That's "people thinking immigrants are coming for the social benefits", not "immigrants are coming for the social benefits"
German multicultural society "has failed" -- Chancellor Merkel
- Thread starter Babbler
- Start date
That's "people thinking immigrants are coming for the social benefits", not "immigrants are coming for the social benefits"
Why is racist pictures from the past century relevant?
And secondly, America even then was a beacon of tolerance, because in China, foreigners were killed, not just insulted.
Oh i need reading comprehension lol
)))
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
You mean like claiming that "Sharia law" has come to Germany and that "honor killings" were occurring. How she wants them all to "conform" to her own Christian standards, even those who are not even citizens?
I think Merkel is the one who needs the use of the sock. Her intolerance of Muslims is showing.
My point, Teekee, is that the same anti-immigrant prejudices and ideas have been around for a very long time. The arguments that people like you and Yeekim and Ayn Rand and whoever else make were once made in Australia, America and elsewhere against the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese, the Italians, etcetera. Hell, substitute "terrorism" for "anarchism" or "popery" and you're pretty much back in the 1920s.
Absolutely. Except that I do not advocate "intolerance of other cultures merely because they are different".
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table
What do you think is the source of difference between Barbados and Haiti?
Preferably by performing objective analysis of available data? Connected to my answer to Form, do you think it would be of benefit to Barbados to accept 100,000 Haitians or no?
So if a hypothetical Eastern European nation arrived to Australia, but:
1) refused to do any work;
2) refused to send their kids to school;
3) refused to speak a word of English,
you would not consider them disruptive but actually beneficial to society?
hmmmm.... ow I might be a simple country manana but isn't that where the resentment from Germans are coming from? That these wonderful angels of heaven do not want to follow German law. Otherwise, we should be seeing equal xenophobia against the board, but it seems to be funneled only at Muslims.
So then.... how do we live with them?
Oh Yeah! give it to me baby!
Just like East Europeans and their Crime waves of the 90's!!!
But there was always a very easy explanation for it. It was only Jewish Russians who were in the Mafia... but I guess this is bad explanation because it blames one prejudice for another.... 
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
So what do you base your own personal intolerance upon? How "corrupt" you think they are? Aren't you really judging how different their culture is when you try to conflate corruption with how you personally perceive their morals compared to your own?
And what about Qatar at #22 or the UAE at #30? Aren't those Muslim countries? They both seem to be about as "corrupt" as Estonia is based on this survey of "perceptions".
Where the people who responded to this absurd question would prefer to spend their holiday?
Do you honestly think the US is #19 in corruption worldwide?
Meaningless question. Migrant groups don't behave like that. Hell no ethnic or national group does. People are individuals and have individual characteristics.
Corruption was merely a convenient example. Say that Afghanistan was to join German Republic as 17th state tomorrow. Do you think it would create problems, or no? If yes, what would be the primary source of these problems?
You can not answer or you don´t want to?
I guess you know better, right? Would you then tell us where the US should be in that ranking and elaborate why?Do you honestly think the US is #19 in courruption worldwide?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
So Muslims who emigrated from the country of Qatar would be slightly better citizens than Christians from Estonia? Is that what you are trying to say here?
I think your premise is basically absurd. I think how a handful of people perceive corruption of public officials in various nations has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
Seeing how incredibly corrupt Congress is, I don't think it should even be in the top half, much less the top 10%.
You change your goalposts with every post. You said you
My example needs to do nothing with reality to show how absurd that is. Maybe I will take my time to find a cross-ethnic collection of individuals who do behave exactly like this.
Why don't you just answer my question, instead of trying to skirt it?
No, see, what happened is you listed three things as "hostile" behaviours which a migrant group, as a whole, could exhibit. (Since everyone belonging to a particular cultural or ethnic group is the same, apparently)
But no. Hostility implies intent and malevolence. These things you listed are just individual traits that some people have. Some individuals just don't like working. Some people, particularly many adults, find languages very difficult. Some people just have a conservative outlook. None of these three things are group traits exhibited en masse by any ethnic group, migrant or otherwise.
And none are particularly "hostile". Nobody attacks broader society with their laziness or their inability to learn a language.
And if they're the best you can do in answer to my challenge to define a "hostile" but legal custom, then clearly my point is made.
But no. Hostility implies intent and malevolence. These things you listed are just individual traits that some people have. Some individuals just don't like working. Some people, particularly many adults, find languages very difficult. Some people just have a conservative outlook. None of these three things are group traits exhibited en masse by any ethnic group, migrant or otherwise.
And none are particularly "hostile". Nobody attacks broader society with their laziness or their inability to learn a language.
And if they're the best you can do in answer to my challenge to define a "hostile" but legal custom, then clearly my point is made.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
You mean the one which obviously has nothing to do with this topic? How many Afghans are currently living in Europe, much less Germany?
And why aren't you answering my question? Are Qatar Muslims slightly better citizens than Christian Estonians because some people perceive their public officials to be slightly less corrupt?
And why aren't you answering my question? Are Qatar Muslims slightly better citizens than Christian Estonians because some people perceive their public officials to be slightly less corrupt?
Let me answer the question Yeekim is skirting from.
YES!
The Taliban would be getting all up in Die Duesthland's grills... Otherwise... Germans would die trying to Police Afghanistan.. which is a failed state.
aelf
Ashen One
So, in other words, your point has got little or nothing to do with culture?
It has everything to do with this topic. If someone was to suggest that it would be a good idea to join Afghanistan to Germany as 17th state, he would rightly be considered fit for insane asylum.
On the other hand, people are seemingly willing to die rather than admit that unlimited influx of too many Afghans into Germany might create problems.
And the question "how many Afghans are currently living in Germany" is irrelevant. The countries were completely randomly picked.
It depends where. I am sure they would be much more welcome in dozens of countries, primarily in Mideast. Also, I will repeat, this time in larger front: Corruption was merely a convenient example.
Culture is quite a bit more than skin color and national cuisine.
Well, because you asked for three "hostile" behaviours which a migrant group, as a whole, could exhibit. (Since everyone belonging to a particular cultural or ethnic group is the same, apparently).
You are defining "hostile" in too narrow terms to make any sense. Anything "intentionally malevolent" would obviously be illegal, wouldn't it? But ignorance and laziness, if widespread enough, will reduce a country to a hellhole just as quickly as any civil war. That should be self-evident enough.
aelf
Ashen One
What? I asked how you could ask who is or who is not welcome in a thread about multiculturalism without making normative judgements about values or labeling whole groups of people and you cited an example that has more to do with the capacity of the host country. If anyone is trying to equivocate or move goal posts, it's you.
PS: Also, quite typically you try to shift a debate about multiculturalism and tolerance towards a more economic one about immigration. No wonder you think there is some sort of objective data analysis to be done. Instead of tolerance, we're talking capitalism here. Frankly, it's unsurprising coming from one of those who like to quantify everything, whether or not they are actually quantifiable by themselves without some sort of obfuscation.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It was in a response to a discussion as to the usefulness of the term "ghetto" in application to any and all immigrant enclaves. Nothing more.
Are suggesting that there is such as a thing as "accidental hostility"?
I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but that simply doesn't make any sense. Hostility is defined by a negative attitude towards something, it is not merely incidental to it.I am sorry if I misunderstood you - you seemed to be insinuating that there were no remarkable cultural differences between Barbados and Haiti. So you think the biggest problem is the capacity of host country, (presumably, as in availability of literal space and natural resources)?
Very well. Say we want to move 1.5 million Haitians to New Zealand. This will leave host´s population density comfortably around 22 people/sqkm.
I don't think even the most ardent proponents of ethnically pure nation states care how the "potential" immigrants behave themselves at their country of origin. To the contrary, I believe they would rather advocate that these people have the right to be left alone with their customs, however backwards they may be. The debate is so closely connected to immigration because proponents of multiculturalism insist that people must be ever accepting of foreigners despite their potentially adverse economic effect. For instance, I got bogged down in this debate as I was asked why I wouldn't like "a lot" of Muslims immigrating to Estonia.
This was the post that started it all. In this context, I believe you could safely substitute "hostile" with "detrimental".Are suggesting that there is such as a thing as "accidental hostility"?
