European Muslim Hate Poll

[Rotobeast]

Ok fellas, tear it apart....
Hollo !!!

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration

[*michaelsean*]

What? This is made up. Europe is all sophisticated, and we are a bunch of barbarians.

[hollodero]

(02-15-2017, 02:47 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Ok fellas, tear it apart....
Hollo !!!

Yeah, what's up. Oh right. Our muslim hate's up.

Couple things. First, and I do not mean to diminish things, the numbers seem a bit high. I've developed a certain mistrust towards polls, especially regarding my country. Which is fueled by the fact that polls got it astonishly wrong at many of our latest elections. Comically, not-even-close wrong. Plus, the word "Zuwanderung" (migration) that was asked often is used in a way that excludes asylum seekers/refugees. When it's interpreted that way... I'm not so sure how opposed I myself would actually be.
A 50/50 split would be closer to my personal experience. Which is still staggering. So there's that.

This anti-muslim half... well, there is no sugercoating it, some of them are formed by our basket of deplorables. Which does exist, here, in the US and everywhere, Hillary was not wrong on that one. I explicitely have to add that it's not all of them. Some of these people are reasonable and make decent points I hardly can debunk completely.

Two things. For one, I want to help every poor soul that flees death and destruction from Syria. I don't expect them to fight for their country in a civil war where no side can be seen as the one who puts their country first. I also want to help those who are prosecuted in some 6th century backwards Arab country because they oppose the Sheikh, blog critical stuff or are gay or whatever. It's a moral obligation for the first group (well both groups) and the smart thing to do for the second group. Strengthen the moderates on every level, the potential reformers. Only way, the way I see it, to deal with Islam.

On the other hand, our politicians are too silent on many things. The far left is to be forgotten. They don't even consider limiting the numbers of refugees at ANY point and call everyone who sees things differently a whole lot of unpleasant, debate-stopping things. That pisses me off that they completely lost me. And it pisses so many people off that they go to the other extreme. 
There's things that need to be faced. Islam is not just a religion of peace, but rather an ideology that is very susceptible to radicalization. Because they are backwards in many middle eastern countries, lacking any kind of secularisation or Enlightenment. There is religious motivated violence, though the really good people deny that terror and stuff should play any role in an evaluation of islamic migration. I think the US has a moral obligation to accept Syrian refugees, too. But I do fully understand that your president wants to take a really close look at anyone entering from Yemen or these countries, as should we. People call that discrimination, to which I can say, so what, then it is. Additionally, it's the only smart thing to do.
I would very much prefer if islamic population would not exceed, say, 10% - for there seems to be evidence that once it's above that number, more and more muslims don't even care for the society they live in and stay amongst themselves - and rather radicalize in their own parallel society than getting more moderate in the secular surrounding.
Add in polls (yeah well, still mistrusted) that imply that more than half of muslims in Germany think Sharia is more important than the laws of the country they live in. That many muslims (and not only a few bad apples) think a woman should be a man's subject, it's ok to stone people or call for Rushdie's assassination and whatnot.

That is my take. I respectfully disagree with leftist folks on that question and get not so respectful responses in return. A behaviour that strengthens the right way more than fake news or Russia ever could. I make an effort to underline this point because I really feel it's the most important lecture Trump or other alt-right politicians should teach us.
Now, regarding muslim immigration, for me the first point (the moral obligation as a rich country to help those that flee death and destruction) still supersedes the concerns. But we're nearing problematic regions.

Now I said some potentially unpleasant things about muslims. I have to add that in my country, everything is peaceful and muslims are very decent folks and behave grateful. As they should. They are guests and should behave like guests, which is be polite and respect the house rules. This guy responsible for the Berlin attacks had no business being in Europe any longer, no business at all, and it makes me angry. As it makes many people angry. I do have to strike a blow for those that think politics fails them and we need to oppose policies and stop immigration. The absence of honest debate plays a major part in an increasing anti-muslim atmosphere. I do, however, not strike a blow for the deplorable part. There are folks so full of blind hatred towards muslims it's disgusting. Facebook is full of truely incredible hate speech. And it's a real concern.

There's a last reason to, say, restrict immigration. If we don't, the alt-righters win elections. Democracy.
This is a hot iron only the sincere man can carry. I can't and I know.

[Rotobeast]

(02-15-2017, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, what's up. Oh right. Our muslim hate's up.

Couple things. First, and I do not mean to diminish things, the numbers seem a bit high. I've developed a certain mistrust towards polls, especially regarding my country. Which is fueled by the fact that polls got it astonishly wrong at many of our latest elections. Comically, not-even-close wrong. Plus, the word "Zuwanderung" (migration) that was asked often is used in a way that excludes asylum seekers/refugees. When it's interpreted that way... I'm not so sure how opposed I myself would actually be.
A 50/50 split would be closer to my personal experience. Which is still staggering. So there's that.

This anti-muslim half... well, there is no sugercoating it, some of them are formed by our basket of deplorables. Which does exist, here, in the US and everywhere, Hillary was not wrong on that one. I explicitely have to add that it's not all of them. Some of these people are reasonable and make decent points I hardly can debunk completely.

Two things. For one, I want to help every poor soul that flees death and destruction from Syria. I don't expect them to fight for their country in a civil war where no side can be seen as the one who puts their country first. I also want to help those who are prosecuted in some 6th century backwards Arab country because they oppose the Sheikh, blog critical stuff or are gay or whatever. It's a moral obligation for the first group (well both groups) and the smart thing to do for the second group. Strengthen the moderates on every level, the potential reformers. Only way, the way I see it, to deal with Islam.

On the other hand, our politicians are too silent on many things. The far left is to be forgotten. They don't even consider limiting the numbers of refugees at ANY point and call everyone who sees things differently a whole lot of unpleasant, debate-stopping things. That pisses me off that they completely lost me. And it pisses so many people off that they go to the other extreme. 
There's things that need to be faced. Islam is not just a religion of peace, but rather an ideology that is very susceptible to radicalization. Because they are backwards in many middle eastern countries, lacking any kind of secularisation or Enlightenment. There is religious motivated violence, though the really good people deny that terror and stuff should play any role in an evaluation of islamic migration. I think the US has a moral obligation to accept Syrian refugees, too. But I do fully understand that your president wants to take a really close look at anyone entering from Yemen or these countries, as should we. People call that discrimination, to which I can say, so what, then it is. Additionally, it's the only smart thing to do.
I would very much prefer if islamic population would not exceed, say, 10% - for there seems to be evidence that once it's above that number, more and more muslims don't even care for the society they live in and stay amongst themselves - and rather radicalize in their own parallel society than getting more moderate in the secular surrounding.
Add in polls (yeah well, still mistrusted) that imply that more than half of muslims in Germany think Sharia is more important than the laws of the country they live in. That many muslims (and not only a few bad apples) think a woman should be a man's subject, it's ok to stone people or call for Rushdie's assassination and whatnot.

That is my take. I respectfully disagree with leftist folks on that question and get not so respectful responses in return. A behaviour that strengthens the right way more than fake news or Russia ever could. I make an effort to underline this point because I really feel it's the most important lecture Trump or other alt-right politicians should teach us.
Now, regarding muslim immigration, for me the first point (the moral obligation as a rich country to help those that flee death and destruction) still supersedes the concerns. But we're nearing problematic regions.

Now I said some potentially unpleasant things about muslims. I have to add that in my country, everything is peaceful and muslims are very decent folks and behave grateful. As they should. They are guests and should behave like guests, which is be polite and respect the house rules. This guy responsible for the Berlin attacks had no business being in Europe any longer, no business at all, and it makes me angry. As it makes many people angry. I do have to strike a blow for those that think politics fails them and we need to oppose policies and stop immigration. The absence of honest debate plays a major part in an increasing anti-muslim atmosphere. I do, however, not strike a blow for the deplorable part. There are folks so full of blind hatred towards muslims it's disgusting. Facebook is full of truely incredible hate speech. And it's a real concern.

There's a last reason to, say, restrict immigration. If we don't, the alt-righters win elections. Democracy.
This is a hot iron only the sincere man can carry. I can't and I know.

Very good post, as always.

[masterpanthera_t]

(02-15-2017, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, what's up. Oh right. Our muslim hate's up.

Couple things. First, and I do not mean to diminish things, the numbers seem a bit high. I've developed a certain mistrust towards polls, especially regarding my country. Which is fueled by the fact that polls got it astonishly wrong at many of our latest elections. Comically, not-even-close wrong. Plus, the word "Zuwanderung" (migration) that was asked often is used in a way that excludes asylum seekers/refugees. When it's interpreted that way... I'm not so sure how opposed I myself would actually be.
A 50/50 split would be closer to my personal experience. Which is still staggering. So there's that.

This anti-muslim half... well, there is no sugercoating it, some of them are formed by our basket of deplorables. Which does exist, here, in the US and everywhere, Hillary was not wrong on that one. I explicitely have to add that it's not all of them. Some of these people are reasonable and make decent points I hardly can debunk completely.

Two things. For one, I want to help every poor soul that flees death and destruction from Syria. I don't expect them to fight for their country in a civil war where no side can be seen as the one who puts their country first. I also want to help those who are prosecuted in some 6th century backwards Arab country because they oppose the Sheikh, blog critical stuff or are gay or whatever. It's a moral obligation for the first group (well both groups) and the smart thing to do for the second group. Strengthen the moderates on every level, the potential reformers. Only way, the way I see it, to deal with Islam.

On the other hand, our politicians are too silent on many things. The far left is to be forgotten. They don't even consider limiting the numbers of refugees at ANY point and call everyone who sees things differently a whole lot of unpleasant, debate-stopping things. That pisses me off that they completely lost me. And it pisses so many people off that they go to the other extreme. 
There's things that need to be faced. Islam is not just a religion of peace, but rather an ideology that is very susceptible to radicalization. Because they are backwards in many middle eastern countries, lacking any kind of secularisation or Enlightenment. There is religious motivated violence, though the really good people deny that terror and stuff should play any role in an evaluation of islamic migration. I think the US has a moral obligation to accept Syrian refugees, too. But I do fully understand that your president wants to take a really close look at anyone entering from Yemen or these countries, as should we. People call that discrimination, to which I can say, so what, then it is. Additionally, it's the only smart thing to do.
I would very much prefer if islamic population would not exceed, say, 10% - for there seems to be evidence that once it's above that number, more and more muslims don't even care for the society they live in and stay amongst themselves - and rather radicalize in their own parallel society than getting more moderate in the secular surrounding.
Add in polls (yeah well, still mistrusted) that imply that more than half of muslims in Germany think Sharia is more important than the laws of the country they live in. That many muslims (and not only a few bad apples) think a woman should be a man's subject, it's ok to stone people or call for Rushdie's assassination and whatnot.

That is my take. I respectfully disagree with leftist folks on that question and get not so respectful responses in return. A behaviour that strengthens the right way more than fake news or Russia ever could. I make an effort to underline this point because I really feel it's the most important lecture Trump or other alt-right politicians should teach us.
Now, regarding muslim immigration, for me the first point (the moral obligation as a rich country to help those that flee death and destruction) still supersedes the concerns. But we're nearing problematic regions.

Now I said some potentially unpleasant things about muslims. I have to add that in my country, everything is peaceful and muslims are very decent folks and behave grateful. As they should. They are guests and should behave like guests, which is be polite and respect the house rules. This guy responsible for the Berlin attacks had no business being in Europe any longer, no business at all, and it makes me angry. As it makes many people angry. I do have to strike a blow for those that think politics fails them and we need to oppose policies and stop immigration. The absence of honest debate plays a major part in an increasing anti-muslim atmosphere. I do, however, not strike a blow for the deplorable part. There are folks so full of blind hatred towards muslims it's disgusting. Facebook is full of truely incredible hate speech. And it's a real concern.

There's a last reason to, say, restrict immigration. If we don't, the alt-righters win elections. Democracy.
This is a hot iron only the sincere man can carry. I can't and I know.

I will restrict my response simply to the anti-muslim stuff.  I will say that I agree broadly on the sensibilities here.  My caveat would be that while it is correct as a rich(er) country to take in refugees, I myself see no reason to take them in as citizens or with the same rights as citizens.  To clarify that statement, I am saying that yes it's a moral obligation to help those fleeing war, regardless of where they may be from, however, I don't see it as an immoral position to say that we will take you in as guests and potentially keep you in a different part of the country until we know for certain which of you will acclimate to our values.  Or even, saying we will keep you here on a temporary basis until your homeland has been stabilized, and we expect you to return. As Roto and I have discussed in other threads before, this would be inline with keeping our moral and humanitarian integrity intact, IMO, while maintaining the right balance of "our" values within our borders.  While I may be swayed by certain arguments for "diverse" thinking helping a society overall, I believe with the current climate of terrorism in the world that we must strike a balance where we help those in peril without adding unnecessary risks to the structure and views of our society.  At the least I'm open to other means of striking this balance which don't fall under "we must take in refugees without further debate or we deserve the label of xenophobes".  And yes I'm aware there are xenophobes who may share a similar end goal with a completely different reasoning to arrive at that goal.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Find me any group that has a tendency to produce people who will blow themselves up in markets, or train stations, or drive trucks through crowds, or planes through buildings, decapitate people on the internet, etc) and you'll find people who won't want them near them. I've known plenty of Muslim people who were quite pleasant, but if you keep having people doing horrible things for their religion, it is not going to matter.

The swastika originated from Buddhism. People did horrible things while using it. See how accepted it is to display it in Germany or Poland even if you're a Buddhist and not a Nazi. Islam might be going the way of the swastika.

[BmorePat87]

(02-15-2017, 03:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The swastika originated from Buddhism. People did horrible things while using it. See how accepted it is to display it in Germany or Poland even if you're a Buddhist and not a Nazi. Islam might be going the way of the swastika.

You're comparing a non-mainstream symbol co-opted by the most hateful ideology of the last few centuries that has since become universally recognized to the second biggest religion in the world. 

Maybe if Islam was little known then the actions of an extreme minority would define the religion itself, but I have a feeling that a religion that accounts for nearly 1 in every 5 people on this planet will not get defined by the actions of a few in the last two decades. 

[Belsnickel]

Nothing really surprising in this to me. Also not surprising are the demographic breakdowns with location, education, and age. Now, I will say something that Hollo alluded to but didn't outright say, this isn't as simple a concern as this poll tries to make it out to be. When you look at polls like these and then the questions that break it down into refugee concerns and what not, the number will often be a bit different. The way you ask a question can give you whatever results you desire.

I will say this, there is a push in Germany that is really bringing SPD into the forefront. SPD is the center-left party of the country (CDU/CSU is the center-right, and the party of Merkel). CDU has been losing ground, but SPD has seen a sharp rise since Martin Schulz threw his hat into the Chancellorship race. Based on polling, it also looks like there may be a few seats going to the AfD, but we will likely see the SPD and CDU join together in a coalition again to beat off the right-wingers handily as it will garner them over 60% int he Bundestag. There is definitely a wave of this nationalistic sentiment that exists, but it's not as strong as polls like what we see here would have us believe.

[hollodero]

(02-15-2017, 03:13 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I myself see no reason to take them in as citizens or with the same rights as citizens.

I don't think there's much disagreement here. We don't give them much citizen rights, they can't vote, often aren't allowed to take a job, are not entitled for social services. When we feel ultra-nice, we try to give them a roof over their head. And maybe 100-150 Euros a month so they can get medicine, clothings or whatever other luxury they need. Are the US much different?

It usually takes 10 years before a citizenship is a possibility. (Unless they are really good in swimming or hurdling or whatever else could possibily result in an Olympic medal.)

A vast amount of our right-wing voters, though, truely believe the state gives every refugee a brandnew smartphone. 

(02-15-2017, 03:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Find me any group that has a tendency to produce people who will blow themselves up in markets, or train stations, or drive trucks through crowds, or planes through buildings, decapitate people on the internet, etc) and you'll find people who won't want them near them. I've known plenty of Muslim people who were quite pleasant, but if you keep having people doing horrible things for their religion, it is not going to matter. 

That is certainly true, although one needs to be careful there. Applying the same proportionality, one could with the same right claim Belgians are prone to child molesting or Austrians are strongly suspicious to lock their daughters in cellars and have a bunch of kids with them.

(02-15-2017, 03:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will say this, there is a push in Germany that is really bringing SPD into the forefront. SPD is the center-left party of the country (CDU/CSU is the center-right, and the party of Merkel). CDU has been losing ground, but SPD has seen a sharp rise since Martin Schulz threw his hat into the Chancellorship race. Based on polling, it also looks like there may be a few seats going to the AfD, but we will likely see the SPD and CDU join together in a coalition again to beat off the right-wingers handily as it will garner them over 60% int he Bundestag. There is definitely a wave of this nationalistic sentiment that exists, but it's not as strong as polls like what we see here would have us believe.

I don't think Schulz will win the election. He will do better than they did before him, though. Have you ever come across Schulz' predecessor? Sigmar Gabriel, total disaster as Trump would, in this case rightfully, say. I can honestly say I would have been a better candidate, and probably most people.

And sure, AfD will get some seats. But that's the irony. The only country not too susceptible to right-wing populism is Germany, of all countries.
In my country and many others (but especially in mine, we are always font runners there) the picture looks a lot different. Our nationalistic right-wingers will in all probability be the strongest force after our next election.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-15-2017, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, what's up. Oh right. Our muslim hate's up.

Couple things. First, and I do not mean to diminish things, the numbers seem a bit high. I've developed a certain mistrust towards polls, especially regarding my country. Which is fueled by the fact that polls got it astonishly wrong at many of our latest elections. Comically, not-even-close wrong. Plus, the word "Zuwanderung" (migration) that was asked often is used in a way that excludes asylum seekers/refugees. When it's interpreted that way... I'm not so sure how opposed I myself would actually be.
A 50/50 split would be closer to my personal experience. Which is still staggering. So there's that.

Yes polls are a tricky thing. It relies on honest answers and people answer based on their mood of the day.

(02-15-2017, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: This anti-muslim half... well, there is no sugercoating it, some of them are formed by our basket of deplorables. Which does exist, here, in the US and everywhere, Hillary was not wrong on that one. I explicitely have to add that it's not all of them. Some of these people are reasonable and make decent points I hardly can debunk completely.

Two things. For one, I want to help every poor soul that flees death and destruction from Syria. I don't expect them to fight for their country in a civil war where no side can be seen as the one who puts their country first. I also want to help those who are prosecuted in some 6th century backwards Arab country because they oppose the Sheikh, blog critical stuff or are gay or whatever. It's a moral obligation for the first group (well both groups) and the smart thing to do for the second group. Strengthen the moderates on every level, the potential reformers. Only way, the way I see it, to deal with Islam.

On the other hand, our politicians are too silent on many things. The far left is to be forgotten. They don't even consider limiting the numbers of refugees at ANY point and call everyone who sees things differently a whole lot of unpleasant, debate-stopping things. That pisses me off that they completely lost me. And it pisses so many people off that they go to the other extreme. 
There's things that need to be faced. Islam is not just a religion of peace, but rather an ideology that is very susceptible to radicalization. Because they are backwards in many middle eastern countries, lacking any kind of secularisation or Enlightenment. There is religious motivated violence, though the really good people deny that terror and stuff should play any role in an evaluation of islamic migration. I think the US has a moral obligation to accept Syrian refugees, too. But I do fully understand that your president wants to take a really close look at anyone entering from Yemen or these countries, as should we. People call that discrimination, to which I can say, so what, then it is. Additionally, it's the only smart thing to do.
I would very much prefer if islamic population would not exceed, say, 10% - for there seems to be evidence that once it's above that number, more and more muslims don't even care for the society they live in and stay amongst themselves - and rather radicalize in their own parallel society than getting more moderate in the secular surrounding.
Add in polls (yeah well, still mistrusted) that imply that more than half of muslims in Germany think Sharia is more important than the laws of the country they live in. That many muslims (and not only a few bad apples) think a woman should be a man's subject, it's ok to stone people or call for Rushdie's assassination and whatnot.

That is my take. I respectfully disagree with leftist folks on that question and get not so respectful responses in return. A behaviour that strengthens the right way more than fake news or Russia ever could. I make an effort to underline this point because I really feel it's the most important lecture Trump or other alt-right politicians should teach us.
Now, regarding muslim immigration, for me the first point (the moral obligation as a rich country to help those that flee death and destruction) still supersedes the concerns. But we're nearing problematic regions.

What about taking in the single men, putting them thru military training and then sending them back equipped as soldiers to fight for their country?

Yes There are some Syrians that I would take in, those that helped our military for starters. They risked their lives and their families lives, they should not simply be cast aside. Christians next because they are a minority and being persecuted as well. After that, take single men of military age, put them in our military and train them. Equip them and send them back in groups so they can fight for their country.

PS Side note, idiots or deplorables?

(02-15-2017, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Now I said some potentially unpleasant things about muslims. I have to add that in my country, everything is peaceful and muslims are very decent folks and behave grateful. As they should. They are guests and should behave like guests, which is be polite and respect the house rules. This guy responsible for the Berlin attacks had no business being in Europe any longer, no business at all, and it makes me angry. As it makes many people angry. I do have to strike a blow for those that think politics fails them and we need to oppose policies and stop immigration. The absence of honest debate plays a major part in an increasing anti-muslim atmosphere. I do, however, not strike a blow for the deplorable part. There are folks so full of blind hatred towards muslims it's disgusting. Facebook is full of truely incredible hate speech. And it's a real concern.

There's a last reason to, say, restrict immigration. If we don't, the alt-righters win elections. Democracy.
This is a hot iron only the sincere man can carry. I can't and I know.

Good to see that Fence is working out well for your Country.

[Belsnickel]

(02-15-2017, 04:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think Schulz will win the election. He will do better than they did before him, though. Have you ever come across Schulz' predecessor? Sigmar Gabriel, total disaster as Trump would, in this case rightfully, say. I can honestly say I would have been a better candidate, and probably most people.

And sure, AfD will get some seats. But that's the irony. The only country not too susceptible to right-wing populism is Germany, of all countries.
In my country and many others (but especially in mine, we are always font runners there) the picture looks a lot different. Our nationalistic right-wingers will in all probability be the strongest force after our next election.

If I were a German, I would be SPD. So yeah, I know what you are saying there.

For the other part, that's interesting. How do you think the right wing populists will fare elsewhere?

[hollodero]

(02-15-2017, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes polls are a tricky thing. It relies on honest answers and people answer based on their mood of the day.

Yep. It seems to get harder and harder to get a representative sample size. You can't call people any more. You can stand on the street and get the opinion of the people that bothered to pay you attention.
Which, in this case, would contain many people that that strongly feel like "ah, immigration, hell yes it needs to stop! Where do I sign?" - not that representative.
I trust scientists, I do not trust pollsters and all this other semi-scientific stuff. (Do men enjoy the presence of an attractive lady - Study finds yes!)

(02-15-2017, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What about taking in the single men, putting them thru military training and then sending them back equipped as soldiers to fight for their country?

yeah no kidding, I once ran around proposing the military training idea to friends, further damaging my reputation. I tried to argue that finding the best - and in the end, most humane - solution is not about humanity, but about reality and facing it and at some points in history war is a morally acceptable answer and pragmatic stuff like that, there were a bunch of thoughts. I got convinced the idea isn't that good. What I found most persuasive was the question on which side i would intend to let them fight. Or if I really wanted to put in yet another civil war party just for fun. Kinda hard to respond to that.
We don't even know whose side you're on. We always guess the Kurds, because they are so easily betrayed after, but no idea. Europe probably shouldn't go to war with trained refugees on its own, especially when we could wind up fighting allies or new-found friends of allies and such. Yup, I see no way how this could possibly work in practice on our continent in the current circumstances. And it still would be, like, sending people to a war of questionable result, which is not the kind of thing Europe does easily.

- Of course they also said that I obviously would like to get many refugees killed just so some right-wingers wouldn't go crazy by seeing a bearded man. At this point I usually backed down.

And since you said it like you said it, one more thing. I can not accept only saving those that can serve and letting older people, women and kids just perish. And I do not see a way how I could come around there.

(02-15-2017, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes There are some Syrians that I would take in, those that helped our military for starters. They risked their lives and their families lives, they should not simply be cast aside.

Yeah, that would be a very decent thing to do. Not to be too fussy, but someone should really tell your president that.

(02-15-2017, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Christians next because they are a minority and being persecuted as well. After that, take single men of military age, put them in our military and train them. Equip them and send them back in groups so they can fight for their country.

This Christian thing is... I don't know, just stirring the pot too much for me. They are all persecuted, for one reason or another. The logical reason to prefer Christians would really be that they are not muslims and hence they won't blow stuff up. And I don't really want to discriminate on those grounds alone. (That being said, I am not a Christian myself.) The refugees usually all flee radical Islam, so well.
And about the terrorists. If you prefer Christians, the next terrorist will probably enter the country as a Christian refugee.

(02-15-2017, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: PS Side note, idiots or deplorables?

Hm. I just try to figure out why you would pose that question. First things first, I can assure you, although you're an alt-right guy in my book I would never ever count you personally into either of those groups. But that a certain part of the alt-right movement or the European counterparts consists of low-literacy low-IQ guys is just an obvious truth. Those are the people that believe the most horrendous nonsense, or openly root for a muslim's death and cheer for more gruesome killing because their brain is too tiny to feel the slightest empathy, or see stupid conspiracies everywhere and are scared of chemtrails and so on. Yes, idiots.
Now add in all racists, Neonazis, KKK members and whatnot (although most of them were in the idiots group already). idiots + KKK Nazi racists = deplorables.

And as I said, that IS not the whole right-wing movement, that IS not the whole Trump electorate. Just all of them are at the party too.

(02-15-2017, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Good to see that Fence is working out well for your Country.

what is it with you and your fences? I repeat, whatever is or is not erected at my country's borders is in no way, shape or form my personal responsibility.
And a fence is not a wall.
And Austria actually built a fence that is a whopping 5 kilometers long, about three miles as you would say. So hm.

[hollodero]

(02-15-2017, 06:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: For the other part, that's interesting. How do you think the right wing populists will fare elsewhere?

As I said, take my country as best example. FPÖ polls at 35% right now, being the strongest party by a 10% margin. Polls are not too trustworthy, but still. Fidesz in Hungary and PiS in Poland already has the total majority of seats. Switzerlands SVP is at over 30%. Le Pen likely will win the first round of presidential elections in France (and won't win the presidency). Britain followed Farage into Brexit.  Wilders in Netherlands polls the strongest right now (election soon to come). There's more or less strong parties (10-20%) in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Latvia and in the end in probably way more right now.

Honestly, seeing it through Austrian glasses it's not the most unreasonable of hopes that Trump tanks it bigly before our election next year. It might cost the right-wing populists here that embrace him, which I would, well, appreciate. Still, all the best and much prosperity to all of you.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-15-2017, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What about taking in the single men, putting them thru military training and then sending them back equipped as soldiers to fight for their country?

They tried that already in Afghanistan in the 80s. Might have heard of them, they were called the mujahideen.

Sure they drove out the Russians. But then they ended up becoming the Taliban.

Not sure that was so great of a solution.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I think part of the problem might be people don't like one-sided tolerance relationships. It's harder to get people from Christian-based nations to be tolerant when those from Muslim-based nations are so intolerant.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38978373
http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/story/asamoah-gyan-hair-uae-warning-021517

That's about the UAE warning soccer players about having "unethical" hair. Being told they needed to cut their "un-Islamic" hair.

I mean, that's just a story about haircuts, but it's really just the extremely small tip of a huge iceberg.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-15-2017, 03:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're comparing a non-mainstream symbol co-opted by the most hateful ideology of the last few centuries that has since become universally recognized to the second biggest religion in the world. 

Maybe if Islam was little known then the actions of an extreme minority would define the religion itself, but I have a feeling that a religion that accounts for nearly 1 in every 5 people on this planet will not get defined by the actions of a few in the last two decades. 

I'd say it's too late. It seems as if, right or wrong, that most people equate Muslims with terrorism. The fact that Muslims have to fight against the idea that they're all terrorists and/or terrorist sympathizers would suggest that they are a religion that has been defined by the actions of a few.

[BmorePat87]

(02-16-2017, 01:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'd say it's too late. It seems as if, right or wrong, that most people equate Muslims with terrorism. The fact that Muslims have to fight against the idea that they're all terrorists and/or terrorist sympathizers would suggest that they are a religion that has been defined by the actions of a few.

I would say that most people in my area do not assume all Muslims are terrorists. 

They're rated about the same as atheists by other Americans in one Pew poll

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/

Which is certainly lower than other religions, but not too bad considering another pew poll found that 48% of Americans do not know any Muslims. 

Also, with it being the fastest growing religion in the world with 1.6 billion members, I do not think the nearly universal association will be global,s especially if it is really only a thing in pockets of the West where there is less diversity. 

[BmorePat87]

I thought Pepe was racist!?


edit: way to delete your post, Matt.

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2017, 04:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I thought Pepe was racist!?


edit: way to delete your post, Matt.

I decided to throw it into the memes thread instead, since this thread isn't really about European elections.

[Rotobeast]

(02-16-2017, 04:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I thought Pepe was racist!?


edit: way to delete your post, Matt.

You know Pepe isn't racist.
He's been used that way, but he's far more versatile, and sometimes sophisticated.