Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[Synobun]

The refugees aren't going anywhere and they will have many more kids than your typical Westerner and will eventually out breed and then out vote you.

Is this a problem?

 

[KmDubya]

Is this a problem?

It will be if you intend to maintain the current culture in the region.

Look at the Scandinavian countries which currently are quite liberal in their views on gays and women. As immigrants become a larger percentage there that will change. There are numerous 'no go' zones for the police and I'd hazard a guess that women don't walk there either unless they are looking to pull a train. Eventually all women will start to wear at least headscarves to try to avoid assaults and homosexuals will need to hide.

That is what the future will be.

Or do you think that the immigrants who are racially, culturally and religiously different will some how morph into peaceful, tolerant, liberal Nordics?

 

[Synobun]

It will be if you intend to maintain the current culture in the region.

Look at the Scandinavian countries which currently are quite liberal in their views on gays and women. As immigrants become a larger percentage there that will change. There are numerous 'no go' zones for the police and I'd hazard a guess that women don't walk there either unless they are looking to pull a train. Eventually all women will start to wear at least headscarves to try to avoid assaults and homosexuals will need to hide.

That is what the future will be.

Or do you think that the immigrants who are racially, culturally and religiously different will some how morph into peaceful, tolerant, liberal Nordics?

I don't recall the Scandinavian nations obtaining a "we don't go to Ravenholm" reputation. Why do none of the Scandinavians I know talk about this?

Do you have a citation for the claim that there are lawless zones in, say, Sweden? That women live in fear there?

 

[KmDubya]

I don't recall the Scandinavian nations obtaining a "we don't go to Ravenholm" reputation. Why do none of the Scandinavians I know talk about this?

Do you have a citation for the claim that there are lawless zones in, say, Sweden? That women live in fear there?

I stand corrected then.

We should send all the refugees to Sweden, they seem to be doing fine.

 

[Synobun]

I stand corrected then.

We should send all the refugees to Sweden, they seem to be doing fine.

I'm not sure how "this place isn't a lawless hell" translates to "stuff every refugee onto a train to Sweden" but at any rate, most western nations are indeed capable of accepting more refugees within a proper framework. Whether or not these countries have one of those is another question but it is certainly a solvable problem.

 

[Ryika]

I don't recall the Scandinavian nations obtaining a "we don't go to Ravenholm" reputation. Why do none of the Scandinavians I know talk about this?

Do you have a citation for the claim that there are lawless zones in, say, Sweden? That women live in fear there?

I think that very much depends on the definition of "No-Go Zones". Are there zones that have fallen into anarchy? No. Have there been verified accounts of zones that are so dangerous that emergency doctors and delivery services don't want to go there? Yeah. Those areas are generally called "No-Go Zones", because they're areas where you can't go and be reasonably sure you're safe as an outsider.

We even have similar things happen in Germany, Berlin Wedding (The district is indeed called "Wedding") for example, although there it's caused by Arabs and Turks that were already there, and didn't come in with the refugee wave.

More recently, there's a story from Sweden about a feminist activist(!) calling attention about Islamic fundamentalists in the suburb that she lives in:

Famed feminist Nalin Pekgul, who called attention to the rising insecurity of women in the suburbs, says she now avoids the center of town in Tensta, where she lived for 30 years. And the former Left Party official Zeliha Dagli moved from Husby to the inner city.

Pekgul says she no longer feels safe in her home town, adding that Muslim fundamentalists now have full control of the center. She says "religious fundamentalists gained increasing space in the area and the place of women in the public sphere diminished," according to SVT, a television station in Sweden. Pekgul sought to raise the issue by holding coffee shop meetings, but she's been forced to give those up.

"It is clear that people have been incredibly aggressive towards me when I joined the center. Especially the last year, I ducked to sit at the restaurant that I used to sit on after several people have been on me really angry because I told you about these things," SVT reports.

“I always hope that it will blow over. One should never forget that the vast majority here are cursing the fundamentalists," she said.

Dagli has moved from the "no-go" suburb of Husby (a no-go area is one that even the police refuse to enter). She said the new Islamic refugees are acting as “morality police,” attempting to control women’s behavior in the area, SVT reports.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15006/feminists-sweden-flee-no-go-zones-overrun-islamic-joseph-curl#

I haven't done much digging into that particular story, but the woman seems to be a genuine activist who feels legitimately frightened. Of course, "feeling frightened" doesn't automatically mean that she is actually in danger, but it speaks volumes about the atmosphere there.

 

[Zkribbler]

I stand corrected then.

We should send all the refugees to Sweden, they seem to be doing fine.

They're doing quite well everywhere. The main problem is so-called Christians attacking them.

 

[Senethro]

Daily wire doesn't look like a high quality source.

 

[Traitorfish]

The allies put Germans and Japanese into internment camps.

Japanese-American internment is not, as a very general rule, looked back on as a Good Thing.

 

[aelf]

Aelf, there are hundreds of million of people in the middle East and North Africa, living in countries that were already brought to collapse (by NATO members playing the imperial game...) or are very likely to collapse in the near future (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Europe cannot and will not accommodate these hundreds of millions if they ever try to flee there. And they will try because the alternative will be famine and death. It would mean doubling the population of Europe with foreigners. It is politically impossible, and for a number of reasons.
To be brutally honest, if that ever comes to pass european countries will simply kill enough of those in transit until they deter the others. The military are already busy with the planning, and their working assumptions is that the collapses of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are inevitable, and Turkey is in doubt weather it will be an ally or enemy. This will not be called a genocide, but in terms of human suffering can become a disaster as great as ww2. And it has nothing to do with Islam but that the religion is those countries near Europe is Islam. Were they buddhists the problems would be the same. Is is about poverty, cultural differences, and numbers.

There is only one way to avert such a disgrace. That is to avoid the collapse of these countries in the first place. All the ink spent on how we should be helping immigrants and refugees now is a distraction for bleeding hearth liberals to congratulate themselves while cheering the bombing of foreign countries. And hiring some cheap labour as a bonus. If you are concerned about the welfare of people the focus must be, now, on preventing people from becoming refugees. Though in that we are very limited because the people of those countries have agency and even if they do get help things can go wrong. But prevent wars and the deliberate fomenting of instability there (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc) is fundamental to have any chance of preventing this catastrophe. I have some hope in that even some of the usual warmongers recoiled from trying to destroy Egypt, fearful of the consequences. But still those countries seriously need help: access to technology, and investment not only meant to extract more profit in the end. With one nonnegotiable condition: an immediate end to population growth. China did it, so can these do.

Talk about human rights is cheap. The reality is hard. But this can end well, provided that we have an honest public discussion about the issues and take rational actions now to prevent the nightmare scenarios in the future. The big problem is that this public discussion is lacking because the media refuses to handle the hard facts, or they handle them selectively. The "right-wing" media refuses discussions that western governments have been fomenting wars and ruining people's lives, crating millions of refugees. The "liberal" and "left" media refuses to admit the fact that there are limits to the number of immigrants any country will take without social breakdown. What remains of the old school "materialist/marxist left" talks about this as it always did, but has been shut down to a niche position. One of the things I liked in them is that they eventually gave a lot of though to the difficulties of internationalism in a world comprised of nations - had their fair share of failures with it, but do argue over these issues.

See my earlier post. You're also talking about the numbers of immigrants being accepted as opposed to the issue of integration.

 

[Ryika]

Daily wire doesn't look like a high quality source.

Think about what you're doing here. You complain about the source of the article I posted, but don't actually put any effort in trying to verify or disprove the story.
What do you honestly think, why is that your answer? Ask yourself: Why was that your instinct, instead of honestly looking into the story and seeing whether it could be true or not?
Because to me it seems like you're trying to close your eyes towards actual problems, and you're not helping anybody by doing that.

Here's an article from svt, a major tv network from Sweden that is pretty far to the left politically ("lol, citing Wikipedia!"), and known for pretty balanced reports (as far as I can tell via some really quick and dirty research at least, I'm not from Sweden.). It pretty much tells the exact same story, in a more calm and less dramatic way, while directly speaking with the politician and activist (and it was probably the source that the Daily Wide picked up):
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/stockholm/kanda-feminister-lamnar-orten

 

[Senethro]

Respectfully, how about you post a decent link the first time?

 

[El_Machinae]

Ryika, actually, complaints about links are fair. Depending on the type of link someone provides, we can actually very easily make conclusions about the slant of the spin and the reading habits of the person providing them. So, the complaint is a very useful feedback for you. You know now to not use that source when trying to sway an opinion. The person complaining about the link is merely the person to step forward and tell you what others are going to implicitly do.

When RomanKing dumped his list-o-links, I only scanned through and clicked links that I knew didn't come from a place of bias. All of his typing and copy/pasting was mostly useless, because an incredible number of people did the same thing.

Some news sources are worse than others. It's just better to know that other people think this, and work around it. You need to otherwise bank on your personal reputation in order to get people to read a low-reputation link.

It's not your society; it's everybody's. That's basically what 'society' means. As soon as you start defining society in terms of 'us' and 'them', you're on a slippery slope. (And yet, plenty of people do this.)

Sure. A person will flit between whether a specific change is good for them or in general when trying to make a decision. I can also play a meta-game, and acknowledge that other people are doing the same

I can read this twice and still not get what you're asking. But see above.

Wouldn't you expect a muslim to be more horrified at the idea of a suicide bomber targeting civilians?

You'd have a better argument saying we don't want Muslims, because they are being targeted by Muslim extremists. But oddly, that's not the argument. (Personally, I'd start worrying if 5-10 % of the population are involved in terrorist attacks. Because seriously, that's a lot of people.)

I'm not saying we don't want muslims. Never was. I am saying that a high tolerance for suicide bombings is a significant impediment to integration. It's merely an acknowledgement of an impediment. It says nothing of its cause. It gives nothing about a solution. Though I do not accept the idea that it's an acceptance that should just be tolerated. It's an unacceptable acceptance. But, again, I am not giving any type of prescription.

You're continuing to focus on the statistical threat, in order to poo poo the concern. That would be fine, if the concern was based on violence. I've repeatedly said that it's not. So, either you're stuck on a bone, or you don't believe me.

I use 0.01% and 2% as thresholds for violence and for sociopathic ideology for a reason. Sociopathic schizophrenics run at about 0.01% of any population. So, even if there are murders performed in the name of an ideology, it doesn't mean much, there will always be a low-boil of such things.

2% is the rough level of anti-social behaviour. This means that roughly 2% of people are quite willing to hurt others to get their way, and they're not concerned about long-term consequences. When a sociopathic meme has a greater penetrance than this, then it's a concern about the actual memespace and not merely something we'd expect.

This is why I had my original question, and it was an honest one.
What level of tolerance for suicide bombing of civilians would concern you? Not for fear for yourself or for other. I am not asking whether you're scared.

 

[RomanKing]

Is this a problem?

It's not a problem if you want your children to grow up in a society like Pakistan.

When RomanKing dumped his list-o-links, I only scanned through and clicked links that I knew didn't come from a place of bias. All of his typing and copy/pasting was mostly useless, because an incredible number of people did the same thing.

And this is why people like yourself have been utterly defeated. You just admitted to disregarding any information that you don't already agree with, then you have the arrogance and condescension to accuse others of being in an echo-chamber, or to be ill-informed. It's really an extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics that one must stand in awe of.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Pakistan's problem is that their military intelligence service hasn't figured out that using Islamist militants as foreign policy tools is a bad idea. Despite the fact that it keeps blowing up in their face, they keep doing it.
Afghanistans problem:The Pakistani Military Intelligence Service.

 

[RomanKing]

Pakistan's problem is that their military intelligence service hasn't figured out that using Islamist militants as foreign policy tools is a bad idea. Despite the fact that it keeps blowing up in their face, they keep doing it.

Yeah, I mean things like honor killings, FGM, and suicide bombings aren't a problem at all with that culture and religion.

 

[Farm Boy]

Suicide bombings at least show a measure of dedication. Entirely less callous than the drone bombings secular extremists seem to have a hard-on for.

 

[RomanKing]

So you and the fam will be taking a little vacay in Pakistan this summer?

 

[Farm Boy]

Neither particularly does it for me.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, Roman. Our ability to spot known bias is an advantage. It saves me from reading geology articles on flatearth.com and biology articles on creation.com. For you to not be able to work around it is a disadvantage.

If you're frothing at what you read at biased cites, but actually cannot get others to read what concerns you, that's a failure on your part. You either have to build a reputation, or learn to know how to communicate effectively.

If you cannot find evidence outside your echo chamber, then it's also a reason to suspect the honesty of the person writing the article.

You merely need empathy. If you've skipped an article from a leftie link presented by a leftie, then you know why we actually ignored a lot of your links