the real victim is, in a way, trying to rationalize his situation by fooling himself into thinking he's more powerful than the rapist. Tumblr notwithstanding, most people don't like to see themselves as victims, so a fantasy in which your rapist becomes the real victim has a certain obvious appeal to someone who has clearly been traumatized.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:32

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Helsing posted:

I'd argue a pretty basic liberal value is not caring whether your child marries and reproduces with people of the same ethnicity as you. If that had been a widely held Jewish value prior to the 20th century it's hard to imagine how the Jews would have lasted for long enough to eventually establish a zionist movement.

Fair point, though I think the context of "Do their beliefs result in inter-group friction in a liberal society" it might not be that big a deal, compared to someone who believes they have the right to tell other groups what to do. That said, it did not have to be a widely held Jewish value prior to the 20th century for it to be true 3 decades in, within Germany. And even if it was a widely held value among Jews, inter-ethnic marriages are a two-way street. Many Jews might have been happy to marry Germans, but if Germans weren't happy to marry Jews as a general rule, then that wouldn't really matter much.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 19:55

Fader Movitz: Sep 25, 2012; Snus, snaps och saltlakrits

OhYeah posted:

Everyone who is not a leftist activist or part of the establishment (political class, media and so on) already knows what the situation is. They see it in their everyday life. This is evident also from the way that far-right parties across Europe are gathering ground. Remind me again which party is the most popular one in Sweden now?

The Social democrats closely followed by the moderates http://pollofpolls.se/

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:08

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Pochoclo posted:

Referendums would only sorta work if voting was mandatory with threat of heavy fines if you don't vote (unless you have a valid, certified medical reason), AND if the public was properly informed of the consequences. When neither happens, it's a loving stupid form of deciding things.

This is a good opinion.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 20:51

Stefu: Feb 4, 2005

Fader Movitz posted:

The Social democrats closely followed by the moderates http://pollofpolls.se/

Any particular reasons the SDs are diving?

# ? Apr 10, 2016 22:59

Fox Cunning: Jun 21, 2006; salt-induced orgasm in the mouth

Stefu posted:

Any particular reasons the SDs are diving?

The other parties have adopted their politics.

# ? Apr 10, 2016 23:14

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

They've also been struggling to get any traction in the media for the last 3 months and it's not for lack of trying. They yet to find an unique angle now that the debate has shifted from immigration to integration. For example, they recently had a press conference where they proposed solving school segregation by creating completely segregated schools for immigrants( :lol:

), this proposal got almost no attention. The integration debate is entirely focused on labour laws and wages right now which puts them with their opinion of "we like both ideas" in the squarely uncontroversial corner.

MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Apr 11, 2016

# ? Apr 11, 2016 08:06

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Xoidanor posted:

solving school segregation by creating completely segregated schools for immigrants()

What is it with alleged progressives and people concerned with social justice now hopping on the segregation bandwagon :psyduck:

# ? Apr 11, 2016 08:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 21:57

lollontee: Nov 4, 2014; Can't post for 10 years!

blowfish posted:

What is it with alleged progressives and people concerned with social justice now hopping on the segregation bandwagon

Well if you think about it, it's the logical conclusion of multicultarist championing of difference.

# ? Apr 11, 2016 08:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

«‹›959 »