Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

That...
What.
Just, what.
Seriously.
That really does not make sense.

[TD1]

My fortress kills immigrants. I don't make it, they just do.

There's a looooot of racial tension in the game.

Also, what you've since said is nonsense. Maybe in a fortress under your control that works. Look at world gen for what it's like without you there.

[martinuzz]

DF's entire purpose as a game is to slowly convert every elf hater to the multicultural agenda.

U wut m8 u b trippin?

Wut....
My fort's population is made up out of 81 dwarves, 27 goblins, 12 humans, and one elf.

And whaddya think?.......

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think I just lost the game

[Willfor]

I love replies like this because it means the long con is still working. Toady managed to introduce non-discriminated homosexuality into the game, and with a few exceptions everyone took it in stride. The gay agenda's already won, a harbinger for its victories in the US. Color of skin not being a problem has gone back years. Soon, the multiculturalist agenda will be fully revealed, and no one's going to say anything. No /pol/ infographics. No twitter harassment. Everyone on the forums slowly changes to the proper Elite Liberal ideal.

[inteuniso]

Dwarf Fortress is really just a LCS propaganda instrument. GG WP archconservatives.

[SalmonGod]

It's understandable to have this talk about cultural conflict, but I also want to know what's supposed to be done about it.  It seems meant as a warning that the refugee crisis is a tidal wave of slavering barbarians who will destroy the western world.  Because there certainly hasn't been a single word said about how a cultural issue can be addressed in terms of the present situation, so the only other point that I can take from this is that refugees shouldn't be allowed.  Unless we're just flatly stating "Islamic culture is misogynist" because it feels good to say it and know that we're not like that?  I hope we're better than that.

So the ultimate question here is what do we do about it without people like this ending up the primary victims?

[TD1]

I'd suggest better border security, and increased ease of exportation.

[Graknorke]

And what do you border control exactly? It's not like immigrants have to fill in a "would you sexually assault someone in public y/n?" form, or that such a form would help at all.

[Sheb]

Your whole line of argument only hold if the only way to fight such crime was to drastically reduce the number of refugees. Also, I'm willing to bed ten euros you're not Spanish, Italian or Greek. 

[martinuzz]

The German Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas, suspects the events in Cologne and other German cities were coordinated.
in his words "You cannot make me believe that the incidents in Cologne were not organized in advance"
http://vorab.bams.de/justizminister-heiko-maas-spd-geht-davon-aus-dass-die-silvester-angriffe-auf-frauen-organisiert-waren/

The Bild am Sonntag newspaper claims to have had access to confidential police information, which show that the perpetrators have called upon people to come to Cologne, using social media.

[Antsan]

Because there certainly hasn't been a single word said about how a cultural issue can be addressed in terms of the present situation, so the only other point that I can take from this is that refugees shouldn't be allowed.

I'd say that's because it isn't our issue to address.

Oh, really? And here I thought you cared about the rape victims. Turns out you don't are at all, as you seem unwilling to do anything about it.
Put another way: If you care about something, it is very definitely you who should do something about it.

But I do have the right to say 'If you're going to be acting like this, then I don't want you here'. That seems quite reasonable to me.

Unfortunately you have two options here (if you insist on the whole "culture" thing not being your issue to address):
1. You get weapons and start slaughtering immigrants.
2. You accept them as they are and try to live with the ones that come in.
Saying that we are "taking them in" paints a false picture of us actively doing something to get them into our countries and while a bit of that may happen it is quite strange to assume that they'd stop coming if we just stopped doing anything. You'd need to keep them out, as in "actively".

not letting in just anyone who rocks up at the front door.

These are countries, not houses. We don't have walls nor doors. The don't need to come up and knock.

Taking in more women and children, as opposed to the nearly 80% of adult men that it's been so far.

One theory I heard in regards to that: A family is more likely to send a man before them all traveling because the man has a higher chance of actually making the journey. If he makes it, the rest can follow more easily.

A big one - taking in much, much smaller numbers. If you pick up one person and plonk them down in the middle of a larger group, they'll assimilate into the group. If you pick up a million people at once, they don't need to assimilate, and so they won't.

Not holing refugees up in their own secluded specialized living arrangements might help with that, too. Maybe even without cutting down on how many are coming in.

Actually enforcing the old rules; that refugees have to settle in the first country they come to, they can't choose to go to wherever because it has a nicer welfare system.

Which means even more problems in the countries which are already worse off, like Greece.

Not admitting anyone who has been convicted of any crime.

Think about what might be counted as crime elsewhere, how well their judicial system works and that stuff and then think about the implications on öetting people in based on that.
To me it seems like the perfect way to not take in any political refugees in anymore.

[martinuzz]

that refugees have to settle in the first country they come to, they can't choose to go to wherever because it has a nicer welfare system.

I assume you are very strong on the anti EU camp and hope the EU collapses as soon as possible? And I assume you are perfectly okay with sending another few dozen billions to save the Greek economy? You surely won't mind if that means our own governments will use that as an excuse for budget cuts that destroy even more of our social securities and tear down our once very good education systems even further?

Not admitting anyone who has been convicted of any crime.

Great idea, let's stop taking in gays and human rights activists, that will surely make our women safer. As a side benefit, we'll not have any North Koreans either. Fleeing the country is a crime there.

[Antsan]

Strawman argument - you are disingenuously misrepresenting what I said. The problem of mass sexual assaults in places like Cologne, etc? That's something we need to act upon, and I proposed a whole bunch of things we could do. The problem (if there is one) that many Islamic cultures have with attitudes toward women? That is for them to fix. As an alternate example - many Europeans think that America's love affair with guns is crazy. But wagging your fingers at them and saying 'You guys really should listen to us and stop it with the gun stuff' - does that work? Will they listen?

If a culture's attitudes are to change, it needs to come from within.

Oh, it's hard, that's for sure. But given that we cannot keep immigrants out without excessive and questionable means it will continue to be our problem until we do something about that culture.
Also these people are already here. It's not like they might become our problem sometime in the future, they're our problem now, with all the culture and everything else they brought with them.

What the hell are you talking about, 'slaughtering immigrants'? I think there's some middle-ground between 'Get weapons and slaughter immigrants' and 'Continue as we have, changing absolutely nothing', right? To even bring up 'slaughtering immigrants' is at best an extremely dishonest shock tactic, and a horrible thing to say.

I think the art of hyperbole is lost on you.
Immigrants are running away from really bad stuff. I don't think anything less than stuff human rights forbid us from doing would deter many of them. I think many people in our country underestimate the severity of what makes people become economic refugees.

That is the whole point of border controls. That's why we have things called passports, right? Why we can't just get on a plane and fly wherever and they say 'Hey stranger, how's it going? Come on in, no need for a name or documents'. I advocate using border controls to keep out illegal immigrants, the same way the vast majority of countries in the world do. Are you saying that's unreasonable?

First: Most illegal immigrants we have hardly come via plane, do they? As far as I got to know there's three major modes of transportation: per foot, via boat or on trains. You have a point with that last one, but they'Re mainly using that as soon as they're already inside the EU, right?

And of course we're actively doing something to get them in! We give them free housing, a weekly allowance, free medical care, paid for by taxpayers.

You assume that they wouldn't come if we didn't give that to them?
Okay, there would be less of them, for sure, but I guess taking it away would cause more problems in the long run.

Are you saying that there's no kindness and charity in that, that the immigrants are just entitled to it?

No, they're not entitled to it, but our culture depends on people having access to these things. Well, at lest the part of our culture I want to preserve. So I am in favor of giving it to them, because it is necessary (and certainly not sufficient) to do so if we ever want them to grasp what our culture is about.

I'd say the art of metaphor is lost on you, but I don't doubt that it's intentional. And we do have walls. They're called borders.

I got the metaphor. That's just it: It's a metaphor and it certainly is not "art" in this instance.
Walls offer a physical reason for nobody to pass through. Borders don't. You can even cross a border without knowing it. The same would be pretty damn unlikely with a wall.
My point is that the idea of having borders does nothing to anyone who chooses to ignore them for whatever reason. Borders don't only consist of checkpoints, you know?

I admire how you manage to make taxpayer-funded accommodations that these refugees are receiving for free (and are regulated to be clean, comfortable and secure - something that you can't say about the homes of many poorer citizens, who have to take what they can get) sound like a prison cell. It's truly impressive.

Where did I say they weren't allowed to leave these houses? Where did I make them sound like a prison cell?
What I am saying is that location matters. If you're living in a huge house that's just full of other immigrants you're much less likely to get in contact with anyone who's been living in Germany for a long time. Given with how much disdain they are often exposed to in the streets it is hardly a surprise when hey have additional incentive to stay inside. That's why I used the phrase "holing up".
Disperse them more and you get more integration. It's not really hard to understand but it's a bit more expensive in the short run. I guess that's why people are against it, not because it wouldn't work.

Or perhaps it would save some lives. Remember the famous picture of the dead child on the beach, that sparked so much attention in the summer and drew the world's attention to the refugee crisis? He and his family were coming from Turkey, trying to reach Canada (despite the fact that their asylum application had been rejected).

So, you take an example where someone wasn't deterred by the kind of policies you are proposing and try to use that to convince me these policies would help to deter people from coming and thus "save their lives"? Maybe you should try and use another one.

Now, Turkey may not be as nice a place to live as Canada, Germany, or Sweden, but it's not a war-zone.

Erdogan is obviously preparing for a ethnic purge or even already busy with it, depending on who you ask. That doesn't qualify as "safe" for me.
Also, you yourself said that the perils of the journey ahead and the fact that they hadn't even been accepted didn't deter them, yet you propose these as the solutions to the migrant crisis.

Convicted of rape, murder, assault, theft, etc?

No one ever was convicted of these things for political reasons.


In conclusion: Yes, there will be problems, there already are problems, this will not be easy and generally we'll be worse off than before.
We had it coming for a long time. We have been living above the sustainable standard for decades now and other countries had to bear the burden of that. Now we get to see a glimpse of it and act as if we could go on like before, if only we built huge walls around us. That's ridiculous – this way you'll delay the problem until it comes back even worse.
We need to take in the people who come, we need to deal with them according to our values and culture and we'll need to adapt to what we cannot deal with according to our values and culture. If we actually manage to turn back people to the places they came from we'll just manage to make the situation there worse – much worse than it is now and certainly the resulting problems will be worse in the long run than the problems we get from taking them in. And yes, these problems will just fall back on us again in a few years.
We live in a globalized world. Forget "turning people away". Their problems will reach you one way or another.

[Helgoland]

Y'know, I think to me it all boils down to the following: If Europe can only be defended by drowning people in the Mediterranean or fencing them in inside war zones, then Europe simply is no longer worth defending. That having been said, I'm confident that we can indeed find ways to defend Europe while still granting refuge to all those who need it. We need to get it into our collective head first that taking in asylum seekers is at the very heart of what we wish to defend, though.

[martinuzz]

But if records are spotty, and we don't know what specifically someone was convicted of, only that it was two unknown crimes? I'd want my government to play it safe, and say 'Sorry, but no'. I know that self-abnegation is in vogue right now, but I won't be ashamed of prioritising my own nation over another.

That would work in a nice idealistic World Government, or United Federation of Planets, but sadly, spotty records and unknown crimes are exactly the problem.
Often, countries where refugees come from, will label the homosexuals and political dissidents as 'convicted of rape and murder', and will not share criminal records of real rapists and murderers, because, goodbye and good riddance.

I think the EU, much like world-government or the United Federation of Planets or anything similar, is a very nice and idealistic idea that we are in no way ready for. We have a lot in common, but for all that we do, we also have a lot that is different. Ignoring that and trying a 'one-size-fits-all' rule from Brussels is foolish. Particularly with its mandate for 'ever-closer union'. It's in the very charter of the thing to be inexorably pushing toward an EU superstate. And yeah... one day, perhaps. But we're nowhere near ready for that yet.

Don't get me wrong, I share your view there, and am still pissed at my NO! vote about the EU constitution being sleezily circumvented by the treaty of Lisbon.
I just don't think that forcing the Mediterranean countries to keep more refugees is a viable solution.
While I am all in favour of disbanding the EU and work towards voluontuary, friendly cooperation respecting each other's democratic integrity, I cannot see how forcing the poor southern countries far beyond their humanitarian capabilities is going to help in achieving that.

IMO, more should be done to stop people from crossing the Mediterrenean in the first place.
I'd say, let the UN, or for all I care, the NATO construct large refugee bases in Turkey, or Jordan (the Jordans are way overstretched in their humanitarian capabilities already, but they have consistently been very hospitable and willing, and we *could* supply the means to support them, with combined effort.)

I mean, while our police is being spread thin in Europe now by the immigrant crisis, we still have a lot of military troops who spend most of their time doing the same excerises over and over again, and who wouldn't mind doing something useful for a change, while at the same time helping people in need, and seeing some more of the world.
We could definitly spare food and medicine for a few million people as long as the crisis doesn't last for decades. We just need the will to actually donate and distribute it. The costs involved would probably not even be too much higher than the costs of sheltering and feeding refugees here.
It'd be a much less alien environment for the refugees to be sheltered in than standing in the cold rain at the Hungarian border.

Once those are up and running, make applying for asylum only possible from these camps. Send people who cross the Mediterrenean back across the Mediterrenean, to those refugee camps, this time using decent and safe boats. I hear there's a large Russian cruiser in the area, perhaps that can be refitted into a large cruise ship for refugees.

Then, select at the gate. Be kind to people who suffered war or opression, send back economic migrants from safe countries back to where they came from, as soon as possible.

Use medical technology on applicants to determine real age (teeth don't lie), and family relation (just a quick saliva swab, no one gets hurt, relational DNA testing is cheap enough nowadays).
Better do it right away at intake, then let them wither in a refugee detention center in the Netherlands in an decade-spanning Kafkaesque asylum procedure where they'll be dental and DNA checked at some point along the process anyways. There's too many sad cases of people wasting away 10 years of their life in asylum procedure, not being allowed to work, only to be sent back to their country of origin because they lied about their age or family bonds 10 years ago.
Better pick those out right away, and spare them losing 10 years of their life for nothing.

And for all I care, apply the rule that was once regarded as being a gentleman thing to do, but for which I will probably be called a sexist now, 'women and children first'. And if there's a daddy travelling with them he can come too because it's mean to separate a kid from a parent.

But. Perhaps most importantly, instead of focussing on how to stop refugees, we should focus on how to reduce economic migrants. There's too many people coming here from countries where they did have a livelihood, be it a humble one, believing that they'll become rich here, only to find out that they're getting a life down the gutter, or the Calais woods, and that poverty exists in their Promised Land too. We can't stop those from coming without educating and properly informing them in their countries of origin.