Print

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

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[Neonivek]

left-wing groups say refugees are all enlightened grateful victims of ISIS and will shore up Europe's economy.

Actually no. The left just says that they are ultimately the victims in all of this and shouldn't be treated as criminals because they are part of a "unwanted" sector of the world.

They make no claim that they are enlightened... While yes the Right HAS made claims that they are rapists and criminals before.

I don't think that's quite true. They might not outright claim that refugees are all humanist universalists in the Western style, but refusing to address the very obvious conflict that comes from originating in cultures where homosexuality is a severe crime, gender roles are beyond mandatory, and religious piety is way, way more important (and of a different religion to boot) is just about the same thing. Acting like it is the case instead of stating it.

Well I happen to live in a country where exactly that HAS happened where people from Muslim countries have killed their wives in Honor Killings... Which is considered unacceptable by our Muslim Canadian Chapter (and mostly... it is an excuse). But honestly... No. It isn't an issue.

But I see what you are saying, it is a "common sense" approach to something that seems like it would be a problem. That these are people who would kill, murder, maim to enact the laws of their previous country and their own prejudices.

However... There is no evidence to suggest that refuges commit more crimes and in many places in the world outside the UK, they actually commit less crime. A 2008 study suggests that refugees commit crimes in equal number to the people who live here.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

All I'm saying is that Last Week Tonight's writing tightbeam is focused exclusively on 18-25 year old American leftists. Wrong?

How was one supposed to parse that from this?

Mostly his continuous downplaying of the refugee crisis as anything other than Evil European Racists trying to hurt innocent people.

I thought you were responding to this:

Also, that his shilling is so very specific, and I say that as the targeted demographic and political persuasion.

But also, I was just saying why people hate him.  I dont even think you are among the haters seeing as you just said you had watched him.

Middling. Sometimes he really hits it out of the park (Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption), other times not so much ("SUSAN!" "It's current year!").

I mean...it's the exact same formula as the Daily Show, just with more swearing. It's what made TDS a success with that exact demographic. I take no stance on whether you should or should not dislike that. But it's not new.

I don't recall the Daily Show progressing every episode with Introduce Issue -> Show Video Clips -> Make Fun Of Them And Set Up Real-World Joke ->"Now let's have a serious discussion interspersed with frivolous comments that are funny simply due to juxtaposition" -> Second Clip Segment -> Do Something Outside Show Context As Final Joke ->See you next week!, but even if it did then it did so well enough to not be annoying. There's something to be said for the quality of how you present a formula determining whether it's good or bad.

Find the middle ground instead of just feeding the machine on either side? That two ideas are not mutually exclusive: Europe has a moral obligation to help, and doing so comes with additional costs, risk and challenges? That some refugees are "good elements" that will ultimately help the European economy, and some are "bad elements" that will commit crime.

Essentially what I believe is this, but it's a bitter position to take in that things like this almost never get addressed as such by politicians. It's like with poverty, welfare, rehabilitative prisons, either the subjects are all degenerate subhuman criminals or they're all pure saints kept down by the system, man.

Well I happen to live in a country where exactly that HAS happened where people from Muslim countries have killed their wives in Honor Killings... Which is considered unacceptable by our Muslim Canadian Chapter (and mostly... it is an excuse). But honestly... No. It isn't an issue.

I think it's kind of dismissive of cultures where honor killings are the norm to say that it's "just an excuse". It's horridly wrong, but it isn't just because they would have committed murder anyway.

But I see what you are saying, it is a "common sense" approach to something that seems like it would be a problem. That these are people who would kill, murder, maim to enact the laws of their previous country and their own prejudices.

However... There is no evidence to suggest that refuges commit more crimes and in many places in the world outside the UK, they actually commit less crime. A 2008 study suggests that refugees commit crimes in equal number to the people who live here.

They need not commit more crimes, necessarily. What I want to have data on is the proportion of hate crimes, specifically against women, queer people, and apostates. But even starting such an inquiry would get you fire from some.

[mainiac]

Some probably.  Some people will get offended at anything.  But would a real, honest study using the latest practices actually lead to offense?

[Neonivek]

I think it's kind of dismissive of cultures where honor killings are the norm to say that it's "just an excuse". It's horridly wrong, but it isn't just because they would have committed murder anyway

That is the thing. It ISN'T the Norm. they are bringing up a practice that just isn't done, is outright said not to do it, as simply an excuse.

It would be like saying when the KKK kill a homosexual that it is because it is the Christian Norm to do so.

They need not commit more crimes, necessarily. What I want to have data on is the proportion of hate crimes, specifically against women, queer people, and apostates. But even starting such an inquiry would get you fire from some

Believe it or not... No.

The UK has attempted to do studies to try to prove Refugees are scum before and to my knowledge no one was fired.

But as for a study to see who does hate crimes. Easy peasy! If anything the LEFT would want this study as well.

[GiglameshDespair]

Edit: They also refuse to engage in informal talks before invoking article 50. Seems they're going with the "Punish the British for leaving" route.

Frankly? Good.

Actions have consequences and it isn't the EU's job to make sure the UK is comfortable for their spiteful move.

It's not the EU's job to be spiteful, either, and trying to punish the UK is definitely spiteful.

except their was only 70ish percent turnout and both sides but especially the leavers outright lied about what a brexit would lead to and many people stupidly made protest votes and such. also two of the kingdoms in the united kingdom voted strongly in favor of staying.

70% turn is the highest voter turnout in years. Those who didn't even vote have no right to complain against a result they dislike.

Interestingly, this says that Scotland and Northern Ireland  had the lowest turnouts.

[Neonivek]

It's not the EU's job to be spiteful, either, and trying to punish the UK is definitely spiteful.

The UK's job is to try to get ALL the benefits of the EU while leaving. "We are leaving, but can we still get all the trade agreements?"

While the EU is going "HA HA! Nice try! No, you are going to leave and once you do... Then we will negotiate with you as an outsider"

It is frankly less spiteful then the UK is unreasonable. As well dropping someone this hard for leaving is in the best interest of the EU, showing that leaving doesn't get you a cushy free ride to independence.

[nenjin]

I don't recall the Daily Show progressing every episode with Introduce Issue -> Show Video Clips -> Make Fun Of Them And Set Up Real-World Joke ->"Now let's have a serious discussion interspersed with frivolous comments that are funny simply due to juxtaposition" -> Second Clip Segment -> Do Something Outside Show Context As Final Joke ->See you next week!, but even if it did then it did so well enough to not be annoying. There's something to be said for the quality of how you present a formula determining whether it's good or bad.

Uhm....other than the interview portion of the show, you pretty much described the formula for both of them to a T. To a T mate. The only difference to me is that LWT takes a stronger stance on average than TDS on most issues. (Haven't really watched TDS since Jon Stewart left.) But the gimmicks, the outrage, the silliness.....pretty much identical to me. If anything JO is a guilty of a little too much try hard, but lord knows Jon Stewart was guilty of the same at various points in the show's history.

That is the thing. It ISN'T the Norm. they are bringing up a practice that just isn't done, is outright said not to do it, as simply an excuse.

It's a completely valid legal defense in some countries. Does that make it the norm? I don't know. But acting as if it's an aberration for fathers to kill female members of their family group who have shamed them in the eyes of society is also wrong. It's not an aberration.

It's not the EU's job to be spiteful, either, and trying to punish the UK is definitely spiteful.

Or it's a point of order? The EU wants to avoid Britain being in limbo as much as Britain does.

[LoSboccacc]

Europe has a moral obligation to help

and why is so? is the whole argument standing on feel-good morals?

if you keep offering refuge to the ones that want to live in a better country, at which point their home will become better? especially if you take the educated, moderate and willing to work.

[Orange Wizard]

Looking at various opinions, the leave camp still seems to think the EU should give them special treatment.

Europe has a moral obligation to help

and why is so? is the whole argument standing on feel-good morals?

What the hell? People are suffering en masse, coming to you for help, and you turn them away because it'd somewhat inconvenience you?

[mainiac]

Europe has a moral obligation to help

and why is so? is the whole argument standing on feel-good morals?

You want John Oliver's arguments?  Maybe you could try watching his show and learn what his arguments are.

Of course you could just watch it and then mischaracterize his views for strawman arguments.  So you actually have two options.

[LoSboccacc]

and so? how is that helping their country? pacify the place if you want to help.

how many refugees went back once their home conflict was resolved?

[Playergamer]

Europe has a moral obligation to help

and why is so? is the whole argument standing on feel-good morals?

What the hell? People are suffering en masse, coming to you for help, and you turn them away because it'd somewhat inconvenience you?

Well, as an American, I can say that we're turning them away because they hate the west and want to kill us.

[nenjin]

Europe has a moral obligation to help

and why is so? is the whole argument standing on feel-good morals?

If you were fleeing a war-torn country, traveled thousands of miles and risked to life and limb to do so, would you want someone to graciously offer to help you rebuild your life when you finally arrive?

"No, I'd want them to tell me to fuck off and go ruin someone else's country."

Treat others as you'd want to be treated is the moral imperative. I'd make the same argument if they were coming to American shores in the same numbers as well. But you also have to account for reality, and that not every European country can shoulder the burden equally. So you come up with a system to sensibly redistribute refugees where they can be accommodated the best, not over tax social services, not live in giant refugee camps....rather than just slamming your doors and declaring the road is closed. Oh wait...they tried that until several European countries went "Nah, I don't think so. Good luck trying to be a decent human being."

I hate to use kids as an example, but, are you really going to tell a family with children who haven't done anything yet in their lives to earn the kind of enmity that is regularly handed out to their people...are you really going to say there's no moral imperative to help? Because that'd be cold-blooded.

Well, as an American, I can say that we're turning them away because they hate the west and want to kill us.

"They" is a pretty broad, unqualified category of people.

[Wolfhunter107]

Europe has a moral obligation to help

and why is so? is the whole argument standing on feel-good morals?

What the hell? People are suffering en masse, coming to you for help, and you turn them away because it'd somewhat inconvenience you?

Well, as an American, I can say that we're turning them away because they hate the west and want to kill us.

And as another American, I can say that that's bullshit.

[Orange Wizard]

and so? how is that helping their country? pacify the place if you want to help.

I don't give a shit about the country, I care about the people.

how many refugees went back once their home conflict was resolved?

The conflict isn't resolved.

Well, as an American, I can say that we're turning them away because they hate the west and want to kill us.

That's such an American thing to say