|
Russia is desperate to obtain Finland's smelly bogs.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
In my opinion, Russia is reacting to the West's encirclement by creating frozen conflicts that drain resources from said countries and push Eastern Europe to authoritarian/crazy governments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:In my opinion, Russia is reacting to the West's encirclement by creating frozen conflicts that drain resources from said countries and push Eastern Europe to authoritarian/crazy governments. What encirclement? Is China now part of the West, too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Libluini posted:What encirclement? Is China now part of the West, too? Are you playing dumb now, my friend? Just because one side isn't covered doesnt' mean it's not encirclement. Have you not been following the news? Or do you really believe that the ballistic missile systems in Poland are there to stop Iranian missiles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Russia is desperate to obtain Finland's smelly bogs. Well they already did take all of Finland's smelly bogs in the past.  Dawncloack posted:In my opinion, Russia is reacting to the West's encirclement by creating frozen conflicts that drain resources from said countries and push Eastern Europe to authoritarian/crazy governments. Russia has been firmly "encircled" since the 1950s and that "encirclement" is never going to go away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Russia has been firmly "encircled" since the 1950s no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Libluini posted:What encirclement? Is China now part of the West, too? I believe he's referring to the NATO countries having arms on their Russian borders as opposed to 'countries who share a border with Russia'
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
quote:What is this even ... what? Why would Russia want to occupy any European countries(even if they magically somehow could do this)? That's like trying to put a potato sack full of rabid cats on your head. Russia needs to occupy European countries because they feel threatened that European countries feel threatened by Russia. Weird post to make post-Ukraine and after russian saber-rattling in the Baltics but w/e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well they already did take all of Finland's smelly bogs in the past. It's been a few years since 1809. *and technically they were Swedish bogs* doverhog fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Our countries, and I include mine, are neck deep in killing muslims for their oil, the distinction of "oh but they are French nationals, we are the civilians/victims" just doesn't work... But your average European civilian targeted by Arab terrorists is not committing any heinous acts against anyone though. There are plenty of Western & Nordic European countries who have not been involved in most or any of the bombing campaigns by USA and their allies (attacks that should pain your average European civilian greatly, because it usually means we'll see more asylum seekers after a while). But even if they were, saying "lol u deserveded it" would be wrong when a second generation arab or a recently arrived asylum seeker picks a knife or an axe and starts swinging in public at random people. The idea promoted by certain leftists in Europe (and I've seen democrat voting liberals in the US do this as well) that Arabs or Africans lack their own agency, and simply react to this or that injustice by evil Westerners isn't true. It's actually pretty "racist" as a view. Muslims are people who have their own agency, their own values, their own beliefs and so on such as much as every other people. That they cannot construct grudges or hate against other people unless a Western Man forces them to is pretty  stuff, not that I've seen anyone outright say that in this thread.But back to "we bomb muslims so it's ok to hate us!" talking point. You can't say that unless you assign some sort of collective blame. But if you do that, then it should be ok to collectively blame Muslims for attacking Europeans or doing whatever, you know guyz, like a stupid redneck right winger racist would do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Except at no point did he say that it's okay for Muslims to hate the West.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Ligur posted:But back to "we bomb muslims so it's ok to hate us!" talking point. You can't say that unless you assign some sort of collective blame. But if you do that, then it should be ok to collectively blame Muslims for attacking Europeans or doing whatever, you know guyz, like a stupid redneck right winger racist would do. It's not a question of what is "ok" in some moral sense. The question is, "why do they hate us", and the answer is "because we bomb them". It's not the only question, and who exactly is included in us or them is nebulous, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Except yes they were. NATO was right on the border of the Warsaw Pact countries, which was effectively Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Except at no point did he say that it's okay for Muslims to hate the West. Shhhh, Ligur is posting. Stay put, don't move, no loud sounds. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except yes they were. NATO was right on the border of the Warsaw Pact countries, which was effectively Russia. This is true except remember the Warsaw Pact was created by Stalin basically to be a buffer between the west and Russia, so if there was another big war the fighting would happen in central/Eastern Europe and not in the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
doverhog posted:It's not a question of what is "ok" in some moral sense. The question is, "why do they hate us", and the answer is "because we bomb them". It's not the only question, and who exactly is included in us or them is nebulous, but there you go. Exactly. Whether or not it's objectively justified, the people doing these attacks see the West as killing their brothers and sisters with a carte blanche. Since voting against warmongerers in the modern day is about as useful as farting into the wind, they tend to see violence as the only way to get their point across. Of course, this then just fuels more resentment towards Muslims which leads to more attacks on them which leads to them doing more attacks back. The whole system is a stupid, stupid cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Jygallax posted:This is true except remember the Warsaw Pact was created by Stalin basically to be a buffer between the west and Russia, so if there was another big war the fighting would happen in central/Eastern Europe and not in the USSR. Nuclear missiles don't need to cross by land. And there's barely any room for invasion from the Baltic States, with the biggest militaries of NATO realistically needing to march through Belarus to really get at Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except yes they were. NATO was right on the border of the Warsaw Pact countries, which was effectively Russia. The Warsaw Pact countries created a buffer zone of client states between the USSR and Western Europe and prevented the USSR from being encircled. E:^ nuclear missiles in 1950 
The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
The guys that slit the priest's throat were registered IS radicals. If this kind of crap keeps happening, we'll get president Le Pen won't we? 2016 is looking like a lovely lovely year and we're not even halfway through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The Warsaw Pact countries created a buffer zone of client states between the USSR and Western Europe and prevented the USSR from being encircled. No it didn't prevent the USSR from being encircled, unless Belarus and Finland prevent Russia from being encircled now. Sorry, but the eastern bloc before 1980 or so was really just a direct part of the USSR, up to and including the Soviet army being available to roll in and crush dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Freezer posted:The guys that slit the priest's throat were registered IS radicals. If this kind of crap keeps happening, we'll get president Le Pen won't we? 2016 is looking like a lovely lovely year and we're not even halfway through. The worst of it is that her policies would probably actually increase the attacks. Terrorism is hard enough to combat with sensible policies let alone with attempted authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:If I meant white I would have said white. 20% of the native population has an immigrant background, so a lot of them wouldn't be able to pass an AfD approved paper bag test. I'm French FYI. And we absolutely do have a concept of race like in the US? That's why when it comes to poo poo like random ID checks or having a hard time landing a job because of one's last name, it's always people of African descent who get it, with black people treated the worst. Almost as if the treatment of people of foreign descent depends on whether they come from former colonies as well as their actual skin color.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I'm French FYI. And we absolutely do have a concept of race like in the US? That's why when it comes to poo poo like random ID checks or having a hard time landing a job because of one's last name, it's always people of African descent who get it, with black people treated the worst. Almost as if the treatment of people of foreign descent depends on whether they come from former colonies as well as their actual skin color. Of the countries in Europe I think France has the closest concept of race, perhaps thanks to Sarkozy's horribleness. I suppose we can thank Hollande for being such a shitbag the Ricains are looking viable again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Where would be a good place to find a complete list of important contemporary french politicians, businessmen, actors, activists, writers, etc who have been prominent since at least the year 2000?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
doverhog posted:It's not a question of what is "ok" in some moral sense. The question is, "why do they hate us", and the answer is "because we bomb them". It's not the only question, and who exactly is included in us or them is nebulous, but there you go. The reason goes far beyond "because we bomb them". The Middle East was not a peaceful utopia prior to Western Intervention in the 20th century. Plenty of folks there are still pretty pissed that the Islamic World hasn't been in the driver's seat of world affairs since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (which was entirely their leaderships' own fault, looking at you Enver Pasha). Groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda are far more motivated by Islamic Revanchism than simply retaliating against the West for bombing campaigns. Blaming bombing campaigns takes away from the fact that there are plenty of internal disordered motivations present in individuals who make these heinous attacks that the West cannot affect simply by changing its own behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I'm French FYI. And we absolutely do have a concept of race like in the US? That's why when it comes to poo poo like random ID checks or having a hard time landing a job because of one's last name, it's always people of African descent who get it, with black people treated the worst. Almost as if the treatment of people of foreign descent depends on whether they come from former colonies as well as their actual skin color. I've always heard of the latter - the employment discrimination due to last names - brought up virtually every time these kinds of terrorism occur in France. I have a couple of thoughts on that. Firstly, I think it's a little bit gross to mention diffuse, statistical employment discrimination as a proximate cause for murderous suicidal terrorism. Not being able to find a job absolutely sucks and my heart goes out to them, but it's a pretty loving common problem in virtually every country on Earth, and somehow, 95% of the populations who suffer chronic long-term unemployment and statistical discrimination manage to not produce, on a yearly basis, dozens of mass-murderers who engage in mass-casualty attacks on civilians. There is something wrong with the communities producing these terrorists that employment discrimination does not begin to explain, much less justify. Ending employment discrimination is a worthy cause but it sure as hell doesn't let the cultures and communities that are producing a bumper crop of suicidal mass-murderers off the hook. The roots of the terrorism problem are within those cultures and communities and have far more to do with their religious identity and cultural taboos than with any economic factors. When you have a poor, discriminated-against population in a rich country, you expect that community to have a lot of petty crime, theft, drug abuse and so forth. Those are normal (albeit unhealthy) responses to poverty. Terrorism is NOT, and I hate seeing it normalized as a response to comparatively minor acts of discrimination like not getting hired. Secondly - and I'm genuinely asking you here, since you would know - are French people really just 100% reacting to the color of someone's skin with the discrimination and random ID checks you are talking about? Or are there other reasons aside from physical appearance that they might not want to share a workplace with someone from one of these cultures? I'm not saying that this discrimination is necessarily justified, but aren't there other factors aside from just race and national origins in play here? Isn't someone, regardless of skin color, who has adopted and assimilated into French culture much less likely to suffer this kind of discrimination? And thirdly, if it is such a huge issue, why don't these victims of employment discrimination just change their last names to something more French sounding? Why is that such a big deal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:The reason goes far beyond "because we bomb them". The Middle East was not a peaceful utopia prior to Western Intervention in the 20th century. Plenty of folks there are still pretty pissed that the Islamic World hasn't been in the driver's seat of world affairs since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (which was entirely their leaderships' own fault, looking at you Enver Pasha). Groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda are far more motivated by Islamic Revanchism than simply retaliating against the West for bombing campaigns. Blaming bombing campaigns takes away from the fact that there are plenty of internal disordered motivations present in individuals who make these heinous attacks that the West cannot affect simply by changing its own behavior. The motivation of those groups, or their leadership, is far less important than the motivation of the people they recruit. Anyways, I did say it's not the only question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:If I meant white I would have said white. 20% of the native population has an immigrant background, so a lot of them wouldn't be able to pass an AfD approved paper bag test. native french with immigrant background are mostly spanish/italian right? and i would say that's about how race works everywhere, the US just doesn't have a large middle eastern population, many of whom are light-skinned enough to count as white
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I've always heard of the latter - the employment discrimination due to last names - brought up virtually every time these kinds of terrorism occur in France. I have a couple of thoughts on that. There was a study in Sweden last year about employment, sorry I'm too much of a hurry to scour the web for the link, which found out that your employment status there is based on your education and skill level, and surnames or ethnicities do not matter. I'm not saying this is the French situation, but every time when the residents of the various Swedish suburbs with mostly (Muslim) migrants with very high unemployment start burning cars or stoning the police, firemen or ambulance crews, it doesn't take long for someone to come up with an editorial about how these people are unfairly discriminated, thus not gainfully employed, and do what they do only because of outside influences. But the truth seems to be they simply do not have the required skills to meet the employment standards of your average Nordic country. Asylum seekers are often badly educated and speak no local languages. Even if they are second generation migrants and basically Swedes they perform very poorly in school. Same thing in Finland. How about France? In Finland last year when 30k of Iraqis and others came here to seek asylum, having escaped the horrors of Sweden, it was found out after a survey only 10% of them spoke any language you can locally survive with ie. English and most had no education to speak off. How does this matter? In Western countries social welfare dependency and poor performance in school tends to be something that is inherited. The prognosis for the future is not very good in this case. Tesseraction posted:Except at no point did he say that it's okay for Muslims to hate the West. Perhaps bad wording, but I've heard it often explained that it's at least understandable that a random Muslim from random Muslim country hates the West and wants to bomb or slash people after hanging around in Europe. Ergo, by that logic it would be understandabale that Western folks in Europe hate Muslims because of the things they do in Europe, never mind Muslim countries, if judged by the same standards. Crazy Joe Wilson posted:The reason goes far beyond "because we bomb them". The Middle East was not a peaceful utopia prior to Western Intervention in the 20th century. Muslims also do not get along with each other or any other ethnic group anywhere. They fight, kill, and attempt to subjucate the next ethnic group or tribe no matter if there are is a Western presence or not. The most peaceful Muslim countries usually have a faction in a position of power which forces the rest to grind their teeth and clench their fists but remain in check. Remove a saddam or a gaddafi and years of slaughter and instability will ensue. I know this is a sentiment which causes many liberal Europeans to be horrified because that sort of sounds like saying violent, conservative and tribal cultures have some intrinsic fault and they are not actually social democrats by heart and not just forced to act by circumstance, but everyone who thinks this all is untrue is welcome to list examples of succesfull, democratic and peaceful North African and Middle-Eastern countries. I don't want it to be that way either! I would frigging love it if Muslims in said regions would just get along and not be violent towards anyone at all, but the evidence proves this is not the case yet, and there is nothing to show it would be in the near future  The image that the West or Europeans, to whose countries Muslims voluntarily attempt to move, would avoid all this trouble just by "making nice" and giving Muslim migrants more money and somehow forcing Obama not to use drones or whatever is fantasy rhetoric fit for those dreamy eyed ideologists who think open borders and multiculturalism are instrinsic, absoluty values, and always good, with no regard of the consequences. Ligur fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---migrant/documents/publication/wcms_201428.pdf same language/employment skills, second generation immigrants
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---migrant/documents/publication/wcms_201428.pdf The Swedish government published a survey in 2015 (not in 2007) which says what I said, that is one news article about it. - The result was that in Sweden there is a "very strong correlation between basic skills and employment". - It is not important therefore who you are, but what skills you have. - The conclusion applies regardless of the age or origin which the person belongs. - It is noted in the report that it is actually a slightly higher proportion of foreign-born (54 percent) than those born in Sweden (49 percent) with good skills who have jobs that require higher education. - The core message is that there "are no significant differences between foreign and native-born, when it comes to having a job, taking into account the level of skills". - The reason for the major employment problems among immigrants is thus that they often have less education and fewer skills demanded in the labor market. - I don't think anyone from any political persuasion would really even contend the latter observation, with so many immigrants arriving on asylum seeking or family re-unification basis from countries with education possibilities not comparable to a Nordic welfare state. edit: better formatting and of course, note! This might also not rule out that foreign born have to send more applications, but it appears to say that in the end your skill and education level finally determine your success in the job market. Ligur fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:What is this even ... what? Why would Russia want to occupy any European countries(even if they magically somehow could do this)? That's like trying to put a potato sack full of rabid cats on your head. Narva, the third largest Estonian city, sitting right on the Russian border, is >80% ethnically Russian. I don't think Russia's gonna make a move against NATO unless circumstances change severely, but were it not for that a country like Estonia could've had its own Crimea/Donbass. fishmech posted:Russia has been firmly "encircled" since the 1950s and that "encirclement" is never going to go away. The '50s? Try the Russian Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Narva, the third largest Estonian city, sitting right on the Russian border, is >80% ethnically Russian. I don't think Russia's gonna make a move against NATO unless circumstances change severely, but were it not for that a country like Estonia could've had its own Crimea/Donbass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
NATO as a whole might not, but Estonia, a member of EU and NATO would. They would invoke article 5, mobilize their 200k reserve, and start shooting. It would not be anything like Crimea. *i know they wouldn't actually mobilize the whole reserve* doverhog fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
doverhog posted:The motivation of those groups, or their leadership, is far less important than the motivation of the people they recruit. Anyways, I did say it's not the only question. You assume that revanchism cannot be a motivating factor for individuals. Nationalism, or in the case of many ISIS actors, Islamism, can and does play a large factor in individual motivations. They can both be factors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
doverhog posted:It's not a question of what is "ok" in some moral sense. The question is, "why do they hate us", and the answer is "because we bomb them". It's not the only question, and who exactly is included in us or them is nebulous, but there you go. We bombed the gently caress out of tons of places so obviously the answer is a little more complex than that. Poverty and isolation, another common explanation, is a similarly weak one. Throughout the years there's been countless threads here about the negative impact of radical Christianity has both to the world, feminism, and even to the church itself. But for some reason any analysis on how the extremes of Islam influence the religion as a whole is completely verboten. Conservatives here are routinely painted as women-hating monsters, but the fact that many immigrants from Syria and beyond have even more regressive views is completely and totally ignored. Like you would think this is some right wing strawman, but in Germany there's absolutely clear evidence of horrible crimes being swept under the rug. There absolutely is a culture shock problem and quite frankly many European have bent over backwards to do everything they can. But there's obviously a small minority that view western social mores as incompatible with how they view Islam. It's of course not a large percentage but that's honestly not relevant when a small minority can cause major shifts in public policy. Very few police in the US shoot minorities, but that doesn't invalidate protesters honest concerns. Very few men our sexual predators, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the issues surrounding rape culture. Very few Muslims commit terrorism, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues to be talked about. The double standard in how these issues are viewed is beyond being a simple annoyance, it's actively harmful and driving Europeans to the right in droves. It was completely avoidable but now the course is all but inevitable. On the alter of purity on the issue of immigration progressives have sacrificed workable policy that could have staved off the far right from sweeping into power and further disintegrating European unity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
tsa posted:Throughout the years there's been countless threads here about the negative impact of radical Christianity has both to the world, feminism, and even to the church itself. But for some reason any analysis on how the extremes of Islam influence the religion as a whole is completely verboten. Hmm, a website based in the US and with a primary Christian and atheist userbase finds it informative to have threads about how Christianity has negative effects, but for some reason finds threads about Islam are usually in bad faith. Yes, clearly it's because Richard "Sharia" Kyanka is on the Saudi dime. Or more likely it's that the few attempts to discuss the problems of regressive political culture in Islam tend to be overrun by a bunch of white dudes who flinch from the Qu'ran like vampires from holy water and seem to believe that Islam is inherently a bunch of raping suicide bombers. The reason SA doesn't discuss the shittiness in Islamic patriarchal culture is because the vast majority of the loudmouths on the subject are racist shitheads pretending to be concerned defenders of womens' rights when it's against the perfidious Arab but do nothing about it in real life when there's a whole host of feminist organisations working in the middle east and womens' rights charities providing legal aid and protection to women in such societies, all of which need money. Funny how the desire to contribute to ending Islamic culture's misogyny problem tends to disappear when it's no longer about calling the brown people bad on the internet and requires you to put money where your mouth is. On the odd chance you're interested, here's a group that work in some of those areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Hmm, a website based in the US and with a primary Christian and atheist userbase finds it informative to have threads about how Christianity has negative effects, but for some reason finds threads about Islam are usually in bad faith. Yes, clearly it's because Richard "Sharia" Kyanka is on the Saudi dime. Or more likely it's that the few attempts to discuss the problems of regressive political culture in Islam tend to be overrun by a bunch of white dudes who flinch from the Qu'ran like vampires from holy water and seem to believe that Islam is inherently a bunch of raping suicide bombers. Hey rear end in a top hat, you are aware that this is a largely-anonymous internet politics board, and that if the arguments you are making here were applied to basically any other issue, it would shut down any and all debate on the topic in the exact same way? Would you make the argument that someone in one of the politics threads should post bank statements showing that they give every cent of their surplus earnings every year to soup kitchens before they are allowed to post in favor of a stronger social safety net? Would you make the argument that only people who post pictures of themselves holding up a photo ID while getting tied to a tree housing endangered birds should be entitled to post anything about environmentalism? If some of the people who you are calling out with this post were to donate to the charity you linked, how would you track and verify it? Are you going to email that website and ask them to please start giving a captcha code for every donation that is made so you can decide who has the right to voice their opinions about religions and who doesn't? Also, could you please, just once, make an argument about why you don't think threads on the topic of problems with Islam without referencing the presumed ethnicity of the posters you are arguing against? If you have to resort to bludgeoning the opposition into silence with loaded terms like "white dudes" every time, your actual arguments must be pretty loving weak. Furthermore, another interesting question. If we agree that "flinch[ing] from the Qu'ran like vampires from holy water" is the wrong response, why, do you think, does the stereotypical western internet user (whether European or American) tend to react so vehemently against this particular book and religion? Regardless of whether you think it is a matter of the actual original text or the political practices of cultures associated with it, the culture clash is real. Don't you have anything more interesting to add to the argument than "westerners criticizing other cultures is always bad"? Sure, push for charity - don't use it as a gag to silence debate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
quote:Regardless of whether you think it is a matter of the actual original text or the political practices of cultures associated with it, the culture clash is real. there are plenty of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. working to prove they are repressive murderous assholes - even if we ignore the history of western nations. Why single out a religion when the problem clearly lies with people? Or with the dominant culture of particular countries. i think tesseraction went a little overboard with the money thing, but i believe the point to have been that some people are just concern trolling. they don't give two shits about the plight of women under wahhabism or w/e, except insofar as it lets them get their Justified Rage-Hate boner going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Yes, let's not talk about an issue, because there are other issues. Or if we do then we must talk about issues, ALL the issues at once! Because it is reasonable to expect any person can tackle them all without writing a series of books. That is just one more way to avoid talking about a problem or gag it. Like the feminists who try to deflect migrants harassin' women with proclamations like "but... but it's men who do it!" Enlarge an issue enough and talking about it becomes too cumbersome to handle - a common and identified tactic deployed by American liberals. Yeah men, sure, but the issue won't solve itself by collectively blaming a whole gender, or trying to draw comparisons with domestic abuse in Germany and, say, imported taharrush gamaes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 08:03
|
|