Print

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

[Antsan]

Well i'm probably biased so i expect the worst of those people.
Still i get the luxury of living in a nationalist shithole where muslims who are already here are literally considering leaving due to prejudice and their mosques getting regularly arsoned.
So i feel reasonably safe overall.
Better safe then sorry right?

You feel safe with people living around you who believe it is fine to set fire to the buildings of people who disagree with them.
Better safe from cultural differences than safe from arson, I guess.

[Sergarr]

Better safe then sorry right?

Historically, no. Extrajudicial murder (or attempts at murder; setting fire to buildings is very dangerous) does not make society safe. You'll end up in dystopian hell-hole of a society, wasting hopes and efforts of a better part of society under the crushing heel of prejudice and backwardness.

[scriver]

No, it's just that Belgium is part of the whole France-Germany block, so you wanting to route that grants them more power than they already have (and ignoring objections that it would mean less power and less sovereignity for smaller countries) isn't very surprising.

This is exactly directly related to the reason the EU doesn't work now and certainly wouldn't work as parliament-run - the "fuck you, got mine" attitude of it's most influential members.

How are we part of the German-French block? We are a small country, and I certainly wouldn't consider us one of the more influential member. Indeed, part of the reason I'm so ferociously pro-EU is that I'm persuaded that Belgium, left on its own, would be fucked without remorse by its neighbours.*

I see Belgium as part of the French-German block because economically you are part of the "face" of Germany and France through which their economies do trade, and culturally because Belgium is made up of Frenchmen and Germans. I was originally going to add "and government-wise Belgium functions much like Germany and France does", but I had to pretract it after thinking it over and realising I do not actually know if that is true. I would hazard a guess, though, that Belgium is a lot more like France and Germany than the Scandinavian countries, as well as the Swedish Model I would like to see my country returned to, are.

Of course, some countries have more influence that some others within the EU (it'd be rather antidemocratic if a couple hundred thousands cypriots had the same weight as millions of Swedes, no?). But what make you think that, without the EU, those power dynamic would be lesser? There would still be powerful and less powerful countries.

No, if anything, I'd like the EU to be run more like a proper federal country, where the issue that are better addressed at the European levels can be decided by an elected legislature representing the whole of Europe, rather than by the arguing of a few heads of governments.


* That's also part of the reason I've not really been arguing strongly for Brexin. I still think the UK should stay, but they are big enough that they wouldn't suffer too much on their own.

Bolded: No, a couple of hundred thousands of Cypriots should definitely have a whole lot more weight than millions of Swedes, or 6 billion Terrans for that matter, over what goes on in Cyprus. Democracy is not inherently good or beneficial. I as a Swede will not be able to vote for or influence the representatives of other countries, but it will in practice be those representatives, not my own, that govern Sweden. That is not good democracy. It can only be called representative democracy by the most technical and semantic means. People should not be governed by governments that they do not elect and that do not represent them.

Read the quote in his post, man. Antsan is responding to the idea that a hypothetical frictionless situation would be the worst possible thing for Europe.

Read the context of the posts, man. Vilanat is saying a hypothetical frictionless situation is an impossibility.

Why does it mean that we're giving up our own culture? I am really wanting for some description of how that would happen. Only because I'm letting people live near me and don't expect them to act as I do doesn't mean that I have to take on their culture.

Oh my. my neighboor is arabic and sweared at guy for eating a ham sandwich last month. I better not be seen by him carrying pork from the market.
Oh my. my neighboor said I/my wife dresses slutty and should wear a longer skirt. Better wear less revealing clothing lest he gets offended.
Oh my. some islamic teens broke windows in the house next door because whoever lived there had music playing on ramadan. Better not play any music lest i offend them too!

That's how you pretty much give in bit after bit slowly cooked like a frog not realizing the water is getting hotter.

Wow. So you're saying that you don't value your culture enough to actually protect it because it might be offensive, unless that protection is so drastic and offensive that it is beyond your moral event horizon.
Or in other words: You're too spineless to have a bit of a spat with people in the future, so you want soldiers to deal with the problem now.

In any of these situations, standing up for your culture would mean friction. He is making the argument that the only way to have a frictionless situation is to be, in your own words, "too spineless to have a bit of a spat with people".

[Antsan]

In any of these situations, standing up for your culture would mean friction. He is making the argument that the only way to have a frictionless situation is to be, in your own words, "too spineless to have a bit of a spat with people".

I did say "frictionless" I said "as little friction as possible".

You see, most of the friction is not about Muslims actually doing anything against our culture, but most of this friction is (so they claim) about what Muslims might do in the future, and that kind of friction is completely unneeded and serves no purpose but to generate more friction.
That means: The people generating this friction are radicalizing our society and thus make it a society in which people who come in are more likely to be (or stay) radicalized themselves.

I explained all of that already. Instead of lawyering about with the word "frictionless" you could maybe try and understand my argument, no?

[Sonlirain]

You feel safe with people living around you who believe it is fine to set fire to the buildings of people who disagree with them.
Better safe from cultural differences than safe from arson, I guess.

When everyone (who survived) shares your culture (or are too afraid to stand against it) you end up with a frictionless society.
Except this one is frictionless on the basis that causing friction means you get punched in the face until you either disappear or stop causing friction.
It works for Iran just fine. /s

Historically, no. Extrajudicial murder (or attempts at murder; setting fire to buildings is very dangerous) does not make society safe. You'll end up in dystopian hell-hole of a society, wasting hopes and efforts of a better part of society under the crushing heel of prejudice and backwardness.

I would agree but keep in mind that in this example "Prejudice and backwardness" were preemptively cauterized by more prejudice.

Anyway i think i should stop before a ban flies my way.

[scriver]

In any of these situations, standing up for your culture would mean friction. He is making the argument that the only way to have a frictionless situation is to be, in your own words, "too spineless to have a bit of a spat with people".

I did say "frictionless" I said "as little friction as possible".

You see, most of the friction is not about Muslims actually doing anything against our culture, but most of this friction is (so they claim) about what Muslims might do in the future, and that kind of friction is completely unneeded and serves no purpose but to generate more friction.
That means: The people generating this friction are radicalizing our society and thus make it a society in which people who come in are more likely to be (or stay) radicalized themselves.

I explained all of that already. Instead of lawyering about with the word "frictionless" you could maybe try and understand my argument, no?

1. I understand your argument. I made myself part of discussion because I think it is you who were misunderstanding the other people's arguments.

2. Please do not accuse me of "lawyering about" when just three sentences ago you were the one arguing the difference between "frictionless" and "as little friction as possible". You've clarified yourself, good. Now how does that matter at all in the context of the discussion? It doesn't.

[Antsan]

1. I understand your argument. I made myself part of discussion because I think it is you who were misunderstanding the other people's arguments.

2. Please do not accuse me of "lawyering about" when just three sentences ago you were the one arguing the difference between "frictionless" and "as little friction as possible". You've clarified yourself, good. Now how does that matter at all in the context of the discussion? It doesn't.

Okay, let me quote a part here:

In any of these situations, standing up for your culture would mean friction. He is making the argument that the only way to have a frictionless situation is to be, in your own words, "too spineless to have a bit of a spat with people".

This is why the distinction between "frictionless" and "as little friction as possible" is important in this discussion, especially with the constraint of preserving our culture.

No-friction is an unattainable fantasy, even in this scenario:

When everyone (who survived) shares your culture (or are too afraid to stand against it) you end up with a frictionless society.
Except this one is frictionless on the basis that causing friction means you get punched in the face until you either disappear or stop causing friction.
It works for Iran just fine. /s

Actually, especially in this scenario. He just ignores all of history to make a point of what I supposedly want when he doesn't understand the least bit about what kind of society this actually creates.

It's kind of tiring to be made out as "bleeding heart idiot", only because some people can't discern my blond hair from straw.

[Sonlirain]

I must admit. I didn't read any post that happened before mine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pduRbz7IbIo
Well looks like EA found a solution to the immigration crisis before it even began.

Yet i still wonder why taking in immigrants is supposedly so good and progressive while isolationist policies are bad.
USA was isolationist and had strict immigration screening for a good while and it didn't implode.
And so is Australia now.

It's kind of tiring to be made out as "bleeding heart idiot", only because some people can't discern my blond hair from straw.

Can you explain what's up with your fetish for diversity you westerners seem to all have?
Literally everyone around where i live wants homogenized societies divided by clear borders where each is to their own and sees the recent immigrant wave as a danger to the point of actually lashing out at muslims who lived here for generations and were assimilated long ago (I wish i was joking about the burning mosques but sadly no /s there).

[Sheb]

I see Belgium as part of the French-German block because economically you are part of the "face" of Germany and France through which their economies do trade,

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

and culturally because Belgium is made up of Frenchmen and Germans.

Nope. Some of us do speak french, but we're not Frenchmen, not any more than you're danish. And the German speaking population is so tiny as to be ignorable.

I was originally going to add "and government-wise Belgium functions much like Germany and France does", but I had to pretract it after thinking it over and realising I do not actually know if that is true. I would hazard a guess, though, that Belgium is a lot more like France and Germany than the Scandinavian countries, as well as the Swedish Model I would like to see my country returned to, are.

Euh. Maybe? I'm sure we're closer to scandinavian countries by some metric, closer to france by some other and closer to Germany by still other.

Overall, I totally fail to see your point here.

Bolded: No, a couple of hundred thousands of Cypriots should definitely have a whole lot more weight than millions of Swedes, or 6 billion Terrans for that matter, over what goes on in Cyprus. Democracy is not inherently good or beneficial. I as a Swede will not be able to vote for or influence the representatives of other countries, but it will in practice be those representatives, not my own, that govern Sweden. That is not good democracy. It can only be called representative democracy by the most technical and semantic means. People should not be governed by governments that they do not elect and that do not represent them.

I really have trouble with understanding this line of arguments. What if I was saying that "The people of Visby should have a lot more say than the people of Stockholm over what is going on in Visby! As an inhabitant of Visby I cannot vote or influence the representative of other parts of Sweden, but they will in practice govern me! That is only technically and semantically a democracy, I should not be governed by people elected by other parts of Sweden"? How is that different?

I mean, from the moment you're in a political unit with more than one person, you're going to be ruled, in part, by the wishes of those other persons. The question is simply which level of government, from you as an individual upward, is the best suited to make a decision. That's why every country got various layers of government.

Now, we can argue about which level of government, from local up to the EU is best suited to take which decision. I know we disagree on some points (I know we disagree on a European army for example), and agree on other (I don't want the EU to dictate how my education system is run). But do you really thing that having a supranational level of government to address those issues that cannot be addressed efficiently at lower level (tax evasion for exemple) is a bad thing?

[Antsan]

It's kind of tiring to be made out as "bleeding heart idiot", only because some people can't discern my blond hair from straw.

Can you explain what's up with your fetish for diversity you westerners seem to all have?
Literally everyone around where i live wants homogenized societies divided by clear borders where each is to their own and sees the recent immigrant wave as a danger to the point of actually lashing out at muslims who lived here for generations and were assimilated long ago (I wish i was joking about the burning mosques but sadly no /s there).

1. In my eyes, migration (and thus immigration) is inevitable. It will happen.
2. Germany has historically a big part in that this migration is currently happening. The time when the Osman Empire was dissolved seems relevant.
3. I already explained multiple times why I think acting hostile towards immigrants will lead to more problems than being welcoming.

[Sonlirain]

1. In my eyes, migration (and thus immigration) is inevitable. It will happen.
2. Germany has historically a big part in that this migration is currently happening. The time when the Osman Empire was dissolved seems relevant.
3. I already explained multiple times why I think acting hostile towards immigrants will lead to more problems than being welcoming.

I wanted to write some smartass retort but realized i'd probably get banned for it so here's the extract.

1 - Salmon is known for swimming up stream and is a prized fish while every piece of crap will gladly swim downstream.
2 - Germany was also historically responsible for starting WW2 and using slavs from conquered territories as slave labor that got paid off with a one time payment equal to around 600 (even for people who worked over 2 years in nazi germany) euro after the war ended and were told to sod off. I don't see how guilt can have anything to do with it.
3 - Maybe in the short term. Frictions will most likely grow with the number of migrants.

Yeah. I do it mainly because i believe strife is important for every healthy internet forum.
Kinda sad i'll never be a godzilla.

[scriver]

The difference is quite big. Firstly, the parties of Sweden all work on a national scale. They answer to all of Sweden. In the EU parliament, the parties would only answer to their own countries.

Secondly, there is a matter of scale. There is a big difference between the people of one country overruling another people, and of members of one people overuling other members of the same people. Swedes generally share culture, we have similar traditions, and want similar things from our government. Any differences of  between Swedes are still much, much smaller than Swedes and say, Frenchman. Just look at how different Sweden is (and/or was) from other countries around the world. Are you really so surprised that I don't want to be ruled by nations who in so many aspects embody what I don't want Sweden to become (and what my grand and greatparents also did not want it to be)?

Thirdly, and most importantly, Swedes give a shit about other Swedes. They do feel solidarity, loyalty, and community with the people of other parts of Sweden. There is an obligation to the rest of the people we share our nation with that keeps it from becoming a wolf-and-sheep situation. That is completely absent ,on the European scale. You cannot share a good democracy under those conditions, it only leads to tyranny of the majority.


@Antsan - since this turned into a meta discussion about the discussion I decided to send you a pm instead of continuing it here.

[Sheb]

All points that are hard to argue, because to a certain degree they are subjectives. That doesn't made them bad per se, though, and if a majority of people from a country feels that way, they should be able to secede (just like parts of a country should be, I think allowed to secede for the same reasons).

However, I'd posit that some of these arguments also work, up to a point, as argument for some kind of European government. Surely, Swedes are not Frenchmen. But wouldn't you say that a Frenchman, a German and a Swede have more in common between them than they have with an American or a Chinese?

I think some level of European solidarity also exist. Identities, those sense of belonging, aren't exclusive. You can be a Stockolmite, a Swede, a Scandinavian and a European. I feel more solidarity for a Walloon that for a Flemish, more for a Belgian than for a Spaniard, and more for a Spaniard than for a Canadian.

[Antsan]

1. In my eyes, migration (and thus immigration) is inevitable. It will happen.
2. Germany has historically a big part in that this migration is currently happening. The time when the Osman Empire was dissolved seems relevant.
3. I already explained multiple times why I think acting hostile towards immigrants will lead to more problems than being welcoming.

I wanted to write some smartass retort but realized i'd probably get banned for it so here's the extract.

1 - Salmon is known for swimming up stream and is a prized fish while every piece of crap will gladly swim downstream.
2 - Germany was also historically responsible for starting WW2 and using slavs from conquered territories as slave labor that got paid off with a one time payment equal to around 600 (even for people who worked over 2 years in nazi germany) euro after the war ended and were told to sod off. I don't see how guilt can have anything to do with it.
3 - Maybe in the short term. Frictions will most likely grow with the number of migrants.

Yeah. I do it mainly because i believe strife is important for every healthy internet forum.
Kinda sad i'll never be a godzilla.

1. Soundbite. You completely miss the point, which is that I do not decide whether immigrants will show up here – they just do. The things that could be done to stop them are out of the question for me – safe for improving the situation in their home country to the point where emigration becomes undesirable, but I was talking about things that could be done, right?
2. It's got nothing to do with guilt, it's about understanding why that stuff is happening and being able to do something about it. I should have left that out.
3. See (1)

[Sonlirain]

So you basically live in a democracy but simply give up when a problem arises making you the modern day Neville Chamberlain.
Hungarians are building a wall to force the migrants to go through war torn Ukraine and hopefully finally decide it's too dangerous turn back and troll Greece instead.
Meanwhile you're all "They will come anyway so why bother."

Sure leave the keys inside your car door.
If someone wants to steal it he can just break the window and hotwire it anyway so why even bother right?