Print

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

[Descan]

Because an intolerant society is also intolerant to it's own citizens if they step out of line, while a tolerant society, despite non-tolerance of intolerance, is otherwise open to pretty much anything it's own citizens want to do or live as, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Because a society, while it's made up of a majority of people, will still have it's own minorities. If they're not immigrants, then they'll be something else. A tolerant society will have no (or at least non-pervasive) hate, while an intolerant society will have that hate focused on those same minorities. The hate doesn't go away, it just gets redirected from immigrants to whatever other subset of "different people" that society happens to have.

[Sheb]

Japan might have such a law indeed, but at the least it abides by the country's constitution, which New York's Stop and Frisk doesn't. ^^ Hasn't Bloomberg referred to the NYPD as his personal army at one point too? (¬_¬) The office has changed tenants since then, but I doubt anything important actually has...
The fact that LGBT rights are quickly catching up with the rest of the world is great~! but it is that they have to catch up in the first place that is the essence of what I meant!
My, my~ What you said at the end leads me perfectly into my next question, as I really wishn't this thread to be hijacked into "why Japan and the US have problems with civil rights general". (^_^;)
Of course, that's unless you want to keep discussing that topic! I will be glad to oblige in that case!

Okay, number two! Now that we have defined the value of an immigrant, what reason is there for an intolerant country to accept them? Can we allow the tolerant societies to become the host of all migrants while intolerant societies remain immigrant-free and locals not burdened with hate towards the freshly arrived migrant? As far as I know, the official answer to racism and xenophobia has been attracting more migration to the problematic areas so that diversity is increased, but this has only ended in escalation of hatred... （・_・） It also feels like forcing views onto others - the tolerant view of a tolerant society onto the intolerant one - for which I have a heartfelt disdain for in all aspects, no matter how noble the cause!
While thinking of an answer, I request that you keep the uniting factor of a common enemy in mind. ^^

Well, I'd like to point out that Stop and Frisk was stopped by a court for being unconstitutional. Took some time, but Right prevailed in the end.

Anyway, I don't know why you think that having immigrants coming to an "intolerant" society will only increase hatred. Intolerance ain't something that's built in a culture, it's something that's bred from not being exposed to other cultures. Just look at the recent Swiss votation on immigration for example. There is a fairly good correlation between the %age of immigrants in a canton and the no votes (I could try to dig up a graph if you really like, but I'm not sure where I found it): it's easy to dislike immigrants when you don't know them personally, but when you realize immigrants are people like that guy from work or that nice little lady that bake cakes for school, it becomes much harder.

Finally, I'd like to offer yet one more reason for accepting immigration: freedom of movements works both ways. As the Swiss are finding out, if you prevent a country's citizens from coming to you, this country will prevent you from going there. If you want to live in a world where you can just go and live abroad, you have to support the right of other peoples to come and live in your country.

[Evilsx]

*Read thread*
...So slow news week guys...

*Evilsx hid before being passively yelled typed at*

[Sheb]

You mean that Max White's posts about how terrible the refugees' situation is are less frequent than usual? :p

[Evilsx]

You mean that Max White's posts about how terrible the refugees' situation is are less frequent than usual? :p

More how the government is taking the Australian down like an train into the ground

[Max White]

Slow day in Australian news actually, all the major headlines are about our national(ish) airlines troubles. Not actually anything that important beyond stirring the loins of patriots. There is an old saying here in Australia I think fits well. Not happy Jan. Anyway, Sydney Refugee march 2: The refugeing is apparently due tomorrow. Somebody gave me a flier in the train station tunnel, he was being yelled at by a homeless guy...


I think multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism and open borders is ultimately incredibly important to a nations security. When everybody has family in all neighboring nations people are a lot more hesitant to go to war. Can you imagine two of the nations in the EU going into a military conflict these days? From what I can tell it just wouldn't ever happen. In the meantime Australia and Indonesia are both buffing up their armed forces and trying to play chicken with diplomacy. I don't think Indonesia would ever actually attack us when we give them so much aid, but with recent announcements to increasing the military spending I'm no longer sure what we would do.

[Sheb]

Of course you're not going to war. Where would Abbot put the refugees in Indonesia don't want them? Plus war may create MORE refugees, which we all know are spawns of Satan, the devil incarnate.

Or maybe he'll want to invade some islands and turn it into a giant concentration refugee camp?

[Evilsx]

Of course you're not going to war. Where would Abbot put the refugees in Indonesia don't want them? Plus war may create MORE refugees, which we all know are spawns of Satan, the devil incarnate.

Or maybe he'll want to invade some islands and turn it into a giant concentration refugee camp?

...And this why we can not have nice things in Australian ;p

[Max White]

Of course you're not going to war. Where would Abbot put the refugees in Indonesia don't want them?

Cambodia. No, this is no a joke. We have literally approached Cambodia and asked them to take our refugees.

[Sheb]

Yeah, I know, you've basically asked everyone in a 2000 km radius, haven't you? Don't you guys more or less rule on some small pacific islander nation like NZ do? Maybe you can dump your refugees on them, at least until sea level rises from CO2 emissions send them underwater.

[Max White]

Wouldn't be the first time NZ mopped up for us on the refugee thing.

[Reudh]

Yeah, I know, you've basically asked everyone in a 2000 km radius, haven't you? Don't you guys more or less rule on some small pacific islander nation like NZ do? Maybe you can dump your refugees on them, at least until sea level rises from CO2 emissions send them underwater.

We do. It's called Nauru. Our navy is responsible for their defense, and they use our dollar after their economy more or less collapsed in the 1970s. Their unemployment rate is absurdly high, and half of the employed Nauruans are employed at the detention centre.

[Sheb]

We have the Algerians, Moroccans etc do that for us here.

[Blargityblarg]

Incentivising immigrants to bolster the workforces of inland towns is actually one of the more reasonable propositions for what to do with them.

[Reudh]

Incentivising immigrants to bolster the workforces of inland towns is actually one of the more reasonable propositions for what to do with them.

Isn't one of the other suggestions that we.... i dunno, pay people to help them integrate by showing them around, teaching them how to find jobs and shit like that? Basic "this is how you live in Australia" stuff.

A viability study found that it was marginally cheaper than paying other countries to be our refugee-swallowers.