The Refugee Crisis - a crisis of conscience - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Refugee Crisis - a crisis of conscience

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Dapper_Swindler posted:

so apparently a story is going around that the refugee that was tripped by the RW news people was actualy part/former al-nasur front. is any of that true or is it just a bullshit. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/syrian-refugee-tripped-over-by-hungarian-journalist-was-part-al-qaedas-nusra-front-647390

It was posted on page 36 with a link to an article from rudaw.net. I can't speak to the truth of the statement though, or if it should matter much.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2015 02:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 07:27

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Starshark posted:

You're suggesting that people immigrating into Finland can't learn Finnish because they're from Iraq/Somalia. Point to the gene that makes that the case. And I've already explained to you that just because you accept group X doesn't mean you can't be racist. Australia was racist against East Asians, remember? Not so much now - we reserve our bile for Arabs and other Muslims.

It really feels like you're arguing in bad faith here. I don't believe he ever said that people from Iraq or Somalia can't learn Finnish. He has said pretty consistently that it is more difficult to find a job in Finland if you don't already speak Finnish, or at the very least, English, and that this is a large barrier for anyone coming into Finland, regardless of your status (unless you are Kenyan or Ethiopian, apparently). This seems to mean that people coming to Finland for whatever reason have a greater chance of remaining unemployed (and, apparently, in a remote town due to housing concerns) for extended periods of time while first picking up the language. Not being from the region at all, I can't even begin to say what level of competence in Finnish is typically required in Finland for employment. At no time though have I seen Ligur say that and Iraqi can't learn Finnish.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2015 18:04

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Volkerball posted:

What, 2 pages ago, someone posted a video of like an 8 year old kid making a gesture at a camera to be used as evidence that refugees are all backwards Muslim extremists who will bring chaos and instability with them, and turn Europe into a war zone. And you want to make this dumb rear end argument right now to try and defend idiots making that argument like the truth is in the middle and we're being intolerant? I love the persecution complex all you morons who feel like they're in a war against evil tumblr liberals have. If you want to see more rational discussion in this thread, don't post if all you're going to do is talk about dumb poo poo. Alternatively, you could try following the news and posting content you would like to see discussed!

Ok, but that was Narciss that posted that. Everyone either got indignant (rightly so), dismissed it due to who posted it (rightly so), or didn't see it because they have Narciss blocked. That case isn't really what Canine Blues Arooo was talking about, I suspect. Rather, I suspect it's more about things, to pick an example, like Ligur mentioning that Finland has high unemployment already and that this will make it significantly more difficult for migrants or refugees to settle into a prosperous life in Finland being met with dismissals that he's a racist that hates brown people and why does he hate brown people.

It is so much easier to dismiss his claim by claiming that he's a shitheel than it is to engage the argument he's putting forward, and i've seen it happen a bunch with a lot of different poster in this thread.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2015 18:16

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Starshark posted:

LOL, how long do you think Iraq was a "war torn hellscape" for? People in Iraq have an education just like anywhere else. I'm less familiar with Somalia, but considering they've been in Finland since the 90's, I'm sure they could get an education within that time.

I'm gonna repost Ligur's largest post on employment figures.

Ligur posted:

I'm afraid comparing the economic impact of refugees in USA and Europe, esp. the Northern welfare states, is like comparing apples and oranges.

Also you maybe didn't notice, but I said "housing people who can't find a job" is the (economic) problem. Not entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, asylum seekers who received a residence permit and their later "re-unified" family members from non-OECD countries have woeful employment rates in the EU

For example Somalians in Finland in 2008 only had a 27% employment rate (that's no the same as unemployment at least in a Finnish translation, btw). Earlier, in 2003, their the dependency ratio was 9,7 while the national average was 2,2, meaning out of every working age and employed Somalian, there were 9,7 who were either unemployed our outside of the workforce (because of age, disability, whatever). Very few were and are entrepreneurs, which both sucks and is disappointing, because I've heard dozens of times Somalians are pretty creative and solid businessmen in Minnesota and Minneapolis, running literally hundreds (or is it over a thousand at this point?) businesses. I think one of the reasons is that we really suck at integrating people, at least partially because of the welfare state thing we have going on. It's good, but not always and not for everyone but that's another discussion. Same in the Gulf States, AFAIK Somalis are often hardcore businessmen.

Anyway, for example, here is an economic profile of Britain's Immigrants. It's a bit outdated (so were some of your links) but there is no reason to believe things have changed much, except that UK has received a ton of new workers from East-Europe. Not aware of what that has exactly done to immigration employment percentages.

You will notice certain groups (look under 5. Socio-economic profile) perform particularly poorly, some are among some of the most common asylum seeking nationalities. During the past decade the Finnish numbers were very similar with the same nationalities we have in any numbers. In 2013 over 30% of all of our immigrants were unemployed, when the national average is closer to 10%.

In 2010 Sudanese, Somalians, Iraqis and Afghans had over 50% unemployment in in Finland. On the other hand, out the few Nepalese we have almost none are on the dole and Kenyans beat the crap out of (positive) employment numbers compared to Finns.

And at least things are looking a little better even while Finland is in a terrible economic slump, as in 2013 "only" 38% African and 32% of Asian immigrants were unemployed. Still beats the 2000 numbers.

Sweden is actually the worst OECD country in integrating immigrants if you use employment as a metric. IIRC in 2014 they had the highest immigration unemployment rate in the EU area (sorry can't find the link now). Jan Tullberg from Stockhom University published a book in 2014 where he estimated immigration costs 250 billion Swedish kroner annually, which is even more than previous estimates by guys like Bo S�dersten and Jan Ekberg. In Norway, they calculated in 2013 that every non-Western immigrant will cost Norway around 4,1mil NOK. In Denmark, they found out non-Western immigration societal costs exploded from previously high numbers by an additional 35% in just four years.

Bottom line is people who from OECD countries tend to do well in Europe, as do people who move here to work (do'h) where ever they come from, but those who are granted residence permit on asylum or other "secondary protection" (a term at least in Finland) basis are not doing well. Hence my conclusion that the current circus is going to become very expensive, especially for Nordic welfare states with the high benefits, especially on housing, received by those given a residence permit.

This is almost the exact opposite of US, where immigrants, illegals or refugees or whatever, have at least a reputation in Europe for finding work somehow, and then busting their asses at it.

There has been much waxing lyrical about why this is or isn't. Some point a blaming finger at the welfare state for making people passive because a family of four or five might already live more affluently than in their country of origin just on benefits. But I doubt it's just that. Others say we're just bad at integrating. Yeah but why do some groups integrate so well anyway? Others blame racism, but that doesn't ring true either, because people from, say Ghana and Nigeria tend to do well employment wise (or at least did some years ago) in North and West European countries. In Britannia Muslims have bad employment numbers, but on the other hand, Sikhs from the same country do well, so just discriminating "others" can't be it. Some say too many immigrants to EU are Muslims, and "Muslims don't integrate to Western cultures". But even that doesn't quite strike me as The Ultimate Explanation, because from what I know, immigrant Muslims tend to do very well in USA (and for a fact I know, so do many European ones).

As a final point, there is less and less low skilled labour jobs available in the EU area, and many EU countries already have 20%+ youth unemployment. If you continue slamming in a lot of immigrants from around the EU year in year out, who are also looking for a job, it doesn't bode well for them either and some probably take it as such.

Do you care to engage any of the numbers in that or anything? Or is it all just still going to be "Look at this racist"?

# ¿ Sep 23, 2015 18:37

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Starshark posted:

All right, fine, there's no way you can get into a university in Finland unless you do your twelve years.

Do you understand that he's talking about someone with little to no education at all coming to Finland, not someone with 3 years university under their belt coming to Finland and just needing to learn the language? People starting from scratch take time to prepare for a univiersity education, especially in a land with a completely foreign language (as in it share almost nothing with your native tongue).

Edit: in addition to legal regulations, it seems. Interesting thing to learn, that.

PaleIrishGuy fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Sep 23, 2015

# ¿ Sep 23, 2015 19:41

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Starshark posted:

Even illiterate people have learned things in their life. It might even blow your mind to learn that there are illiterate people who can read a little. They're not starting out with nothing more than kindergarten knowledge.

You're correct that they have learned things in their lives. And you are also correct that there are people who can read or write a bit that are still considered illiterate because they lack functional fluency in that regard.

None of that has any bearing on being prepared for a university education being taught to you in an entirely different tongue, at a speed meant for people already fluent in the tongue. Hell, I'm reasonably well educated, and would love to continue my education in Norway or Germany, but i don't speak either language anywhere near well enough to even begin to stuggle through that. If I were coming over there at 30 years old with an education comparable to a 4th or 5th grade German, i wouldn't have a hope in hell in a German university.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2015 19:52

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Narciss posted:

It's amusing to see a Finnish poster play the "Muh Land" card, when modern-day Finns are asiatic Mongols who displaced the caucasian Sami.

This is a dumb non-statement because it applies to, well, basically everyone for one group or another depending on how far back you go.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2015 23:11

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Effectronica posted:

Glib remarks don't work when they reveal you're downright pig-ignorant. I mean, Jesus Christ, do you think that all racial discrimination consists of KKK members burning people alive? Have we uncovered the root reason why Europeans believe they have a fundamentally different approach to race than Americans?

How do you think people choose a target of discrimination? The neighborhood I live in near Chicago is really mixed race (and nationality), and gently caress me if I could even begin to tell you at a glance whether one white guy is Irish or Polish, if one black woman is descended from Niger or is straight over from Botswana, or the tan guy walking down the block had parents from Mexico, Cuba, or Puerto Rico. How the hell can I know any of that just by looking at someone? So what gift of racism is it that Finns apparently have that we in the US lack that lets them distinguish at a glance a family from Ethiopia or Somalia? Cause that ability sounds like straight up magic to me.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2015 23:28

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Starshark posted:

Uh, racism is more than just how a guy looks. Jews were kept from getting jobs in America in the 1940's not based on how they looked, but on their last names.

I'll bite. Without googling, please pick the Somali name from the following list of Ethopians (just so we know that this discrimination is that easy):

Ephraim Isaac
Mahmoud Ahmed
Gelila Bekele
Anna Getaneh
Hanan Ibrahim
Haddis Alemayehu
Alexander Boghossian

Effectronica posted:

Discrimination does not consist solely of people deciding, "I am going to discriminate today!" A large part of discrimination occurs at a higher level, such as with our lovely Finnish posters making hilarious jokes about child soldiers and FGM. That is, it's what you'd call "structural racism". So even though Finns are apparently unable to determine whether someone is Somali or merely a Japanese tourist given three tries, they still can discriminate on national basis by transmitting these stereotypes.

You are correct in that there is definite stereotyping going on, especially with regard to perceptions of regional practice (eg. the goat-herder thing), but that isn't somehow unique to Finland or Europe as a whole, nor is it terribly different from the US or anywhere else.

It can be taken as a given that that sort of racism most definitely exists, but for the given numbers of Ethiopians employed in Finland vs the Somalians in the same, there would need to be some major identifiable barrier erected specifically against Somalians that is not there for Ethiopians. What is that barrier? 'Lol racism' isn't enough if the average individual can't pick people apart, since the average individual's casual racism is one of the primary barriers to integration.

Beyond that, you get into the question of systemic barriers like preferring employees of one given nationality over another, but that would balance out when the children of those immigrants are now reporting as Finnish (or German, French, Polish, etc), because the barrier of reported nationality falls away, bringing things back to casual racism. If there remains a disparity between 2nd generation Finns of Somalian decent and those of Ethiopia, it would seem to indicate a barrier to employment and integration beyond simply 'they're racist.'

# ¿ Sep 24, 2015 00:02

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Starshark posted:

When you said,

And the first thing that hit me was 'Irish or Polish'. The Polish were discriminated against in the US and it was based on their names. Now, the Ethiopians are mainly Christian while the Somalis are mostly Islamic, so besides names you might be able to use other cues like are they carrying a cross around their neck or not. In any case, assuming that there's JUST NO WAY you can tell a Finnish Somali from a Finnish Ethiopian, surely even you can admit that your original argument:

Was too simplistic?

It was simplistic. I will admit that. It was so because the tune of 'cause they're brown' was being played in D&D again, and if one group of brown people has integrated or is more accepted than another, then it's probably a greater matter than just 'brown people' again.

If you want to argue that the difference may be due to dominant regional faiths between the two regions, then that is fine. That is a fantastic argument to advance and may well be a part of it. That said, if you're going to advance that faith is the discriminatory factor here, then drop the 'racism' line, unless you are also prepared to argue that being Islamic is now a race.

So again we are back to why is one group of people being accepted in Finland when another group from a neighboring nation isn't a racist matter?

# ¿ Sep 24, 2015 00:41

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Tesseraction posted:

Agreed. These distinctions are useful only in an 'us vs. them' context.

Absolutely agreed that distinctions based on region or color are silly and not useful in most contexts.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2015 02:01

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Liberal_L33t posted:

As a longtime lurker in this thread I feel that the term "brown people" is highly toxic to discourse in D&D and is used as a silencing tactic almost without exception. I'm not talking about discussion of race and racism in general, or even the act of accusing other posters of harboring race prejudice; just the specific terms "brown people" and "browns". I know you're using it mainly to criticize that mindset, but I think that even using the term ironically plays into the hands of pissants who use these terms to poison the well whenever discussion of non-western cultures pops up.

Entirely agreed. I've seen it used to ridicule or silence opposition in D&D for nearly a decade at least. It utterly ruins discourse by attempting to drag too many issues down to simple othering or to ad hom and dismiss another poster by trying to re-frame their arguments in the most simplistic form of racism. Racism surely exists, both systemic and simplistic, and posters certainly do post racist or discriminatory things, but that term, as it is used, is utterly poisonous to any conversation here.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2015 21:04

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Tesseraction posted:

I'm not saying you're saying you shouldn't take in refugees, I'm saying that in a roundabout way your economy will be 'boosted' in that the economic subsidies granted by the EU to help your economy would be rescinded otherwise. For instance, the European Solidarity Fund gave �16m in 2011 (from the previous sheet) - and Germany would have a solid argument in reducing that if the CR doesn't show 'solidarity' over the refugee crisis. While the refugees aren't in themselves providing an economic boost, not having them could lead to a major economic slump due to punishment sanctions, this could be even worse if they find a way to justify dropping the convergence objective funds (this is about pulling the less-developed economies up to match the stronger ones) which was worth �1.6bn for CR in 2011.

So I agree the refugees themselves may not be a boost, but your economy's currently being boosted by countries like Germany and pissing them off could do more damage to your economy than even the most inept national government economic policy. This isn't me tacitly endorsing such a strategy as suggesting why the claims of a 'boost' might be correct, but for different reasons than previously floated.

I am really, really not trying to bring this back to Finland chat again with this, but I do want to bring Finland up with regard to the possibility of economic sanctions if a nation doesn't do their part for refugees (because it's nation where some numbers come to mind thanks to this thread). From looking at the numbers you gave a little while back (where you mentioned the Czech Republic takes in 1,455.2 million Euros), what would be the action taken against a country like Finland that seems to be in an economic slump yet is a net contributor to the EU?

Effectronica posted:

According to the US Foreign Service, it takes people enrolled in language classes for a Group 3 language like Finnish 44 weeks to achieve level 3 proficiency, defined as being able to participate in formal and informal conversations enough to work in a professional field. Immersion will reduce this time. So it would take less than a year for refugee engineers and doctors to reach the point of being able to perform their job as well as any Finn, and much shorter times for jobs that require less technical vocabulary. So scaremongering about people "not learning the language" seems to be built on flimsy foundations as it stands.

I would like to note here that while the language argument was certainly the more vocal one earlier, the more valid one was with regard to relative education for employment, since what constitutes a professional degree in one nation may not be easily transferable to another nation. For example, a foreign trained doctor, no matter the qualifications or institution from which they came, have to complete another 3 years residency in the U.S. or Canada if they want to practice medicine in the U.S. regardless of their individual skill or mastery of the local language. I can't say what, if any, relative barriers exist in European nations so this is purely speculatory anyway. More, I just wanted to note that linguistics might not be the only barrier to employment for some migrants or refugees.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2015 18:05

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

steinrokkan posted:

Net contributors still receive money from EU funds.

Nevertheless, I'm sceptical about the ability of any single actor to effect any sanctions, as the EU budget is approved by a majority in the Parliament and in the Council.

I realize they still receive money (similar to the U.S. where some states take like .73 for every dollar they give, while others take 1.86 for every dollar they give out). My thought was more that attempting that same sort of sanction on a donator state would more lessen their contributions back to the EU more than hurt the state in the short run. That said, I could be hilariously mistaken there.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2015 18:32

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

DarkCrawler posted:

There aren't any states whose economies are tied to the EU to the same degree as U.S. states are to the U.S. Federal economy. EU is still a cooperative economy between sovereign states and none of them are really dependent on it to a level that would cause any real difference. I don't really see any numbers that would make it much of a difference, except Greece of course (you notice how they've been very, very quiet during all of this). Of course, states who don't have the same level to contribute as say, Germany, would get EU assistance according to the Commission's proposal and the 120,000 relocation deal.

That was why I asked about possible alternatives if countries with stronger economies decide to back out of their share. That same sort of sanction isn't gonna do a whole lot to France or the U.K. i would imagine.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2015 19:38

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

steinrokkan posted:

If you mean that a contributor would refuse to hand over the payments required by the Commission, then that would be a grim precedent with such far reaching consequences I don't think anybody would be willing to risk it.

I mean, the redistributive budget of the EU, from which members receive funding, makes up something like 1% of the EU GDP. And boycotting the procedure through which contributions to this budget are levied would totally wreck the credibility of the maverick country in negotiating the actual area where the EU matters, which is policies with fiscal effects implemented on a national level.

In other words, the rebel government would withhold relatively small payments, and in return would most likely lose power over legislation that dictates how the entire drat economy can be run. Not to mention that fundamental decisions in the EU still depend on unanimity, and I believe any country subjected to "sanctions" over this would have revenge on the perpetrators as soon as they could veto their proposals.

More what I meant is that, were a state to dispute the distribution of refugees to the point that the EU would consider a form of sanction such as withholding subsidies until they comply, might not the removal of such subsidies have a negative effect on the economy of the rebelling nation (the presumed intention of such a sanction) that would hinder the relative contributions of said nation back toward the EU? Depending on how long such a state would hold out in the first place, of course. As well, I realize that we are talking fiscal drops in a bucket here, as well as the aforementioned effect being dependent on what fund is being withheld from whom and where.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2015 02:31

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

steinrokkan posted:

No, not really. At least in any appreciable way on any considerable horizon. The budget is created based on multi-year guidelines published in the Framework that guarantees a great deal of continuity in trends contained within consequent budgets, and the contributions are calculated by the Commission, once again with view to continuity. Unless a country suddenly lost like 50% of its GDP or something, I don't see there being any incentive for the EU to steer away from the plan. The net contributors aren't supposed to be reliant on donations anyway, and even the infamous CAP has been reformed to such an extent from its original form that I don't think there's a single economic sector in any one of the wealthiest economies that would be existentially dependent on EU transfers. As I said, the aspects of the EU integration that are not expressed in its budget are much more materially significant for these countries.

So in other words: I think there would be no economic downturn for these countries, and therefore no reason for the Commission to cut them slack. If anything, there would be a minute drop in growth rates, which while somewhat frustrating in the long term wouldn't lead to lowering the absolute funds available for drawing a budget, but rather to a decrease in marginal additions to the bulk sum of the budgets under the future Framework agreements.

Fair enough.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2015 04:22

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

hackbunny posted:

Why is this thread now about loving Finland

Why are there so many Finns on SA

I think the thread became Finlandchat because it's the only nation that we've been given anything even approaching actual data on, so when it comes to potential societal or economic benefits and consequences of taking in refugees and migrants Finland is the best case to discuss since we have some starting points that aren't just inflammatory/congratulatory news snippets.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2015 16:34

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

poo poo, I'd love to move to Finland apparently, cause I'm all for cold and boring. Really.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2015 16:45

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Baudolino posted:

The solution is probably more liberalism. If there is no welfare state it can`t very well collapse now can it? It`ll also make integration easier since people will be forced to engage in general society to survive. Ghetto`s will still exist, but like in America they will fade away until a new ethnicity is forced on the run. A chanche to sink or swim no matter where in the world you come from. That`s really all these refugees want anyway.

Our Ghetto's faded? poo poo, I must be vividly hallucinating when passing through parts of Chicago then.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2015 23:13

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

I was looking at the newly posted Mixed Migration Trend Report for August, and something caught my eye under the Egypt section.

The first thing there is that there is a new movement of irregular entries into Egypt, mainly comprised of Syrians, from Lybia and Sudan.

I'm genuinely a bit confused by this, since it's not like there is an easy route from Syria to Lybia. Not sure as well how this correlates with their later statment about numbers of irregular sea departures from Alexandria. I realize that this is likely a non-significant number of people crossing into Egypt like this, but i'm still a bit baffled by the particulars of getting to Lybia or Sudan to grt into Egypt. Unless these were people that had found temporary refuge in either of those coutries and are now looking for a better bet.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2015 22:18

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

fade5 posted:

Some of the Libyan Syrians are possibly people who went to Libya to try to cross to Europe (Libya barely has a government, so it's a hot spot for crossing to Europe), and were then caught/turned back/shipwrecked/otherwise detained from trying to cross. Since Libya (again) barely has a government, it's unstable as hell; presumably some of those same people are now crossing into Egypt to try to find slightly more stability, rather than trying another attempt at crossing on boats.

The one that really gets me is Sudan though. To get there, someone would have either had to have a flight there, or basically cross through Jordan/Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and then cross the Red Sea. But if going that far, why not hop from Saudi Arabia right into Egypt. Its the Eastern migration of refugees from the east of Egypt that has me flummoxed.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2015 02:33

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Cerebral Bore posted:

The second link reveals that the food had actually caused stomach problems for some people and that the refugee centre is overcrowded.The dude in charge of the local Red Cross even says that he understands perfectly well why the refugees are discontent.

The food bit kinda sounds like lactose intolerance, given that they were given some sort of milky fish soup.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2015 22:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 07:27

PaleIrishGuy: Feb 5, 2004; Pale as paper

Cerebral Bore posted:

Strangely enough there are places in the world where everybody over the age of five is lactose intolerant, which is something that one maybe should take into account when people from those parts of the world flee to this frozen shithole of ours.

But I'm sure that they're just ungrateful bastards and don't want to eat our food out of pure spite.

The whole 80+ percent of the rest of the world is lactose intolerant is kind of what I meant with that comment (leaving a lot to interpretation, I admit). Seems to me that things like refugee shelters (or gently caress, soup kitchens, etc.) should be serving pretty much everything lactose free to be on the safe side, if they aren't already.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2015 04:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Refugee Crisis - a crisis of conscience