warpus
In pork I trust
Spoiler :
Looks like Chinatown to me. It smells like fish but it isn't a ghetto
Purely theoretical question for you: Should a "progressive society" tolerate Nazis?Um, I don't think anyone said that multiculturalism (as distinct from immigration, which can be encouraged for purely economic reasons) is about money so much as about tolerance worthy of a progressive society. That's why all the Nazi comparisons were made, because the Nazis were an extreme example of intolerance.
Don't blame the multiculturalism when you guys simply fail at it.
Purely theoretical question for you: Should a "progressive society" tolerate Nazis?
So we agree that "progressive society" actually needs to determine whom it can tolerate, meaning that "universal tolerance" actually is not a workable thumb rule.But if they acted on their beliefs, then no.
Who in Christ's name ever said that it was?So we agree that "progressive society" actually needs to determine whom it can tolerate, meaning that "universal tolerance" actually is not a workable thumb rule.
I don't think anyone is arguing that immigrants should stop eating certain foods that they like. But to demand that customs hostile to the host country's culture are dealt with is not unreasonable.
I think it is quite simple. People should be held responsible for their acts, not their thoughts.So we agree that "progressive society" actually needs to determine whom it can tolerate, meaning that "universal tolerance" actually is not a workable thumb rule.
Ironically, you could be speaking of Merkel's position in this matter as others have already pointed out.I might say that such knee-jerk reactions coupled with blind conformance to some dogma actually has an eerie reminiscence to Nazism all of its own.
1) Regarding work as something that is beneath true man.Without citing something which is illegal, please name three such "hostile" customs.
A good guideline in criminal justice. Not so much in immigration policy.I think it is quite simple. People should be held responsible for their acts, not their thoughts.
So we agree that "progressive society" actually needs to determine whom it can tolerate, meaning that "universal tolerance" actually is not a workable thumb rule.
Yeekim said:Why is then every attempt to question whether any particular group of people is welcome and beneficial addition to "progressive society" met with instantaneous a priori ridicule? First few replies to OP make a perfect example, I believe.
Yeekim said:EDIT: To make this even clearer: all that Merkel had to do was say that immigrants who won't bother to integrate even as much as to learn German need to do more and first four people pull a Godwynn on her. I believe, being so progressive and enlightened must have felt really good. However, I might say that such knee-jerk reactions coupled with blind conformance to some dogma actually has an eerie reminiscence to Nazism all of its own.
No. Say there are simply people who tend to express at least one type of behavior of the 3 examples I brought to Arwon.Are there militant Nazis trying to migrate to Germany? Or known Islamic militants/terrorists?
Please stop putting words into my mouth.If not, then you should be able to see why you get ridiculed. Because you're either making ridiculous judgements about whose values are superior and "needed" or you're simply labeling a whole group of people as violent.
I am not trying to attribute this behavior to any group. For this, I lack sufficient data. However, do you agree that if there were such people, their behavior could be described as "hostile, yet not illegal"? I was replying to the question you asked, mind you.No dice, Yeekim. The first two can hardly be attributed to migrants (and education is compulsory in most sensible countries). Hell, most of the time migrants work harder than everyone else. Since that's what they're in a country to do.
The third is not an issue - the people who don't learn a language in a new country are mostly the older folks who can't. They also don't tend to migrate much, unless it's with their children who do learn the language.
No. Say there are simply people who tend to express at least one type of behavior of the 3 examples I brought to Arwon.
Yeekim said:Please stop putting words into my mouth.
I think it could be fairly said that intolerance of other cultures merely because they are different is the epitome of bigotry. Take the Jews in Nazi Germany, for instance.A good guideline in criminal justice. Not so much in immigration policy.
What do you consider to be the "most and least corrupt country"? And what does that possibly have to do with this topic?I could argue that most crucial difference between the most and the least corrupt country in the world is in how people there think.
Indeed, it has a lot do to with class, but with the added ingredient of segregation.
If you concentrate a lot of low-class people who share one thing in common: their immigrant ancestry, it's a no brainer that they'll get a "Us" vs "Them", which is a failure of the multicultural society.
Let's try an example:
"Immigrant cluster"? Certainly. But "ghetto"?
I am not trying to attribute this behavior to any group. For this, I lack sufficient data. However, do you agree that if there were such people, their behavior could be described as "hostile, yet not illegal"? I was replying to the question you asked, mind you.
You mean like what happened to Chinese in the US where they were forbidden to even emigrate until the 60s, even after they were treated like subhumans while building our railroads?Ok so this is where we must be specific. No one has ever said anything bad about Chinese immigrants, they do not cause trouble.
It's always some group. Isn't it? It used to be the Jews. It's always been the Gypsies. Who's next?It is Muslim immigrants that people are angry about, especially the recent Homegrown terror plots of German-Muslims.
No dice, Yeekim. The first two can hardly be attributed to migrants (and education is compulsory in most sensible countries). Hell, most of the time migrants work harder than everyone else. Since that's what they're in a country to do.
The study - by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think-tank - also showed that roughly the same number thought that some 16 million of Germany's immigrants or people with foreign origins had come to the country for the social benefits.
Foreign workers
You mean like what happened to Chinese in the US, where they were forbidden to even emigrate until the 60s, after they were treated like subhumans while building our railroads?
It's always some group. Isn't it? It used to be Jews. Who's next?