Migrant crisis

[FullAuto]

you will go out of your way to make excuses for Poles

 

And what does he do?

 

Don't make a fool out of yourself? Where were our so called allies? The France? The UK? Oh, I see never obliged to do their duty. How fast did Europe fall? Not that longer than defense of Poland. And yeah, sneak attack, fight from both side, Poland little got up from the regaining Independence. Oh and don't forget who stopped the Bolsheviks. But I guess that don't teach in UK. Same as they lied who deciphered Enigma, and now silently they start to admit, yes you're glorious government. And how they treated our soldiers that helped defend your country? Forgotten, rejected like dump. That's how English behave.

 

And how did UK fare against Germany - one country? Oh they failed. had to retreat from Europe, and couldn't defend itself on their own during Battle of Britain. Bravo. Churchill had to beg USA for help.

 

And to answer your question about Polish migrants. Thanks to your glorious leaders, Poland was sold as slaves to Stalin. Years of communism and socialism just ruined us. Not to mention that we still have to pay for this, because of plenty of communists are still ruling. Low income, high taxes. And I have to ask, why many of the immigrants who you despise are contributing so much to British economy, than all those migrants from muslim countries?

 

Let's count them, for fun. Because let's be honest, we're not going to have reasonable discourse because silencer has nothing to draw on except prejudice.

 

Our so-called allies - 1

How fast did Europe fall - 2

sneak attack - 3

independence - 4

stopped bolsheviks - 5

don't teach that in UK - 6

 

At this point he brings up Enigma. Please note how he is unable to stick to one point, generally because he loses miserably on every single point he brings up. So he is forced to digress onto other subjects. At this point, how many digressions has he brought up, has anyone been keeping count? If not I'll tot up next post.

 

treated soldiers - 7

UK vs Germany - 8

beg US for help - 9

Poles sold as slaves - 10

Communists still ruling - 11

Polish migrants contributing, Muslims not - 12

 

12 excuses in three paragraphs is a pretty strong excuse game, I think you'll agree. That's four excuses per paragraph, and out of 25 sentences, an excuse almost every other sentence.

 

The really hilarious thing is that I admire the Hell out of Poland and the Poles, especially for their fierce resistance in WWII against impossible odds. I had family members who fought alongside Polish units in WWII, and expressed nothing but respect for them. I know the history of WWII very well indeed, and the more I read the more I come to respect Poland. Here's what silencer missed (my bold):

 

The Polish armed forces fell apart when the Germans invaded. Why didn't they fight harder? Why did thousands of them leave Poland to go to France and then the UK? Why didn't they stay and fight? Why didn't the Poles resist the USSR effectively? Why are there thousands of Polish immigrants coming to my country now? What's wrong with Poland?

 

The secret is: there are perfectly good answers to these questions.

 

Despite the fact that I explicitly stated that there are good answers to the mock questions I posed, and that they're there to illustrate a double standard, he just careers on, shedding excuses.

 

why many of the immigrants who you despise

 

I don't despise immigrants. Unlike you.

[Space Voyager]

Bah, move on, you two. There will be no minds changed here, this much is obvious.

[Hobbes]

Bah, move on, you two. There will be no minds changed here, this much is obvious.

 

https://cdn-media-1.lifehack.org/wp-content/files/2014/05/The-biggest-communication-problem-is-we-do-not-listen-to-understand.-We-listen-to-reply..jpg

[FullAuto]

Then perhaps one of you apart from silencer can tell me what it is I don't understand?

[NoXTheRoXStaR]

I'm not going to argue with anyone in here, so let's get that out of the way first and foremost. Nor do I intend to make multiple posts regarding my entry. What I AM going to do is give you an example of how many people in my community felt when large amounts of immigrants came to my city. Are we all clear? Good. On with my story.

 

Back in the 90's when the Bosnians were being invaded by the Serbians, the US Government under President Clinton ordered airstrikes over Bosnia in order to quell the attacking Serbs. However, by doing so many Bosnians lost their homes, possessions and ultimately their lives. You can read the wiki History here. Keep in mind I'm telling this as I saw things, discussed with the Bosnians and etc. Anyway, due to the war a HUGE number of Bosnians migrated to St.Louis, Missouri (USA) where I was born and still live. Now I can't sit here and give out a percentage or say "The Majority, or The Minority" of what other people felt simply because I Don't SPEAK for them, I can only reiterate what I was told. You can't say the Majority of people like Pizza, that's just an assumption.

 

Back on track. When they got here I didn't witness much racism or bigotry, keep in mind I was in junior high school and high school at the time so if ANYONE would have noticed these things I would have. What people DID have a problem was this: Very few of them spoke English and many didn't bother to learn (which in my opinion is stupid, considering the vast majority of people in North America speak English). They were given special grants which helped them to afford housing, a vehicle, food stamps, education basically tax free. Many people were upset by this, although I don't know if many of said upset were aware or cared that their entire lives were ruined by not only the Serbs but the airstrikes which certainly did immense damage. The other reason people were upset was the fact they were given jobs when at the time St. Louis was having major unemployment issues. It was hard enough finding a job as it was, then you add in thousands of new people to that equation and you can understand the anger.

 

The Bosnians for the most part (remember this is what I encountered) were friendly and happy people who enjoyed bbq's and listening to music. However, some Serbians had come to St.Louis as well, which as you can imagine caused quite a stir which resulted in lots of arguing and sometimes violence. People in my city weren't exactly happy as it was with the Bosnians coming and now with the Serbs, people now had to deal with violence which mainly occurred in schools and places of work. I personally only witnessed these types of events happen on three occasions, I was told by one girl that there had been several confrontations at a different high school that she attended.

 

What i'm saying is when a large group of people from different parts of the world, with different languages; religion, ethnic backgrounds, education, and moral beliefs come into your country and start causing havoc and chaos it is understandable to be upset. Our state in fact is considering housing thousands of these refugees here in an area of the city that is run down and derelict. I can imagine what hell that will bring. While I do NOT agree with everything Silencer has said, I CAN empathize with him. Until YOU have the same situation happen to you...you cannot empathize, you are merely Sympathizing. There is a difference.

 

-NoX

[Space Voyager]

Then perhaps one of you apart from silencer can tell me what it is I don't understand?

 

FA, I very much share your point of view. As far as the refugees are concerned. It seems to me that the story has, by now, gotten quite a few facets to be polished.

 

If I was to try to describe as I see the story (a lot of it guesswork), it would go something like this...

 

People fled Syria and a lot of them ended in Turkey. Millions of refugees are a huge load on the country so I'm guessing Turkey tried to reason with EU to take its share, which didn't happen. So Turks are fed up and let the refugees go, probably inciting their flight and arming them with data.

The refugees flee and their very real humanitarian crisis is noticed by many others. As EU tries to deal with the problem at hand and welcomes the refugees as much as possible, a lot of economic migrants join with the refugees as they, too, want a better life. EU migration capacity is overloaded and fences start to rise (Hungary). Some describe the fences as bad, yet all (except the ones on the other side) welcome new fences (Slovenia etc.).

 

EU finally starts talking with Turkey to stop the flight of the refugees. Turkey smells profit and the deal is made. For now, the refugee flow is down.

 

Turkey is revealed to be buying oil from IS. Also, as latest news tell, it also gave all the necessary ingredients for Sarin gas to IS. Basically, Turkey is a major problem right now. If they acted alone, naturally, it may also have deeper roots into "The West", as IS was doing the hard work of destroying countries over the Middle East. For Turkey, the major incentive was seeing Kurds destroyed and buying oil cheap. Others might have been waiting for Syria to fall before taking action.

 

Russia enters the picture and all crap happens. Not that it is Russia's fault, but plans are thwarted. Suddenly IS starts to lose grounds. Russia can't be given the credit for destroying IS, so US finally starts doing anything against IS, while demanding that Assad is thrown into trash. Paris happens and others join in. UK and France actually start talking to Russia, much to the US dismay.

 

Then the Turks, enraged by the Russian interference into the oil dealing and Kurd destruction, shoot down a Russian plane. It was a deliberate and thought-through act. It may yet turn out to be a HUGE mistake.

Everybody gasps. What will happen? What if Russia does what US probably would and destroys some military targets in Turkey - a NATO member?! I'm absolutely convinced that A LOT of phones rang behind the scenes. If Russia decided to act, nobody would do a thing (risk the end of the world for someone who is supporting terrorism?!), which could lead to the end of NATO. Also, Turkey holding the keys to migrant crisis, EU must have had an additional heart attack. My opinion on that is that Turkey should be thrown out of NATO ASAP. Erdogan is losing his mind anyway, now also describing how Hitler had a good governmental system and all. Even if that was true, one has to be hugely MENTAL to say it out loud. Erdogan is just the man.

 

Now, the situation is being calmed down, but the damage is done. I can only wonder what else will happen. And I definitely will buy a wood furnace as this is the only thing that works when you're out of gas and electricity. This much of a preper I can afford to be.

 

Anyway, if I'm at least partially correct, the refugees are but a drop in the sea, yet their problems are just as real and we as a society need to help them. Preferably in a safe way.

 

NoX, thank you for describing what happens when a solution did not think everything through. Surely mixing people of both warring sides is bad. Keeping a lot of refugees in the same spot is wrong to begin with as they tend to form their own communities, which won't encourage them to learn the language and they may not "fit in" (take the culture of the population as their own) for generations. Meanwhile feeling cast out, isolated - afraid. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and so forth.

[Hobbes]

Then perhaps one of you apart from silencer can tell me what it is I don't understand?

 

We all have biases that distort how we see things - this is just how our unconscious organizes reality. To me learning is also recognizing those biases, both in ourselves and others, and being able to go beyond them since they're partial visions of reality.

[FullAuto]

While I do NOT agree with everything Silencer has said, I CAN empathize with him. Until YOU have the same situation happen to you...you cannot empathize, you are merely Sympathizing. There is a difference.

 

I'd just like to point out that Poland hasn't been flooded with refugees.

 

If I was to try to describe as I see the story (a lot of it guesswork), it would go something like this...

 

Seems like a fair summation. The cross-purposes involved have really messed everything up. Russia "totally going to destroy IS honest oh no wait we're just here to support Assad actually" was a good joke that many seem to have believed. The Kurds have made some good headway versus IS, and seem to be a good option as a force to back, except no-one really wants to do so because they're the local whipping boy and a as a regional minority, are targeted wherever they go. They could be a great stabilising influence if not for the prejudice they face in every other country. Turkey are leveraging the situation as far as it will go, and Europe as a whole has ruined a great opportunity for solidarity (not that it's exactly a great time to be pushing that agenda when it was independent action by a few countries that exacerbated the situation) by panicking over a number of refugees that Europe, as a whole, could absorb without blinking.

 

We all have biases that distort how we see things - this is just how our unconscious organizes reality. To me learning is also recognizing those biases, both in ourselves and others, and being able to go beyond them since they're partial visions of reality.

 

This definitely wasn't part of silencer's argument. I understand and go some way to mitigating my own cognitive and political biases; however, that said, I refuse to sacrifice fact for political expediency. I won't, for instance, post something that is a blatant lie, and when confronted with it, double down with more blatant lies. Empathy is great, but it needs both parties to share enough common ground for it to be practical. If someone does not share enough of my partial vision of reality, or vice versa, we are effectively living in different worlds. I understand what silencer is saying, and even why he is saying it, I just do not agree with any of it. We are all products of our respective societies; we do not have to remain that way. That is our choice.

[silencer_pl]

I'd just like to point out that Poland hasn't been flooded with refugees

 

I wonder, why migrants race to Germany, Sweden, Finland, etc... And before you answer, yes we do have here people from different cultures, like Chinese, Vietnamese (in fact in the 90s there was a big influx of this people), Nigerians, there are even Mosques too and even with such crisis, we do not burn them. Now I ask you again, why do you think migrants don't want to live here? Also our previous government was pro accepting migrants. So yeah xenophobic my ass. Who also built biggest Jewish memorial museum using mostly their own funds? But sure call us anti-Semitic. In every country there are people who hate other, but why nobody call this country anti-Semitic or xenophobic? I do agree that some protests are way too aggressive.

 

Why nobody can notice, that Poland has a huge Deficit spending, which is getting bigger and bigger every year, thanks to our glorious governments. Many people live in the minimal existence and get little help from government and the social addons are just plain laughable or someone is too rich to get some but still too poor to live. The people who are protesting first want that our own citizens get their standard living upgraded to the European level. There is also a problem that the refugees would require new housing, and we have many people living in very poor condition housing and cannot get Subsidized housing, because of the stupid bureaucracy we have, so suddenly there will be influx of people who would get better housing quality, while many of our citizen are fighting for years to get. There is also the problem of unemployment. Despite what the polls say, there are still many unemployed people, who can't get decent work. Now the refugees would need to get obligatory work, so this would either strain some companies, because our tax system is ludicrous at eating our money, so probably to keep being profitable there probably will be more mass releases. There are also a lot of other problems that no one from the outside cares or even want to care.

 

Also in that article was mention about "European Solidarity". Where was "European Solidarity" when Germany signed pact with Russia about Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2? Not to mention that one of our shipyard protested about it, because it would create problem that some ships would not be able to sail in, and limited it with space to upgrade. Also where was this "European Solidarity" when Russia attacked Ukraine?

 

I also want to point out, what SV forgot to mention, that Merkel invited those migrants, because she was looking for cheap Labour. Why there is suddenly an increase in German populace hatred for her and this move she made?

[Hobbes]

This definitely wasn't part of silencer's argument. I understand and go some way to mitigating my own cognitive and political biases; however, that said, I refuse to sacrifice fact for political expediency. I won't, for instance, post something that is a blatant lie, and when confronted with it, double down with more blatant lies. Empathy is great, but it needs both parties to share enough common ground for it to be practical. If someone does not share enough of my partial vision of reality, or vice versa, we are effectively living in different worlds. I understand what silencer is saying, and even why he is saying it, I just do not agree with any of it. We are all products of our respective societies; we do not have to remain that way. That is our choice.

 

One of the things that comes up my mind right now are the Tory's government recent positions on how immigration from Eastern Europe (and EU countries btw) to the UK should be restricted. This isn't different from limiting Muslims from the Middle East, since both reflect insecurity and xenophobia.

 

Now, I don't believe that you agree with this particular opinion of Her Majesty's Government, but if you did and stated it here, how would you feel if someone started labeling you as a bigot?

[FullAuto]

Now, I don't believe that you agree with this particular opinion of Her Majesty's Government, but if you did and stated it here, how would you feel if someone started labeling you as a bigot?

 

I mentioned this earlier. If someone is bigoted, and someone calls them a bigot, is it an insult? Is it a label? Isn't it just an accurate description? Do I really have the right to be affronted if someone accurately described my behaviour, but they use a word I don't like?

 

I think the current Tory government are evil personified, BTW, but if I happened to go completely insane and start agreeing with them, and someone said that doing so was bigoted, I would have to agree with them. I wouldn't like it but I would have to admit that it was true. It might be difficult for me to admit, but if I believed Muslims were out to destroy us all or black people were evil, and someone called me on that moronic belief, I'm not so devoid of self-awareness that I would be able to deny my racism. I know certain belief systems ("You, as a member of the glorious white race...") make such thoughts very difficult, but it is possible for any individual to grow beyond those systems. They have to want to, though.

 

Would anyone care to guess who has become the biggest immigrant group in my town in recent years? Who has their own shops, speak their own language, don't integrate, have their own customs and religion? Three guesses, first two don't count. Meanwhile:

 

Why nobody can notice, that Poland has a huge Deficit spending, which is getting bigger and bigger every year, thanks to our glorious governments. Many people live in the minimal existence and get little help from government and the social addons are just plain laughable or someone is too rich to get some but still too poor to live. The people who are protesting first want that our own citizens get their standard living upgraded to the European level. There is also a problem that the refugees would require new housing, and we have many people living in very poor condition housing and cannot get Subsidized housing, because of the stupid bureaucracy we have, so suddenly there will be influx of people who would get better housing quality, while many of our citizen are fighting for years to get. There is also the problem of unemployment. Despite what the polls say, there are still many unemployed people, who can't get decent work. Now the refugees would need to get obligatory work, so this would either strain some companies, because our tax system is ludicrous at eating our money, so probably to keep being profitable there probably will be more mass releases. There are also a lot of other problems that no one from the outside cares or even want to care.

 

These are all problems, or are perceived as problems, in the UK, too.

[silencer_pl]

These are all problems, or are perceived as problems, in the UK, too.

 

But UK is in much stronger economical position, and doesn't have that of a problem that government gives a damn about it's people. Your problems are perceived differently here and vice versa.

[Hobbes]

I mentioned this earlier. If someone is bigoted, and someone calls them a bigot, is it an insult? Is it a label? Isn't it just an accurate description? Do I really have the right to be affronted if someone accurately described my behaviour, but they use a word I don't like?

 

Can you honestly say that someone is a bigot based just on what that person wrote? Because there can be a huge difference between what we think, say and act, and the last one is to me what defines a person, i.e., what he/she actually does rather than says.

 

As for the word 'bigot', it can be a label, insult, compliment, whatever, depending on how you say it and how the other person understands your words, but usually bigot is seem as an insult. And everyone has the right to feel affronted if they feel they are being treated unfairly - this is the same yardstick that we use to judge intolerance regarding migrants, so yeah, if I give immigrants the right to talk about their grievances, then I also give 'bigots' the opportunity to discuss, in a respectful way, what is fair to them or not. Minimizing other people's issues is one sure way of aggravating them in the future.

[FullAuto]

But UK is in much stronger economical position,

 

Are you sure about that? Do you know that we currently have more than £6 trillion in national debt accruing? Even the lower figure often given, to avoid people shitting themselves in panic, is around £1.6 trillion, which is more than 80% of our GDP. What's Poland's?

 

and doesn't have that of a problem that government gives a damn about it's people.

 

You know absolutely zero about the Tory government. This statement is a joke.

 

Can you honestly say that someone is a bigot based just on what that person wrote?

 

...yes? That person wrote what they believed, or they're lying. So if I give them the benefit of the doubt, I assume they are telling the truth about what they believe. If those statements reveal prejudice, well, what am I to do?

 

And everyone has the right to feel affronted if they feel they are being treated unfairly

 

So, not if they are actually being treated unfairly, merely if they feel they are being treated unfairly? So, someone has the same right to affront if my words are fair or not? Really? Because I have to say, I feel this is quite sad. If I'm actually being unfair, someone can tell me, and I will re-appraise what I have said. But if I'm being fair, and yet I am still told I should re-evaluate what I have said...

 

if I give immigrants the right to talk about their grievances, then I also give 'bigots' the opportunity to discuss, in a respectful way, what is fair to them or not.

 

There is a strange false equivalence at work here. It reminds me a lot of climate change discussions, where scientists put forth their views, and then climate change deniers put forth theirs, and the desire to appear even-handed works against the scientific side, because equal weight is given to scientific fact and utter bullshit alike. You can have your say, whatever it may be, but if your statement contains outright lies or inaccuracies, aren't they supposed to be pointed out? And can you really get upset, especially when you have put them forward knowing them to be false?

 

Minimizing other people's issues is one sure way of aggravating them in the future.

 

Likewise, pandering to their exaggerations and agreeing with their prejudices leads to nothing good, either.

[Hobbes]

...yes? That person wrote what they believed, or they're lying. So if I give them the benefit of the doubt, I assume they are telling the truth about what they believe. If those statements reveal prejudice, well, what am I to do?

 

So in case of the government, or immigrants, or people in general, your ultimate factor in deciding about their character and trustworthiness is what they say, rather than what they actually do? Because that's the question that I was asking.

 

So, not if they are actually being treated unfairly, merely if they feel they are being treated unfairly? So, someone has the same right to affront if my words are fair or not?

 

Same way you got the right to be affronted by the words of others. You're the only one who can decide if you feel you're being treated unfairly or not.

 

There is a strange false equivalence at work here. It reminds me a lot of climate change discussions, where scientists put forth their views, and then climate change deniers put forth theirs, and the desire to appear even-handed works against the scientific side, because equal weight is given to scientific fact and utter bullshit alike. You can have your say, whatever it may be, but if your statement contains outright lies or inaccuracies, aren't they supposed to be pointed out? And can you really get upset, especially when you have put them forward knowing them to be false?

 

What does this have to do with our discussion? Are climate change and migrants related? Are scientific 'facts' regarding tolerance or anti-immigration being suppressed? I don't see the relevance of this other that for you to keep repeating that the other side is either lying or wrong.

 

Likewise, pandering to their exaggerations and agreeing with their prejudices leads to nothing good, either.

 

Please point me where I said you need to agree with them. Respect and agreement are two different things.

[FullAuto]

So in case of the government, or immigrants, or people in general, your ultimate factor in deciding about their character and trustworthiness is what they say, rather than what they actually do? Because that's the question that I was asking.

 

How am I to judge someone on what they do, if that information is unknown to me? I cannot. I must make my decisions based upon the information I have. I cannot make decisions based on information I do not have. This is a discussion on the internet. Not a log of one's daily actions.

 

Same way you got the right to be affronted by the words of others. You're the only one who can decide if you feel you're being treated unfairly or not.

 

In an ideal world, perhaps. Certainly in the real world, I cannot simply say to people "You are treating me unfairly." and that alone will make them alter their behaviour. The real world doesn't work like that. If I am actually being treated unfairly, there may or may not be means of redress. If I merely feel I am being treated unfairly, my only likely means of redress will be to add it to my Tough Shit list and soldier on. The world is a harsh place. People will say things to you and about you that you will not like. You cannot stop them saying it; the only thing you can control is how you act afterwards.

 

What does this have to do with our discussion?

 

The false equivalence given to the viewpoints. You seem to think what silencer is saying is equally as factual as what anyone else says, when, sadly, this is not the case. Do you really want me to go through everything he has said and pick out every piece of bullshit? I'm not sure either of us will live that long.

 

Are scientific 'facts' regarding tolerance or anti-immigration being suppressed? I don't see the relevance of this other that for you to keep repeating that the other side is either lying or wrong.

 

Just to begin with: the video silencer posted to begin this lovely discussion is from 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castel_Volturno_massacre). Using my degree in time travel, I can tell you that this footage predates the 'migrant crisis' (2015). So it's nothing to do with the migrant crisis. It is, at best, an unwitting lie, put forward to advance a certain viewpoint. If the 'other side' isn't lying or wrong (or both), then they're going about it in a strange way, involving nothing but digressions, evasions, whataboutery, and every tactic under the sun apart from engaging honestly in the subject at hand.

 

Please point me where I said you need to agree with them. Respect and agreement are two different things.

 

I do not respect such views. I tolerate them. Tolerance and respect are two different things.

[Hobbes]

How am I to judge someone on what they do, if that information is unknown to me? I cannot. I must make my decisions based upon the information I have. I cannot make decisions based on information I do not have. This is a discussion on the internet. Not a log of one's daily actions.

 

You still haven't answered my question of whether words or actions are the better judge of a person's character. That's OK though

 

In an ideal world, perhaps. Certainly in the real world, I cannot simply say to people "You are treating me unfairly." and that alone will make them alter their behaviour. The real world doesn't work like that. If I am actually being treated unfairly, there may or may not be means of redress. If I merely feel I am being treated unfairly, my only likely means of redress will be to add it to my Tough Shit list and soldier on. The world is a harsh place. People will say things to you and about you that you will not like. You cannot stop them saying it; the only thing you can control is how you act afterwards.

 

To me one of the major issues with the world is precisely that people don't express themselves when they feel they are being treated unfairly. Just a little clarification on my part: when you say 'feel' do you mean both conscious thoughts and body emotions? Because that's how I use that term.

 

The false equivalence given to the viewpoints. You seem to think what silencer is saying is equally as factual as what anyone else says, when, sadly, this is not the case. Do you really want me to go through everything he has said and pick out every piece of bullshit? I'm not sure either of us will live that long.

 

Judge only by the words written here and you'll get only partial views of everyone. I have my own prejudices like everyone else although they apply more to people in general than to specific groups or minorities.

 

Just to begin with: the video silencer posted to begin this lovely discussion is from 2008 (https://en.wikipedia...lturno_massacre). Using my degree in time travel, I can tell you that this footage predates the 'migrant crisis' (2015). So it's nothing to do with the migrant crisis. It is, at best, an unwitting lie, put forward to advance a certain viewpoint. If the 'other side' isn't lying or wrong (or both), then they're going about it in a strange way, involving nothing but digressions, evasions, whataboutery, and every tactic under the sun apart from engaging honestly in the subject at hand.

 

Agreed with everything you posted there. Blatant lies should be exposed for what they are.

 

But, for instance, Silencer_pl mentioned gypsies a while ago and I remembered the following situation: you have a grocery store in a location where a gypsy community lives close by. Every week, and sometimes every day you have gypsy kids walking into your store and pretending to buy stuff while they try instead to steal stuff. You already complained to the police several times but even when they arrest someone the kids will be back. So you buy a frog sculpture and place it by the entry of the store because people say that gypsies don't enter places with frogs. And you complain about gypsies to every customer that walks in and tell them what happened in the past.

 

Now, would you call the store owner a bigot? According to my beliefs this person has attitudes about gypsies that are xenophobic/racist, but I also actually know this person, the store is in my neighbourhood where I grew up so I've experienced the situation first hand, and I've also taught gypsy kids and know a bit about them.

 

And another real life example: my father was born and grew up in colonial Mozambique, where it wasn't so bad as South Africa since our fascist regime said that everyone was portuguese, but in reality there was widespread discrimination and unfair treatment to the black native populations. And I heard my father sometimes say the worst things about black people, that they were monkeys, had no civilization, etc. But at the same time he had black friends, he was a doctor and would treat anyone for free if they couldn't pay, and once I even saw him smiling to a black employee at MacDonald's and saying that he was also African like them.

 

Again I ask the question: would you call my father a bigot? I did a few times and I also chose not to follow his example in a few matters, but when you automatically classify people as 'bigots' you're simply reducing them to a label and choosing not to understand anything about them. Which, to me, can be very close to what the real 'bigots' do.

 

I do not respect such views. I tolerate them. Tolerance and respect are two different things.

 

This is what I wanted to say instead of what I did. Thanks.

[FullAuto]

You still haven't answered my question of whether words or actions are the better judge of a person's character.

 

It doesn't matter which is the better judge, because we're stuck with just one of those here. None of us can say whether we are redeemed or damned by our actions. While this forum may be rather two-dimensional, it's what we have to work with. I take people at their word.

 

To me one of the major issues with the world is precisely that people don't express themselves when they feel they are being treated unfairly. Just a little clarification on my part: when you say 'feel' do you mean both conscious thoughts and body emotions? Because that's how I use that term.

 

Someone may be treated very fairly, and yet still feel that they are being treated unfairly. For instance, someone can commit a crime, be arrested, tried, found guily, and put in prison. Throughout this process, they complain how unfair it all is. In this particular instance, it isn't unfair. The person's feelings about the issue, and the reality of the issue, are thoroughly divorced from each other. Sometimes, with time or hindsight or help from others, the person comes to understand what happened was actually fair, and it was their own subjective view that made them think what happened to them was unfair, even when it was the consequences of something they did.

 

'Feel' in this instance I would describe as a reaction, thoughts and feelings that arise in a person resulting from something else, not conscious decisions or thoughts made afterwards.

 

Now, would you call the store owner a bigot?

 

I'd say so. Like any word, it doesn't describe the totality of the person, just an aspect of their personality. It's not about if they are a good or bad person, it's more often about their ignorance and ascribing negative values to what is often an enormous group of people, either based on hearsay, or bad experiences with a tiny number of that same group.

 

Again I ask the question: would you call my father a bigot? I did a few times and I also chose not to follow his example in a few matters, but when you automatically classify people as 'bigots' you're simply reducing them to a label and choosing not to understand anything about them. Which, to me, can be very close to what the real 'bigots' do.

 

I do see what you're saying. You believe I'm maligning someone unfairly, and in turn it's what they are doing to a group. I would point out that I have plenty of reason for my belief, and it's not from hearsay or because I've been raised to believe all Polish people are bigots, but because of the person's words. Whether someone is more even-handed IRL may be more likely, I know many feel the emboldening effect of internet anonymity, but also at the same time I feel that resistance to such views should be even stronger precisely because people feel it is acceptable to say such things in certain venues. I doubt anyone goes away from their keyboard and becomes a saint, I know certainly don't, and certainly the words and actions I see, online and off, concerning the migrant crisis, has me convinced not many others become saints either. I think things are bad enough without dishonesty gumming up the works.

[Space Voyager]

I do not respect such views. I tolerate them. Tolerance and respect are two different things.

 

IMO tolerance is all that is required if we are to have a debate.

 

For instance, one can think that another's point of view is simply stupid. One can call the other stupid - or one can simply post why one thinks the view is wrong.

 

https://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b348/SpaceVoyager/Smiley/levitation.gif

 

Ok ok, enough of pretending smart - I've had my share of internet hostilities and probably will, too.

 

On the serious side, I completely agree with you, FA. Respect for everyone's opinion can not be demanded, tolerance is all that we need. Now that I think of it, tolerance is a kind of respect anyway. Just not the agreeing kind, he he he!

 

ANYWAY, does anybody else have a view on the bigger picture that led to the migrant crisis in the first place? And that is still developing?

[NoXTheRoXStaR]

You can't force respect, you earn it.

 

Tolerance is a measurement of fortitude or integrity.

 

Who really rules this world?

 

 

Divide and Conquer, it's a simple statement yet it exemplifies so much more.

[silencer_pl]

Are you sure about that? Do you know that we currently have more than £6 trillion in national debt accruing? Even the lower figure often given, to avoid people shitting themselves in panic, is around £1.6 trillion, which is more than 80% of our GDP. What's Poland's?

 

Right, it have slipped my mind, so let me re-phrase that. Average citizen in UK is more financial secure than average citizen in Poland.

 

You know absolutely zero about the Tory government. This statement is a joke.

 

Can you tell that about every other government you had ?

[silencer_pl]

https://www.businessinsider.com/a-new-group-of-women-is-fighting-isis-2015-12

 

Why EU is less concerned in helping them? Why are majority of fleeing migrants are able men ?

[FullAuto]

ANYWAY, does anybody else have a view on the bigger picture that led to the migrant crisis in the first place? And that is still developing?

 

If we can focus on one country and get a clearer idea of what we're talking about, it makes it easier, rather than talking in general terms and allowing vagueness to creep in. Syria is probably the top contender, with a civilian population already hugely discontent thanks to Assad's rather vicious regime which has been running for decades now. So plenty of people wanted to leave anyway, then the Arab Spring was repressed, and then the Syrian civil war, and with large swathes of Syria being rock-bottom in population density, it means a great deal of the fighting is over, in and around population centres, which gives added impetus for populations to move. Added to this, you have the outright viciousness of sectarian conflict, with all sides quite prepared to kill civilians (depending upon who you believe), so it means if your area is captured, and you've been supporting the wrong side, you're more likely than average to get killed, combatant or not.

 

This has led to more than 4 million refugees. Repatriation is unlikely given the above conditions, and even if things settled down, I don't think anyone would want to return to the loving arms of the Assad regime. The majority of them are in limbo in Turkey, a country which really has no interest in absorbing them. Erdogan has no interest other than using the crisis as a stick to beat the EU with.

 

The EU as a whole is okay with internal immigration (apart from certain political parties, like one in the UK), but isn't so keen on it coming in from outside, and I think fears have been whipped up by certain organisations, and as a result there has been resistance to accepting immigrants, not because it can't be done, but because it makes it easy for others to score political points.

 

From what I've read, about 1 million refugees/migrants reached Europe, and the EU just isn't prepared, in terms of logistics or mentality, to accept so many. It's not that it can't be done, Europe is big enough to cope with it easily, it's that they're a dirty consequence showing up on our doorstep which we'd rather not acknowledge, and the lack of unity in the EU makes it all the worse. We're still suffering and vulnerable economically, and each country also has its little foibles when it comes to refugees (e.g. certain countries in Eastern Europe are allergic to Muslims, or so they say), some have recent memories of horrific violence and are keen to keep a homogeneous population, etc. Recent terrorist attacks feed xenophobic attitudes (it doesn't matter if the terrorists are refugees or not, they only need to be vaguely alike in one way in order to be smeared with the same brush).

 

I can safely say the Tories will do as little as they can get away with, despite the fact we continue to meddle in Syria and elsewhere. If the worst comes to the worst, the Tories will reposition and manipulate the issue to be part of a "the EU doesn't tell the UK what to do while we're in charge!" narrative.

[Space Voyager]

He he he, the main profit of EU in UK does seem to be the political gain of valiant fight against the EU - while keeping the UK inside...

 

As for Arab Spring... As much as I'd love everybody to have a democratic government (not a corporate-lobbying-law-writing as we have), the folks in the Middle East do not seem ready for such a change. So far seeding of democracy has always failed.

[NoXTheRoXStaR]

Well fuck it must be a shitty world to live in when you have fellow muslim countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia rejecting their fellow men and women who have the same beliefs as they do. What does that tell you?

 

"Oh hey even though we believe the same thing you do, we can't accept you here, nope. Sorry, well you know it's because of ISIS or whatever fucking acronym they go by now. Sure your children are floating face down in the ocean, but hey....what can WE do?"

 

"Why, we have a place of sanctuary, a place that most of you can come and feel invited. We share the same religion and we love our brothers and sisters so much that we've put aside this land in order for you to stay here. Don't you mind a bit, we're one of the wealthiest nations in the world and your being here is a blessing to us, don't you mind.

 

Said No one.

 

You keep on and on with the politics and the double talk and the nonsensical factoids. Once you cut off the infectious blathering, your eyes open and you ask,

 

 

WHO REALLY RULES THIS WORLD?

 

-NoX